Uriah Heep and the critics
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=98048
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 07:10
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Uriah Heep and the critics
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Subject: Uriah Heep and the critics
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 02:53
|
So exactly what did UH do to back in the 1970s earn so much opprobrium from not just professional mainstream music reviewers - e. g. that "if this band makes it I'll commit suicide" remark in Rolling Stone's review of their debut LP - but also the underground press? The Swedish prog fanzine Musikens makt ("the power of music") basically singled them out - along with Sabbath and Zeppelin - as being the epitome of every way the genre was going in the wrong direction back in the mid-1970s. I know that quite a few critics didn't really know what to make of the progressive rock movement and early heavy metal for that matter, which probably was to be expected. I'm just continually baffled by how much ire Uriah Heep drew even by the standards of a band with one foot in each of those styles. It's also possible that the 1960s/1970s rock scene had generation gaps form much more easily than today because how quickly everything could change back then. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Replies:
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 03:15
|
^ "The illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock" (Salamander Books, 1977, by Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden) says about Uriah Heep that the group "is imitating Led Zeppelin", and that the Uriah Heep was "mocked by critics" regarding the debut album, but also on the occasion of their second release. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 03:16
| Music critics talk bollocks. End of. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 04:25
Of course. Uriah Heep couldn't "imitating" Led Zeppelin at all, because Uriah Heep was nothing less original band than Led Zeppelin; imo, Uriah Heep's music is way more original than Led Zep's music. Btw, NME rock encyclopedia what I mentioned above, which was regarding as an important rock book at the time when it was issued, doesn't contain an entry of Hatfield & The North, then entry (without a photo) of Caravan is half shorter than entry of Dr. Feelgood (with a photo) and so on. |
richardh wrote:Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 04:43
|
Even more headscratching: RS' initial review of Judas Priest's Sad Wings of Destiny accused that of being a bad LZ knockoff too.
------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 07:23
| As far as I remember, Heep were a bit of a laughing stock in the NMEs of this world, but then again so were Sabbath, |
Posted By: Kentucky_Hawkwindage
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 07:26
|
Wonder what became of the music critic who said this upon reviewing Uriah Heep debut LP? "If this band makes it i'll commit suicide" ------------- "Nobody's Gonna Change My World That's Something To Unreal" Lyrics that i live my life by-from Black Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy's track You Won't Change Me |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 08:05
|
Critics have a mindset and are never really objective. The major music criticism sources during Uriah Heep's 70s heyday, particularly Rolling Stone Magazine, had no interest in the type of music Heep was playing and they dissed them, in the same way they vilified ELP and Tull. They preferred rock to maintain its primitive roots, hence their preference for punk, or at least steering toward an accepted Bob Dylan-style form of lyricism, hence their early worship of Bruce Springsteen as the second coming of Jesus Christ. It didn't hurt that The Ramones and Springsteen were from the greater New York area, because New York-based performers always seemed to get more and better press with the Manhattan Unintelligentsia. How the hell else can anyone explain Billy Joel? So Heep was dull and plodding, ELP was pretentious and Tull albums were referred to as "canards", or bloated releases without a 2:30 minute single. That's not rock and roll.
 ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 08:17
RS hated punk at first (for taking blues out of rock) and claimed it was just a fad. They bashed artists at the time who are thought of highly today, like Zeppelin and Joni Mitchell. Heep was just one of those bands who critics hated but had lots of fans anyway (like Grand Funk Railroad). Those type of groups are sometimes referred to as "the people's band." ------------- Magma America Great Make Again |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 15:06
|
Who knows ..maybe it was a rock n roll snob thing.?
From the New Rolling Stone Record Guide, 1979, same review was in the earlier version published some years earlier:
" A mutant version of Deep Purple, Uriah Heep has to be considered one of the worst commercially successful bands of the seventies. Good points: sincerity and an organist (Ken Hensley) far more intelligent and capable than the group.
Bad points: one of the most strident and annoying singers (David Byron) in rock history. The problem is that Byron gets the material he deserves."
 ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Kentucky_Hawkwindage
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 15:12
|
I agree somewhat with what you say about David Byron,he was indeed very flamboyant.On some songs his voice is great,on other songs it's more like a screech.Wonder why Mick Box get's little or no recognition.I've always thought he was a great guitarist.Regardless i've always loved the band,but it's not a band everyone can love.
------------- "Nobody's Gonna Change My World That's Something To Unreal" Lyrics that i live my life by-from Black Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy's track You Won't Change Me |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: April 26 2014 at 16:07
|
I've got that Logan/woffinden's Encyclodepia of rock too - italian version.
I've never disagreed more with a band's review. What was their problem anyway? At least they admit The Heep made it with the Look at Yourself album. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 05:10
Don't remember any contemporary review of Black Sabbath as scornful as that suicide comment by Melissa Mills, though. (and yes she did go on to have an illustrious reviewing career if I remember correctly) ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 05:58
Although the book has flaws ( I saw both Uriah Heep and Led Zep and Uriah Heep were better imo), the book quite well reflects the general state of critics and fans at that time regarding the bands & solo artists. There are interesting details in the book actually. For example, there is entry of Steve Miller Band, where they wrote that the Steve Miller Band recorded "two of milestone albums" - Sailor, and Children of the Future which was, as per NME illustrated encyclopedia of Rock issued in 1977, "considered as the best progressive rock album of 1968". |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 06:45
|
I would have hoped that in the age of the internet that I need not remind people that "history of ..." books are not encyclopaedias documenting the definitive history of anything - they are as much subjective opinions as any hack review. (As we know, opinions are like elephants - every room has one...) In the world of Rock Journalism (where opinion is always presented as fact) it is impossible for them to present a history without prejudice and biased opinion, and in the 70s and beyond that opinion invariably elevates Led Zepp above all else as the progenitors and undisputed kings of heavy rock music. In these tomes even Deep Purple are portrayed as Johnny-come-lately bandwagon-jumpers who stand in the shadow of the mighty Zeppelin. If the author didn't like the band or if there was a comparable band that the author preferred they rarely portrayed them in a positive light - impartiality is never a trait that we can attribute to rock journalists. Heep suffered from not belonging to a single easy to categorise camp, they were a bit heavy rock and a bit prog rock and a bit glam rock, and in an era where being different and original was revered and being clone was frowned upon, any band that sounded a bit like another band was quickly dismissed as "unoriginal". (In some circles ... ie by people who didn't like them ... Zepp were also regarded as either a bit glam rock or dismissed as merely copyists of The Who ... I have even heard them referred to as a teeny-bop band by one disparaging critic who took exception to their bedroom-wall pinup status). In 1969 Deep Purple Mk2 and an unknown band called Spice using the same rehearsal studio in Hanwell Community Centre resulted in two not dissimilar hammond-heavy guitar-driven albums being released the following year - Deep Purple In Rock and Very 'Eavy... Very 'Umble (with Spice having by then changed their name to Uriah Heep). Comparisons between the two were inevitable and Purple emerged the victors with the critics and subsequently with the record buying public, bad reviews for one were a consequence of good reviews for the other. Replacing Byron with a "cabaret singer" from The Les Humphries Singers six years later didn't improve their standing with the trade rags or die-hard fans much either. Another band that seemed to suffer from biased journalism at the time was Barclay James Harvest and scoring a minor hit with Mocking Bird did not help matters. One curious anecdote I have regarding Heep is that a suedehead (that's a 1970s UK term for the subculture that followed after skinhead predominately made up of females, who were also known as bootgirls after their predilection for wearing Doc Marten boots, and not fans of Brett Anderson and his band) friend of mine owned a lot of the expected Mowtown and Trojan label records but was also a fan of Magician's Birthday and Demons and Wizards. These two albums were the only rock records she liked.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 06:57
|
I thought female skinheads were called Chelseas after http://www.hairfinder.com/hair4/chelsea.htm" rel="nofollow - their peculiar haircut ? Also, my own theory is indeed that Uriah Heep weren't very easy to pigeonhole into the glam-rock, prog/psych or heavy metal rival movements in the rock music of the day but I weren't there so I'm a bit cautious with laying down a thesis like that. It is interesting that the Swedish fanzine I mentioned lumped them in with Black Sabbath rather than Deep Purple and company, though, because I've always been under the impression UH were on the other side of that generation gap between the original psychedelic rock scene and early heavy metal in both outlook and music style. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 07:03
In 70s, Uriah Heep were considered as a hard rock band only. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 07:45
I would not claim to be an expert on hairstyles (haven't had a haircut in over 20 years), but that looks a much later style to me. When skinheads hair grew-out it had the appearance of suede, hence the term suedehead, often the girls would leave it short on top and allow it to grow longer at the back and sides (Dave Hill of Slade is the extreme of this) in a style that, when it was allowed to grow-out further, would later be known as a feather-cut (re: early Suzi Quatro).
