God Bless Lester Bangs! This clip shows why he was so great. No journalists, critics, reviewers or "reporters"(especially on those horrid entertainment/gossip shows) would ever talk about musicians or actors so honestly like that today. No, they're too busy kissing their asses!!!
I always though the clothes were supposed to be just part of the aesthetic I could totally see him not being into most of the rockstar shit at the time. I mean hell, he’s still alive so he surely didn’t get too lost in the sauce
He does look like real life Pablo Escobar doesn't he? I think part of it is is that this was kind of happening around the time Pablo was building up that empire, and the clothes are all contemporary to the time. But more than that it's his face as well and the hair
"...and that was two years ago..." Maybe it was Peter Frampton, who fizzled out due to a bad artistic choice but who looked like the next hero for awhile.
@@Sangrialol no. Fantano seems like a nice enough guy but he seems barely qualified to do what he does. He also doesn’t have the edge and vision of Bangs; just a lukewarm RU-vidr
I wish he had made it to see Rap, Hardcore Punk and Grunge take over the 80s. Or Bubblegum Pop. Man, just heartbreaking thst he couldn't make it out. Truly a visionary!
He did review some hardcore punk. He wasn't impressed (surprised?). He did like the Circle Jerks and...the Exploited (!!). He also took Jello Biafra down a notch (who's such a pompous egomaniac, he needs it!) in an article. I think (just based on his writings I've read) he may have been receptive to some rap but would've likely loathed grunge.
@@mariecruze259 Christgau is my least favorite rock writer. Anyone who calls himself "the dean" and grades albums like a teacher is a schmuck in my book. He trashed the Cramps too. So screw him.
@@brandonhendrix7223 trashed the Cramps? Oh hell no lol...I suppose it could be funny though...the rockabilly Era happened when he was young...so trashing rockabilly revivalism would make for a good joke
This is because music of all forms saw a splintering going into the 70's. The -isms that gave such stars a position started fading out in favor of a more individualized approach. Instead of one catch-all aspiration we have a collective of groups that grew more varied as time went on. The search for individual sounds in the late 60's was certainly a key factor in this. Parallel to this, almost anyone who could be considered a star since didn't carry that same sense of purpose.
Why Lester Bangs was so important as a rock critic is that he did not write to be agreeable, he wrote what he found entertaining to him, and his writing, while occasionally a mixed bag, was frequently brilliant and incisive. Even if I didn't agree with him, I always wanted to know what he had to say, then formed my own opinion. Lester would make you _think_ about his subjects.
I like Lester as an icon but disagree with virtually everything he says. If he were here today he’d look back and see how enormous the 70s were. It’s difficult to see from within the boundaries but retrospect shows the giant that it truly was.
I agree. However, you could see the enormity of rock at the time it was happening. What has been so shocking is that it died in a manner we never saw coming and is now a carcass that the occasional band tries on, usually with limited success. The 70s were fantastic and entertaining and a high-water mark for rock.
I think you couldn't possibly be anything but nearsighted while it's actually happening. Every decade had its detractors, yet no one has really managed to capture the essence of a decade while it's still ongoing. The final analysis comes years, perhaps even decades later, and it's never done by a single person. Lester strikes me as a guy disappointed in where things seemed to be headed. But a decade is never one thing, one trend, one genre. As bashed as the 80s has been, it still gave us the college radio revolution that set the stage for the ultimate triumph of punk rock in 1991. Were there also a lot of dreck? Of course. There always is. But why focus on that?
Early 1970s. Incredible music is pouring out of the UK glam rock scene with T-Rex, David Bowie and many others. More incredible music is pouring out of the Detroit garage rock scene with The MC5, The Stooges and Alice Cooper inventing the blueprint for punk. Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath are shaping the future of heavy metal, Pink Floyd and King Crimson are pushing the boundaries of progressive rock. The Grateful Dead are defying categorisation to evolve rock 'n' roll into something uniquely wonderful. Rock 'n' roll as a whole has never been more diverse, vibrant and exciting. Lester Bangs: "Nothing has happened."
I think that’s utter nonsense. The greatful dead were trash that just put out bootleg after bootleg and record after record of just them jamming to their stoned contention, for their stoned fans who followed them around due to A) being too high to function, and B) being baby boomers with absolute shit taste in music. Iggy tore up that world, and was not given any recognition, as Lou Reed was doing the same thing with the Velvets. Emerson Lake and Palmer were playing music no kid could emulate in their garage band, as was King Crimson and everyone else. Prog was bloated, it was self fellating, and self obsessed, and ultimately and thankful creating the foundation for punk rock in all its reactionary fervor. Led Zeppelin was nothing revolutionary, and T Rex and the same bloated glam scene had overstayed their welcome and produced nothing of note to begin with. Stairway to heaven is one of the worst songs ever made right alongside hotel California. Just boomer platitudes in corporate rock form. Roxy Music and Brian Eno were gods, but the self obsessed vapor and decadent aspect they brought with them made sure their music would be short lived and there ability to produce reflective of that. Punk came into the scene, shone brilliantly and then died in the same fashion. It became a parody of itself in the same way glam and prog and rock music had done. To take away anything Bangs says here is ridiculous, he was spot on and did it in tradition Lester Bangs fashion. It ain’t the summer of love as the imperial dogs said in ‘74, and thank god we’re finally getting far enough away from that time period of liberal hippie drivel that’s dominated our culture for the last half century. Good riddance.
