Lionized for their contribution to rock culture, Zeppelin was loathed by elite critics during the band's prime, caused by a seldom-acknowledged generational split among Boomers.
Zeppelin was never about ‘cool,’ which was a critic’s euphemism for needing a band to flatter their own boredom; it was about a million zonked-out high schoolers in parking lots, bong smoke leaking out of Novas and Pintos, discovering that wailing guitar solos and howling blond singers were infinitely preferable to the pieties of Crosby, Stills & Nash. The critics mistook their own impotence for taste, which is why every review reads like a bitter love letter to their own irrelevance.
As a precocious teenager in the 80s—when some truly appalling bands ruled the airwaves—I was always stumped by the notion that Zeppelin were some proto-Motley Crue or Poison. Yes, the lyrics were dumb but the music was astonishing. In that regard. my friends and I thought of the Who, the Stones, and Led Zeppelin as creative peers and a natural cohort. We loved Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Black Flag, the Clash…and Led Zeppelin. The contradiction may have been obvious to the critics but it was completely lost on us.
Rolling Stone magazine's hatred of Led Zep was real and has been well-documented before (and here again), however the only album reviews that were truly vicious were John Mendelsohn's takes on the first 2 albums and Gordon Fletcher's savaging of "Houses," which warranted the famous headline "Led Zeppelin sans Blues - A Limp Blimp."
"Led Zeppelin III" got a mostly-positive (and typically wonderfully-written) review by Lester Bangs in 1970, and in 1971 the fourth album got a full-on thumbs up from Lenny Kaye. Now *those* are two guys who knew what they were talking about!
By the time of "Physical Graffiti" (which also scored a positive lead review in RS) the band and the magazine had reached a detente, which resulted in the 1975 cover interview with Page and Plant by the youthful Cameron Crowe - a Zep fan and obviously not one of the boomer gatekeepers of the past.
As a Zep fan and member of Generation Jones, I HATED Rolling Stone magazine. They loved the sort of flaccid, jazzy music that later was christened Yacht Rock. Nobody in my high school listened to any of that; everyone (girls included) loved Zep.
You write from the perspective of the American press. The UK audience and press loved them. But how many American acts have moved to the UK to be recognized for their talent. Hendrix for one.
I am a boomer and I loved Led Zeppelin, I was obsessed and listened to them so much. I had every album and the music was like being in a drug induced trance. Jimmy playing the bow, just wow. The closest I ever got to seeing him do that was with Paul Rodgers and The Firm. Fuck the critics..you either like it or not. It's a free world. I did however listen to so much Led Zep that I have not listened to it in decades but I have so much respect for them...cast aside lawsuits and groupies. I LOVED THEIR MUSIC.
Fantastic essay! I’m reminded of Pete Townshend’s excoriation of Zeppelin, much later — “I just never liked them” — which, showing up eventually on YouTube, got a lot of commenters to point out the structural familiarity of the two bands (Daltrey as a version of Plant, or the other way around, etc.) and the aesthetic distinction involved. My point being, the cultural and generational stuff (this was not “my generation” any more) may ultimately be less relevant than the actual musical difference, which is subtle but gigantic.
Zeppelin was never about ‘cool,’ which was a critic’s euphemism for needing a band to flatter their own boredom; it was about a million zonked-out high schoolers in parking lots, bong smoke leaking out of Novas and Pintos, discovering that wailing guitar solos and howling blond singers were infinitely preferable to the pieties of Crosby, Stills & Nash. The critics mistook their own impotence for taste, which is why every review reads like a bitter love letter to their own irrelevance.
As a precocious teenager in the 80s—when some truly appalling bands ruled the airwaves—I was always stumped by the notion that Zeppelin were some proto-Motley Crue or Poison. Yes, the lyrics were dumb but the music was astonishing. In that regard. my friends and I thought of the Who, the Stones, and Led Zeppelin as creative peers and a natural cohort. We loved Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Black Flag, the Clash…and Led Zeppelin. The contradiction may have been obvious to the critics but it was completely lost on us.
Critics don’t make music!
Thank you!!!!
1944 is NOT a Boomer.
Interesting piece.
Rolling Stone magazine's hatred of Led Zep was real and has been well-documented before (and here again), however the only album reviews that were truly vicious were John Mendelsohn's takes on the first 2 albums and Gordon Fletcher's savaging of "Houses," which warranted the famous headline "Led Zeppelin sans Blues - A Limp Blimp."
"Led Zeppelin III" got a mostly-positive (and typically wonderfully-written) review by Lester Bangs in 1970, and in 1971 the fourth album got a full-on thumbs up from Lenny Kaye. Now *those* are two guys who knew what they were talking about!
By the time of "Physical Graffiti" (which also scored a positive lead review in RS) the band and the magazine had reached a detente, which resulted in the 1975 cover interview with Page and Plant by the youthful Cameron Crowe - a Zep fan and obviously not one of the boomer gatekeepers of the past.
It’s a right of passage to run wildly into the embrace of “something new and different.”
We’ve all done it.
It is an equally predictable response to hold in derision “the latest thing.”
Sadly, we’ve all done that, too.
What a wonderful world.
As a Zep fan and member of Generation Jones, I HATED Rolling Stone magazine. They loved the sort of flaccid, jazzy music that later was christened Yacht Rock. Nobody in my high school listened to any of that; everyone (girls included) loved Zep.
word
You write from the perspective of the American press. The UK audience and press loved them. But how many American acts have moved to the UK to be recognized for their talent. Hendrix for one.
This is great writing.
PFFFFFFFFFFFT! Communication Breakdown here!
I am a boomer and I loved Led Zeppelin, I was obsessed and listened to them so much. I had every album and the music was like being in a drug induced trance. Jimmy playing the bow, just wow. The closest I ever got to seeing him do that was with Paul Rodgers and The Firm. Fuck the critics..you either like it or not. It's a free world. I did however listen to so much Led Zep that I have not listened to it in decades but I have so much respect for them...cast aside lawsuits and groupies. I LOVED THEIR MUSIC.
“Over the Hills and Far Away” was my song of the summer
A very well written, and far too good for this band, description of how it was in the 70s…but only in America.
In Britain, we were doing our homework on Bolan, Bowie, and Roxy Music, and getting ready for punk.
Led Zeppelin were a good band, I’ll concede, but how many godawful other bands were they responsible for? Ha-ha!
Don't forget Mott the Hoople!
Ha! No, of course not!
I still think the critics were right.
But I will admit to being jaded by hearing Led Zeppelin in endless repeat on classic rock stations.
Fantastic essay! I’m reminded of Pete Townshend’s excoriation of Zeppelin, much later — “I just never liked them” — which, showing up eventually on YouTube, got a lot of commenters to point out the structural familiarity of the two bands (Daltrey as a version of Plant, or the other way around, etc.) and the aesthetic distinction involved. My point being, the cultural and generational stuff (this was not “my generation” any more) may ultimately be less relevant than the actual musical difference, which is subtle but gigantic.