After the success of In Rock and the first two Sabbath albums, and perhaps more notably the release and success of the Black Night and Paranoid singles, the UK press (and fans) would generally lump Sabbath and Purple together. Purple were an established band with three "psychedelic" releases prior to In Rock and Sabbath's psyche roots show in the lyrical content of many of their early songs, Planet Caravan being the most obvious. Uriah Heep were not considered to be in the same echelon as either band. In searching the Internet earlier I found this interesting article from NME dated April 15th 1972: http://geirmykl.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/article-about-uriah-heep-from-new-musical-express-april-15-1972/" rel="nofollow - http://geirmykl.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/article-about-uriah-heep-from-new-musical-express-april-15-1972/" rel="nofollow -
 I notice in that article about Heep's clash with T.Rex, Byron talks of the single "The Wizard", if my memory serves me correctly (not guaranteed, even on a Sunday), Bolan later claimed plagiarism over The Wizard (his first solo single and later re-recorded by T.Rex) but cannot find any confirmation of that on the web. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 07:50
*sigh* You might want to read that NME article from 1972 I linked in my previous post before making such claims.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 08:11
|
I dunno... looking up contemporary reviews from here in Denmark and Sweden too? Quite a few of the critics who championed Cream, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Deep Purple etc. still had no idea what to make of what Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Led Zeppelin and Grand Funk Railroad
were doing a few years later or at least saw quickly that both sides
were kind of coming from the same place but didn't either have quite the
same creative priorities or were going the same direction. (the
preferred term for the new generation of hard rock being "concrete rock" before the "heavy metal" label stuck in the mid-1970s)
------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 08:17
Different stories for different parts of the world. We didn't have the instantaneous global communications to normalise these things, the spread of music and terminology was far more sedate. For example Sweden's music scene was practically unknown in the UK at that time (aside from Bo Hansson perhaps...) ------------- What? |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 08:20
I never heard (read) in 70s about Uriah Heep as progressive rock band, although Yugoslav rock critics did do a lot "copy/paste" lifting from British rock articles at that time. And as I said, I saw them live in 1979 and they were advertized in town as "hard rock" band. I remember also that in crowd at the concert nobody mentioned that the Uriah Heep is the progressive rock band; everybody come to see an exciting hard rock band. Although I agree that Uriah Heep deserved to be in PA heavy prog rock section, they were considered as a hard rock band in 70s. I don't care what an internet article say. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 08:28
------------- What? |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 09:58
|
^ I was wrong, it was in http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/uriah-heep/1977/hala-pionir-belgrade-serbia-bc6953a.html" rel="nofollow - 1977 , but nevermind because it still to be five years after the item you post. It is really nice to see that someone from NME called UH prog in 1972. However, based on what I heard at Belgrade's 1977 concert, it was much more hard(er) rock sound than on their vinyls. As they were in Yugoslavia for the first time then, they were playing all of their triggers, and it was hard rock, & very loud. |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 10:52
|
From the italian version of the Logan-Woffinden Rock Encyclopedia:
Uriah Heep: "one of the many bands that plagiarized without shame the heavy metal trail of Led Zeppelin. Though with the hostilityohf the whole rock critic the band made its debut in 1970..." well... wow 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 11:42
As I have tried to point out, that was somewhat irrelevant. I also saw them in 1977 with Lawton and they were nothing like the Heep of the early 70s (ie from Very 'Eavy through to Return to Fantasy) when they were harder to pigeon-hole with your comfortable little tag of "hard rock" (the UK term was heavy rock btw, Heep did not call their début album Very 'Aard... Very 'Umble). ------------- What? |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 13:33
|
Both film and music are from '77 but from different concerts (film is made at concert in Fayetteville, NC, USA, 1977).
