fenderguy Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Well, Rolling Stone has always been a self-righteous and self-serving publication. What they wrote in the 70's makes me continue to think they suck now. In my opinion, P.G. is the best rock album of all time. R.S. said the album was the "groups attempt at artistic respectability" I have a pronuouncement more relevant and truthfull. How about if you go to hell and eat some shit while you are at it? However, I feel the need to clarify something in R.S.'s favor. I don't think that article was the original review of "Presence". What I remember them saying is that the album was inconsistent. They said they liked A.L.S. and N.F.B.M. Nonetheless, Rolling Stone sucks----Marsh was a "respected" critic at that mag. When ITTOD came out, the magazine printed a page of unflattering caricatures of the band and put in large print: "SAD ZEPPELIN". Then they slammed each track, even the one they liked, saying they would rather not imagine what "I need Zoo love" was about. But, back to the Presence write-up by Marsh......the bit about Bonham not being able to keep time?? ALS has argueably his best drumming ever. Presence is very underated. Marsh can go to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zepaholic Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 By Dave Marsh LED ZEPPELIN: "Presence" (Swan Song SS 8416). something like clinically incompetent. When he and Page riff together, in their a-rhythmic fashion, the results can be effective, if never truly riveting. When Page steps away from him, everything fails apart. Part of the problem is the lifeless way that Bonham's drums are recorded, but a bigger difficulty is that he just can't keep time. They call him Moby Dick, and. like the great white whale, he's dragging a potentially fantastic vessel to the bottom with him. Cut the line, I say. Who is calling who "incompetent" here??? This has to be the most disgraceful excuse for "rock journalism" i have ever seen. Really, the initial shock of reading this absurd drivel should have me feeling furious but i'm actually laughing at this...this...whatever it is. Dave, stick to writing press releases for The Wiggles and leave the real music reviews to people who have some knowledge and understanding of what they are listening to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderguy Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 The sad thing is that this guy was actually influential. That write- up is the musical equivalent of blasphemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderguy Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Who is calling who "incompetent" here??? This has to be the most disgraceful excuse for "rock journalism" i have ever seen. Really, the initial shock of reading this absurd drivel should have me feeling furious but i'm actually laughing at this...this...whatever it is. Dave, stick to writing press releases for The Wiggles and leave the real music reviews to people who have some knowledge and understanding of what they are listening to. Why should he write about the Wiggles?---he would probably give them a favorable review!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zepaholic Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 That write- up is the musical equivalent of blasphemy. Absolutely. I mean, how could anybody on Gods green earth take that guy seriously after that review? Did Richard Cole give him a flick of the boot at a show prior to this? Again, a complete disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdieshuffle Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 It all started with "that ought to go over like a lead zeppelin" the great thing about a being a journalist or a meteorologist....you can be right 30 only 30 percent of the time and continue to be thought of as good at your job....of course only by your peers in the industry.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ro_a Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 The mission to overthrow the Iraqi regime was accomplished but the war continues. Back to Zeppelin... The mission to overthrow renegade CIA asset Saddam Hussein was accomplished. But why? Because he knew too much. Because Israel gets what Israel wants and they can wrap their policy in an American flag. Because Iraq was oil trading in Euroes instead of Dollars. Because weapons are America's #1 export and we'll arm any side of a conflict we can. Yeah, back to Zeppelin, now that I'm totally pissed off.. Can't stand Bush, can't stand Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ro_a Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Oh yeah, and somebody would get a copy of that review and ask Dave Marsh in person to autograph it. Show me a "rock critic" and I'll show you a failed musician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 There were so many rock critics whose ticket to fame was by being controversial....who better to be controversial about than the best! All I have to say is Achilles Last Stand and what an influence on todays music Bonhams drumming has been. We all know the score and no self obsessed arsehole of a critic can change that. The reviews should be deposited in your toilet along with the rest of the shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Bear in mind my fans are few...but appreciated! sign me up as well. knowledgeable in non-Zeppelin areas as well. "Mission Accomplished" is one of the most