The Community

ROCK AND ROLL! => Black Sabbath => The Ozzy Years => Topic started by: Zzzptm on March 20, 2018, 09:26:41 PM

Title: The First Album Sucks, Rolling Stone Said So LOL WUT
Post by: Zzzptm on March 20, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
Quote
   
Black Sabbath
Black Sabbath (1970)

Rating: Unfavorable
"The whole album is a shuck - despite the murky songtitles and some inane lyrics that sound like Vanilla Fudge paying doggerel tribute to Aleister Crowley, the album has nothing to do with spiritualism, the occult, or anything much except stiff recitations of Cream cliches that sound like the musicians learned them out of a book, grinding on and on with dogged persistence. Vocals are sparse, most of the album being filled with plodding bass lines over which the lead guitar dribbles wooden Claptonisms from the master's tiredest Cream days. They even have discordant jams with bass and guitar reeling like velocitized speedfreaks all over each other's musical perimeters yet never quite finding synch - just like Cream! But worse." (Lester Bangs, 9/17/70 Review)

 :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama:

"Just like Cream! But worse."

 :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama:
Title: Re: The First Album Sucks, Rolling Stone Said So LOL WUT
Post by: Charger on March 21, 2018, 03:53:46 AM
Oh my gosh...That is one of the worst reviews I've ever read.

BUT gotta say I am also not surprised considering just how new and different and shocking Sabbath was back in those days.
Title: Re: The First Album Sucks, Rolling Stone Said So LOL WUT
Post by: Sabbabbath on March 21, 2018, 03:59:47 AM
Quote
   
Black Sabbath
Black Sabbath (1970)

Rating: Unfavorable
"The whole album is a shuck - despite the murky songtitles and some inane lyrics that sound like Vanilla Fudge paying doggerel tribute to Aleister Crowley, the album has nothing to do with spiritualism, the occult, or anything much except stiff recitations of Cream cliches that sound like the musicians learned them out of a book, grinding on and on with dogged persistence. Vocals are sparse, most of the album being filled with plodding bass lines over which the lead guitar dribbles wooden Claptonisms from the master's tiredest Cream days. They even have discordant jams with bass and guitar reeling like velocitized speedfreaks all over each other's musical perimeters yet never quite finding synch - just like Cream! But worse." (Lester Bangs, 9/17/70 Review)

 :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama:

"Just like Cream! But worse."

 :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: :drama:

LOL, that's indeed a funny bit of history. I was wondering how Lester Bangs felt about that now, but I found that he passed away in 1982, and already got fired
Quote
from Rolling Stone for "disrespecting musicians" after a particularly harsh review of the group Canned Heat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Bangs

EDIT:
Here's his review of MOR:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/master-of-reality-19711125
Title: Re: The First Album Sucks, Rolling Stone Said So LOL WUT
Post by: Zzzptm on March 21, 2018, 09:17:05 AM
Quote
If nothing else, though, both Funk and Sabbath are for all their monotony at least supremely consistent — as opposed to schtick collectors with no personal vision like Deep Purple.

SCHTICK COLLECTORS??? ***MY*** DEEP PURPLE??? This guy belongs in the trolling hall of fame.
Title: Re: The First Album Sucks, Rolling Stone Said So LOL WUT
Post by: BOGBLAST on March 21, 2018, 05:20:16 PM
First of all this guy is a fucking idiot. In that Wikipedia post he looks like some bum they pulled in off the street. Even when he says something nice he backs it up with a double banger of criticism. He couldn't even get the lyrics to "Fairies Wear Boots" right. And who the hell is MC5?
Title: Re: The First Album Sucks, Rolling Stone Said So LOL WUT
Post by: Zzzptm on March 21, 2018, 09:38:03 PM
First of all this guy is a fucking idiot. In that Wikipedia post he looks like some bum they pulled in off the street. Even when he says something nice he backs it up with a double banger of criticism. He couldn't even get the lyrics to "Fairies Wear Boots" right. And who the hell is MC5?

The MC5 recorded three albums from 1969-1971 and are considered important forerunners for the punk rock movement. Most people will fawn over their first album and forget the second and third, but I actually like those last two best and can let the first one collect dust, as those two albums are actually important forerunners for the stoner/desert rock sound.
Title: Re: The First Album Sucks, Rolling Stone Said So LOL WUT
Post by: BOGBLAST on March 21, 2018, 11:32:54 PM
^^^^^ I'll have to YouTube them, thanks.
Title: Re: The First Album Sucks, Rolling Stone Said So LOL WUT
Post by: Zzzptm on March 22, 2018, 07:06:17 AM
^ And THAT is what a review is supposed to accomplish. I may have said I wasn't a fan of the MC5's first album, but I could at least say what it was and what might be interesting about it. I was also able to say where my starting point would be for getting into them.

Bogblast: Check out the MC5 thread I started here and that should give you more idea about what they were up to.