|
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 14:16
| I find it a bit strange to read about this kind of hostility towards UH. I only just got the "Magician's Birthday" album, and so far it's the only one I've heard, but I found some really beautiful songs on it, and I really liked Byron's singing, I can't imagine anyone being bothered by his voice, I find it just beautiful, one of the better aspects of the band. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 14:42
I agree with you for the most part , and I bought the first album when it came out in 1970.....Byron is not a 'bad' singer and their music is not that bad at all ......though I did stop buying them after Magicians Birthday.
I prolly should listen to those that came out in the rest of the 70's. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 14:44
|
Again from the Logan-Woffinden book: majority of critics said John Wetton joined the band in 1975 only for the money.
...well couldn't it be for the Heep music, could it?
|
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 15:44
 ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 16:01
| At least critics were coherent: Given that the music wasn't respectable enough one had to join only for the almighty dollar! Ahahah |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 17:52
|
^ Are you sure? John Wetton: "In King Crimson, I'd been playing the the most ridiculously complicated rock music in strange time signatures. Uriah Heep offered me a refreshing break from that. I could just be myself, have some fun and play some really strong rock music. The reason [I joined] was definitely not for money. At that time, Roxy Music were offering me the same money as Uriah Heep , if not more, I just didn't want to stay in Roxy Music." (From Dave Ling's "Wizards and Demons") ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 20:03
Same here, stopped after Magician's Birthday [EDIT: Check that, the last UH album I bought was Sweet Freedom with the single "Stealin'"]. And you probably shouldn't waste your time listening to what came after -- having listened meself, it's not at all like what preceded it.. Just a friendly suggestion.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 20:30
|
I think that Wonderworld is a very underrated album, I always place it over 'The Magician's Birthday'. It doesn't contain any epics, but it surely has a bunch of great songs with excellent melodies and cool riffs, as well as distinctive dark atmosphere. Perhaps, this is the most atmospheric album from Uriah Heep. ------------- This night wounds time. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 20:40
|
Great band in the early 70's. IMHO High & Mighty was their last good album and the double live set from 1973(?) was incredible. I don't know what it is but for me I could never really separate the rock n roll element from their rock But albums like Salisbury, Demons & Wizards and July Morning ( especially from the live album) are exceptional. Actually side four of the live album doesn't do it for me either. Rock n roll prog rock morphing into glam rock late 70's. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 20:41
Yeah they made this album mostly in Germany under pressure from the record company. Apparently Byron really struggled to make the studio sessions. Dark time. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 22:25
|
Heep is pretty bad. Sometimes the critics are right. I can see why they didn't want rock to go in a Dungeons & Dragons direction. I don't particularly care for that stuff either. I just like music that has compositional content, which is what prog is about. It's funny that prog has that D&D image, when it was far more the realm of Zep and heavy metal. Sure it had those moments and there is a lot of general "fantasy", but it's pretty all over the place. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 27 2014 at 22:33
Maybe he thought this track was going to be his ticket to pop rock stardom
 ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 28 2014 at 00:31
Yes, Uriah Heep entry is a disaster but Logan & Voffinden's NME illustrated Encyclopedia of Rock has also its great moments. E..g. there's a nice entry of Miles Davis, where they wrote that Miles Davis get "attention of the rock audience which was truly attracted with his Bitches Brew the album in 1970", and that "Miles Davis made his way to discover the African roots of both directions (rock and jazz); he used a basic of rhythmic and harmonic frame of rock in order to ensure that his musicians, who were growed with jazz, that performing at maximum freedom without having to wander into anarchy on anti-traditional "free" music." I like it; a nice definition of jazzrock and (or) jazz related prog. |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: April 28 2014 at 00:50
yeah, I knew that statement of Wetton. Too hard for Logan-Woffinden to imagine something like that. It's better to rely upon backbiting. Isn'it?