mis-represented, out-of-context Bush-bashes of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NastyNole1 Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I just think this Marsh dweeb was being intellectually dishonest. One would have to be a real bimbo not to recognize Bonzo's brilliance on that album, especially ALS... Sounds like Marsh is just another lemming with a pen in his hand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I feel the the way the title of this thread was worded, was done to simply be inflamatory, in and of itself. A better way to title a thread like this would be: Dave Marsh Reviews Presence That way, the members can then read the review and decide if it was fair or not. (It's NOT of course). The title, and the way it's stated, is itself injurious, and, I would hope that better worded thread titles will be forthcoming. I am not a moderator. I am giving everyone MY Opinion, for those that need this clarified..... Where is this all leading..... Are you going to search out every bad review of Zeppelin's work, by every professional music reviewer, locally, and nationally, for the last 40 years, and then post the negative title of these reviews, for all of us to "enjoy" ? ? ? ? I say, just stick to the basics, and let the members opinions of any review be discussed within the thread, and NOT in the Title of the Thread. Just because some journalist at some time has said something degragatory about Zeppelin, does not make it appropriate to Publish and repeat the insult "In The TITLE of the thread" .... so it can be read "over and over again" as members acess the "View New Posts" each time they visit the Board. All in all, I Think... it's a Cheap Shot, to Title a Thread like this, on a Led Zeppelin board. I am not amused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 I feel the the way the title of this thread was worded, was done to simply be inflamatory, in and of itself. A better way to title a thread like this would be: Dave Marsh Reviews Presence That way, the members can then read the review and decide if it was fair or not. (It's NOT of course). The title, and the way it's stated, is itself injurious, and, I would hope that better worded thread titles will be forthcoming. I am not a moderator. I am giving everyone MY Opinion, for those that need this clarified..... Where is this all leading..... Are you going to search out every bad review of Zeppelin's work, by every professional music reviewer, locally, and nationally, for the last 40 years, and then post the negative title of these reviews, for all of us to "enjoy" ? ? ? ? I say, just stick to the basics, and let the members opinions of any review be discussed within the thread, and NOT in the Title of the Thread. Just because some journalist at some time has said something degragatory about Zeppelin, does not make it appropriate to Publish and repeat the insult "In The TITLE of the thread" .... so it can be read "over and over again" as members acess the "View New Posts" each time they visit the Board. All in all, I Think... it's a Cheap Shot, to Title a Thread like this, on a Led Zeppelin board. I am not amused. The title of the thread was quoted exactly as the original review. I added the "Presence Review" to give readers an idea of what the article was about. If opinions that are not favorable, or downright negative cannot be posted, then I give up and will just go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 The title of the thread was quoted exactly as the original review. I added the "Presence Review" to give readers an idea of what the article was about. If opinions that are not favorable, or downright negative cannot be posted, then I give up and will just go away. I agree - the title of this thread was reflective of the article. What is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levee Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Oh yeah, and somebody would get a copy of that review and ask Dave Marsh in person to autograph it. Show me a "rock critic" and I'll show you a failed musician. We're all rock critics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 If opinions that are not favorable, or downright negative cannot be posted, then I give up and will just go away. This is a well-moderated forum. You would have been informed by a moderator if you had committed a flagrant violation of forum guidelines. Rover was merely expressing an opinion, to which he is entitled. For what it's worth, I don't agree with his opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonefreelee Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Oh yes, it should be mentioned R n R HOF is a privately run entertainment enterprise and as such is no more credible on rock music than Disneyland or the local amusement park. It's been noted (by me at least) that the RnRHOF HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonefreelee Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Absolutely. I mean, how could anybody on Gods green earth take that guy seriously after that review? Did Richard Cole give him a flick of the boot at a show prior to this? Again, a complete disgrace. Agreed, but one must remember (if possible) that it was fashionable to kick LZ in the "latter days" of their career, at least by these cowardly, unscrutable RS types. We all could probably agree that "Presence" will outlive Dave Marsh. History has already proven what an ass (musically, anyway) this "man" is. Where are you now, fuck-face? Where