Backlash to the now infamous New York Times greatest songwriters list--much of it centered on the elitism of the team behind it--is nothing new. Just ask Led Zeppelin.
This is a terrific piece, and what I really appreciate is that it is not simply a defense of Led Zeppelin. It is a sharper argument about cultural authority, and what happens when critics mistake their own generational filter for objective judgment.
The Zeppelin example works so well because, from where we stand now, it seems almost absurd that they were ever dismissed as uncool, vulgar, overhyped, or critically unserious. But that is what makes the story useful. The critical establishment was not just reviewing a band; it was reacting to a shift in power.
A younger audience was building its own circuit of meaning through FM radio, live shows, record buying, cars, bedrooms, and arenas. Zeppelin did not need to win the room at Max’s Kansas City. They had already won the places where the music was actually living.
As someone who came to Zeppelin through the mythology first, and only later learned to hear the architecture, restraint, and strange intelligence inside the records, I found this reassessment really valuable. Critical consensus is often just a temporary calibration. Sometimes the audience hears the load-bearing structure before the critics do.
The parallel with the recent songwriter-list backlash lands because the issue is not really Billy Joel, Led Zeppelin, or any single artist. It is the recurring habit of institutions to invite a broad conversation, then narrow the filter and call the result authoritative.
Great piece. It captures the moment when criticism stopped being the only measuring device in the room.
The smug that drips off Joe Caramanica is absolutely disgusting and probably radioactive. The woman NYT editor in charge isn’t much better. Rick Beato did a YouTube post yesterday and eviscerated the whole cabal.
Zep was my fave band and I saw the Houses of the Holy tour. It was disappointing because they were not too good in person. They were a studio band. That being said, HOTH remains my fave Zep album. Was completely unaware of what Rolling Stone said.
Some really good observations here, but as a baby boomer (b. 1951) having first seen LZ live in the summer of ‘69, I can testify that the audience was entirely made up of my peers 18+. Most demographic histories set the Boomer generation as being born 1948-64. I think that would put most of Zep’s first wave fan base squarely in that demo. However, one can understand that a “boomer” born in 1948 might consider someone six years younger, as “so young.” Cheers!
Their list was without question a travesty. I would add that I lived through the 70s and I remember them as the height of cool. It’s still my wife’s favorite band. Just our perspective though. 🙂
This is a terrific piece, and what I really appreciate is that it is not simply a defense of Led Zeppelin. It is a sharper argument about cultural authority, and what happens when critics mistake their own generational filter for objective judgment.
The Zeppelin example works so well because, from where we stand now, it seems almost absurd that they were ever dismissed as uncool, vulgar, overhyped, or critically unserious. But that is what makes the story useful. The critical establishment was not just reviewing a band; it was reacting to a shift in power.
A younger audience was building its own circuit of meaning through FM radio, live shows, record buying, cars, bedrooms, and arenas. Zeppelin did not need to win the room at Max’s Kansas City. They had already won the places where the music was actually living.
As someone who came to Zeppelin through the mythology first, and only later learned to hear the architecture, restraint, and strange intelligence inside the records, I found this reassessment really valuable. Critical consensus is often just a temporary calibration. Sometimes the audience hears the load-bearing structure before the critics do.
The parallel with the recent songwriter-list backlash lands because the issue is not really Billy Joel, Led Zeppelin, or any single artist. It is the recurring habit of institutions to invite a broad conversation, then narrow the filter and call the result authoritative.
Great piece. It captures the moment when criticism stopped being the only measuring device in the room.
It’s quite amazing to see the NY Times music critics be so proud of their predictability.
The smug that drips off Joe Caramanica is absolutely disgusting and probably radioactive. The woman NYT editor in charge isn’t much better. Rick Beato did a YouTube post yesterday and eviscerated the whole cabal.
Zep was my fave band and I saw the Houses of the Holy tour. It was disappointing because they were not too good in person. They were a studio band. That being said, HOTH remains my fave Zep album. Was completely unaware of what Rolling Stone said.
You should have given their live shows another chance. #TheSongRemainstheSame
Some really good observations here, but as a baby boomer (b. 1951) having first seen LZ live in the summer of ‘69, I can testify that the audience was entirely made up of my peers 18+. Most demographic histories set the Boomer generation as being born 1948-64. I think that would put most of Zep’s first wave fan base squarely in that demo. However, one can understand that a “boomer” born in 1948 might consider someone six years younger, as “so young.” Cheers!
Their list was without question a travesty. I would add that I lived through the 70s and I remember them as the height of cool. It’s still my wife’s favorite band. Just our perspective though. 🙂