Uriah Heep and the critics

Dellinger wrote: 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 having being bothered by his voice, I find it just beautiful, one of the better aspects of the band.

Edited by Svetonio - April 27 2014 at 13:34

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

Svetonio wrote: Dean wrote: Svetonio wrote: Toaster Mantis wrote: (...) 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 (...) In 70s, Uriah Heep were considered as a hard rock band only. *sigh* You might want to read that NME article from 1972 I linked in my previous post before making such claims. (...) 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. I as said, I saw them live in 1979 and they were advertized 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.

Toaster Mantis wrote: 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)

Svetonio wrote: Toaster Mantis wrote: (...) 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 (...) In 70s, Uriah Heep were considered as a hard rock band only.

Heep may not be rated with the best progressive bands in Britain, but abroad – certainly in Germany – they are. Recently in a conglomeration of European magazines they were voted No. 1 underground band and No. 2 band for the future. And last year they sold more albums in Germany than any other band. But one would assume they would prefer more attention here.

Edited by Dean - April 27 2014 at 07:52

Toaster Mantis wrote: (...) 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 (...)

In 70s, Uriah Heep were considered as a hard rock band only.



Edited by Svetonio - April 27 2014 at 07:08

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.

Edited by Dean - April 27 2014 at 14:32

chopper wrote: 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

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)

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.