is Led Zeppelin in the totality of things? Where are you in comparison to them? Right, nowhere even fucking close. LZ has brought joy and happiness to millions of human beings. What have you brought to the table? Envy? Hatred for someone who did something good? History will look upon you for what you truly were: an oportunist, a leech who fed off the scene, disguised as a hipster, a nyc "somebody", socialite, critic? How may epics have you written, say, along the lines of Kasmir or Achilles Last Stand? None. You've slagged what was and is a positive force, something which was created to make people happy. History will not look kindly upon you, Dave Marsh, if it looks upon you at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderguy Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 The guy who started the thread used wording direct from the text of the review and in my estimation, did not misrepresent the negative spirit of the review. Here's something he could have used that would have been more inflamatory: Presence Review........ "John Bonham is something like clinically incompetent. " (Also direct from the text.) Based on the aforementioned review, "clinically incompetent" would better describe Marsh's music journalism skills. (--edited for spelling typo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 The guy who started the thread used wording direct from the text of the review The thread starter is actually a delightful female. I just wanted to reiterate Rolling Stone magazine was for the most part anti-Zeppelin from the first album onward. During the interview with Cameron Crowe in 1975 Jimmy was photographed holding a bouquet of black roses (the relationship with the magazine was that bad) as a possible cover shot but alas the film did not develop properly. It would have been one of the all-time great Rolling Stone covers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderguy Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I remember an interview in R.S. with Jimmy in which he talks about Presence. Jimmy talked about the zeppelin "mystique". There is a quote in there that says something like, "at 33 Jimmy still has the same untroubled baby face he was born with", and that Jimmy was very proud of Led Zeppelin. Did Crowe do that interview? Did he quit R.S. or did they fire him? Did it have anything to do with Zeppelin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonefreelee Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 The title of the thread was quoted exactly as the original review. I added the "Presence Review" to give readers an idea of what the article was about. If opinions that are not favorable, or downright negative cannot be posted, then I give up and will just go away. That wouldn't be needed. I think what you did was a good thing. It has always been instructive to inform those who dont know about the amount of negativity that LZ had to endure. I remember how it was. Though I was a relative late-comer to the world of Zeppelin (it started for me late '77), I do remember how you could hardly read about them in the "mainstream" press. I read most of the articles in rags of the day, such as creem and idk, hit parader maybe. In the seventies I cant say I ever saw any positive feedback about the band in RS magazine. Also, that was the kind of cheap shot rag they were. Maybe you can remember how after Jim Morrison was busted in Miami, RS mag published a full two page "wanted poster" of the man. What a joke. Kick 'em while their down, shitbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderguy Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I agree. R.S. led the way when it came to Zep. bashing, and the rest of the press would heap it on afterwards, possibly because they did not have the nuts to go against the grain with Rolling Stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I remember an interview in R.S. with Jimmy in which he talks about Presence. Jimmy talked about the zeppelin "mystique". There is a quote in there that says something like, "at 33 Jimmy still has the same untroubled baby face he was born with", and that Jimmy was very proud of Led Zeppelin. Did Crowe do that interview? Did he quit R.S. or did they fire him? Did it have anything to do with Zeppelin? Cameron Crowe's article "The Durable Led Zeppelin" was an exlusive Page/Plant interview which made the cover of Rolling Stone's March 13th 1975 issue. He followed this up with "Led Zeppelin Conquers States", a feature on their 1975 North American tour published in the May 22nd 1975 issue. In May 1976 an ad for the 'Presence' began to appear, and the album was reviewed by Stephen Davis in the May 20th 1976 issue. The following month, a Cameron Crowe expose on the object, "Secrets of the Object Revealed", was published in the June 3rd 1976 issue. He followed this with the feature "Zeppelin Rising...Slowly" in the August 12th 1976. Undoubtedly, the interview comments to which you refer appear in one of these two features. With the exception of some sensationalist coverage of the brawl in Oakland (July 1977) Rolling Stone magazine never produced another extensive Led Zeppelin feature during the 1970s again. Cameron Crowe of course remains an avid enthusiast of Led Zeppelin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderguy Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 The one I was talking about was "Zeppelin rising....slowly." Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.