|
Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: April 28 2014 at 08:52
|
I have two or three Uriah Heep originals (Vinyl)...but whooooo My copy of "Look at Yourself" on CD has mysteriously disappeared from my CD collection.....On reading this thread I can rule out "Theft by Music Critic" as a reason for it's disappearance!! ------------- Play me my song.....Here it comes again....... |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: April 28 2014 at 11:48
|
^^^ aha hah ah from my point of view, you probably can't rule it out!!! Actually, it could be an attempt of damnatio memoriae against the mighty Heep
 |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: April 28 2014 at 12:07
|
No-one remembers the critics. We all remember Heep. End of story! |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: April 28 2014 at 12:48
Uriah Heep are great no doubt. 
|
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: April 28 2014 at 21:01
Yeah. Actually, since I did enjoy Magician's Birthday, I inted to get some of their earlier albums, and wasn't really planning on getting the later ones. I guess I would get at least D&D, and the other two albums that are rated higher on this site... plus perhaps the live album too, I would expect to have a rather comprehesive collection of their best work that way. I don't expect to want to go into a collection frenzy and get all I can from them. Though I might be tempted to get the Wetton albums too, just because he is part of the band there, but I guess the best thing would be to resist the temptation and get something else instead. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 28 2014 at 22:47
All the early ones are good....... if you like Heep to begin with. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: BarryGlibb
Date Posted: April 29 2014 at 03:16
| I like the Hensley/Byron era, although even that era can be patchy. |
Posted By: Kentucky_Hawkwindage
Date Posted: April 29 2014 at 03:48
|
The more some people on here bash the post Magician's Birthday era of Byron Uriah Heep the more i've been listening to it again.I can easily listen to Sweet Freedom,Wonderworld,Return To Fantasy and The High & Mighty for the most part,there are i agree a few lack luster tracks here and there,but gems are there as well.Hey if perhaps your having trouble recalling how the ABC's go you can always listen to 7 Stars from Sweet Freedom.Though i can easily recite the ABC's without hearing David Byron doing it,just saying though if you need a refresher course...well there is 7 Stars to be heard. ------------- "Nobody's Gonna Change My World That's Something To Unreal" Lyrics that i live my life by-from Black Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy's track You Won't Change Me |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: April 29 2014 at 06:42
|
^^^ Yeah, there are many gems in UH's huge discography. I like almost all the albums released by the band. Abominog from 1982 is particularly strong with a refreshed sound. The following year's Head First is good too (Goalby was a great vocalist). Thumbs up also for their recent Wake the Sleeper and Into the Wild.
|
Posted By: Kentucky_Hawkwindage
Date Posted: April 29 2014 at 16:08
|
Yes-i as well am a big fan of Abominog & Head First,i have Equater on LP but if i recall it wasn't up to parr with the previous 2 i mentioned.I kinda lost track of Heep after Equater. Maybe i should check into that time period that came after as well and up to present. ------------- "Nobody's Gonna Change My World That's Something To Unreal" Lyrics that i live my life by-from Black Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy's track You Won't Change Me |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: April 29 2014 at 16:15
|
Equator is from 1985... is the lowest point of the band's 80s.
not completely bad though. The closer Night of the Wolf is great!!! |
Posted By: Kentucky_Hawkwindage
Date Posted: April 29 2014 at 16:18
|
I recall Rockarama i think as being the best track on Equater(i think thats the title).I really need to check out what came after & i'll do it when i get time. ------------- "Nobody's Gonna Change My World That's Something To Unreal" Lyrics that i live my life by-from Black Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy's track You Won't Change Me |
Posted By: flellis
Date Posted: April 30 2014 at 12:37
| For all its lineup changes, its pretty consistent. The only era that didn't work for me was the John Sloman, who sounded like Glenn Hughes(wrong singer for Heep) era of "Conquest". But all the other guys worked as Lawton, Goalby and current guy Bernie Shaw. Albums varies, but you can find a good song here or there. A compilation of all Heep stuff is the best way to get an idea of the post-Byron era. |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: May 03 2014 at 16:31
|
Acrimony against Uriah Heep is still alive and kicking. This is the band's review in the Scaruffi's History of Rock (scaruffi.com):
With Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep were the purveyors of the "dark" subgenre of hard-rock at its inception. They were technically incompetent and stylistically irrelevant, but nonetheless managed to last forever.[\FONT] |
Posted By: Kentucky_Hawkwindage
Date Posted: May 03 2014 at 16:51
|
Apparently Heep will always be an "underdog band". But every dog does have it's day. I'm a fan of underdogs,as i consider myself an underdog.I occasionally do have my day though. ------------- "Nobody's Gonna Change My World That's Something To Unreal" Lyrics that i live my life by-from Black Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy's track You Won't Change Me |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 03 2014 at 16:54
We have to make sure we include the ones at ProgArchives, you know?
 ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: May 03 2014 at 18:44
|
^ absolutely right, subjectively speaking of course ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 03 2014 at 19:14
|
^ and those who would criticise them of course... and those who critique those who criticise the critics... and them that offer criticism on those who critique those who criticise the critics... and those who are critical of those who offer criticism on those who critique those who criticise the critics... even they have their critics. In the words of George Bernard ... "Remember: those who can, do; those who can't, teach." (and those who can do neither, talk bollocks and become critics). ------------- What? |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 04 2014 at 13:25
------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 04 2014 at 14:04
 you could always rewind back to page one and re-read the thread from the beginning if you need to refresh your memory.------------- What? |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 04 2014 at 15:03
You know...I did that , but after reading your analysis I still couldn't tell if you liked them or not.
------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 04 2014 at 16:24
|
I'm not a reviewer, I'm not a critic, I rarely offer my opinion on a band and I seldom give recommendations. I'm more than happy to talk about a band however. ------------- What? |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 04 2014 at 16:39
Is it because, perhaps, aiding a performer wounded by critics amounts to only a band-aid? ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: May 05 2014 at 07:01
I "did" both (researched and taught) and I can tell you, the teaching is by far the harder thing to do well. I look at the papers I published and wonder what use it really did. Is radiative transfer in stellar atmospheres and solar magnetohydrodynamics REALLY going to change anyone's life? I look at the students I taught, see their achievements since and, truthfully, I get far more satisfaction out of that. That's why, towards the end of my career, I did less and less research and more and more teaching, but that meant I wasn't earning my corn as a department member (not enough research grants), so I retired before I was pushed. But critics are often bitter people who failed at both and like to denigrate those who succeeded. Heep succeeded despite the critics and are one of the longest extant bands around with an enviable (though admittedly a bit patchy) discography. Sales of around 20m albums mean someone likes them even if the critics don't.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 05 2014 at 08:26
I married a teacher so I know how much work goes into it, hence my quoting Shaw and putting it in quote-marks rather than simply stating it uncredited. Whether that is actually harder than doing is difficult to ascertain and it must depend on the individual and those being taught to a significant degree, as well as the subject itself. Of course if you don't know your subject you can neither do nor teach, but anyone can criticise. There are many bands that succeed in spite of what the critics say, Heep, BJH, The Enid and even ELP to name but four.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: May 05 2014 at 08:53
Since retiring, I've worked in schools to raise standards in maths on a part-time basis. Believe you me, secondary school teaching is far more demanding than lecturing. I lectured about 150 hours per year at most (typically 5 hours per week in term time) plus 3 hours of tutorials per week, and that was an exceptionally high teaching workload for the department. Most maths teachers in secondary schools teach 20+ hours per week AND have behavioural issues to contend with! And it requires training, unlike being a critic. |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: May 06 2014 at 06:41
Good point. Absolutely true. Too often critics are not a constructive tool. In fact, I usually avoid them for my purchases. |
Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: May 07 2014 at 03:56
|
A good teacher is one who can teach people (successfully) who don't want to learn!!
Teaching people with a thirst for education is a lot easier!!! I like to think that I can judge a fine specimen of Symphonic prog and spot a blooper!!! I reckon that outside my thin slice of specialisation my opinions are a lot less meaningful and are loaded with opinionated bias....I accept that as a norm for most people judging stuff from a genre that they don't particularly like... ------------- Play me my song.....Here it comes again....... |