Emerson Lake & Palmer needed to fall on their sword in order for there to ever be a punk scene. Bangs provided them the sword. Next thing you know, we’re all in for The Ramones and Dead Kennedys. The 80s came along and coke was everywhere.
@@DiamorphineDeath Nothing good came out of punk, zip, nada. VU and The Stooges are the two undisputed worst bands of all time and were objectively the worst thing to ever happen to music, that is a fact, anyone who doesn't accept it is a fool.
Bangs cared enough about music to hate those who were destroying it. He assailed people who were nothing more than actors with guitars, jestering. They often were nothing more than cliche sex-drugs-and-rock-and-roll acts. Talent without passion and authenticity would get you nowhere with him.
He died of accidental overdose not too long after this, no shit he didn't go on reviewing music. That's the dumbest point I've ever seen anyone try to make.
When you think about rock in general what comes to mind? A music of teen rebellion or a music that can be melded with other influences? The answer is both. Rock is quite multifaceted than what most can expect from it.
When I heard Tommy by the who with a candle I saw my future and I want to be a journalist and interview rock bands like William in “Almost Famous” and it gave me an opportunity to watch the movie every day for the rest of my life. #AlmostFamousMovie #Movies2000s
No, this guy is ripped off speed and it's easy to judge everything when you've not accomplished a third of what the bands that this guy judges has lol. Just because PSH played him in a movie doesn't mean this guy has any reverence. His opinion is outdated and drug fueled chatter. But people who feel that their opinions matter and that everything is stupid like him.
@@joesmith2124 Except Bangs actually made good points. Like with Beatlemania resurfacing in 1981 after John Lennon was killed. He pointed out that nothing great was happening at that point and people were desperate for a group to look up to, especially with living in the past for bands that seem the most familiar to us. Nostalgia can be a very toxic thing, and people have found out that you can make billions off of it.
All music journalists are frustrated rock stars . Lester Bangs was no different . He did get one thing right though : Astral Weeks is indeed faultless .
I'd pay good money to hear lester's thoughts on music right now...... all you ever hear is how great music is, I dont think its ever been worse. vacuous , heard it before crap.
Cue endless stream of butthurt comments because people confuse what they enjoyed in their youth with quality as opposed to "fun"! It's perfectly OK to enjoy shlock, but never pretend it's not shlock. Bangs was important in spreading awareness of good and great bands before the internet. The internet has been around so long few remember how musical awareness spread before it.
Everyone’s crazy except me. I have much more serious issues to contend with. I wish he had lived. It’s like he felt obligated because the alternative sucked. Great writer.
If this is 70's his finger is spectacularly off the pulse isn't it. Bangs showed everyone that being able to write well, is very different from having an opinion worth listening to
@yinoveryang Bravo, Thank You for that. Lester Bangs was a stupid contrarian just for the sake of being so, he was a dimwit loser who had very little judgement when it came to valid criticism.
Lester didnt live long enough to have any true objectivity. Critics right in the thick of their industry, be it music or movies, are just a cog in that industry. The ones with past & future vision, removed objective context, those are the most genuine. Some of Lester's opinions dont hold up at all this far out.
The 1970s were probably the best decade for music although the more I look into that period, the more disappointed I get and can see eye to eye with Bangs. The youth movement of the late 60s was probably the last ground up movement that pushed it's way into the mainstream, some of its residue leaking into the 70s. However, the 70s were increasingly being plagued with the main problem people have with modern music, the music industry. If it wasn't vapid disco or baroque pop clogging the top charts, it was vapid "rockstars, carrying the torch" from the original groups in the 60s, it's just that most of them were missing an identity or a point. Note that I say top charts, as in, not encompassing everything at the time. In modern times we tend to filter out the best from the past, often stuff that was ahead of its time and did not make the charts, but that's normal. Of course there was the punk movement which was ground up but that wasn't nearly as influential as the 60s youth movement, nor did it carry the numbers to make it's way into the mainstream. Two different realms of music are traditional music and popular. Traditional is ground up and dances around/ projects to a certain idea, popular has the only point of making money. It's not 100% scrupulous but as we head further and further through time, you will have to sell out to the popular route, not the traditional. You have to be someone who wants to be a "star" and have a strong identity whilst not actually saying anything and make a lot of money. The 70s just seems like the decade that sealed the deal for that cancer.
Well....everything you just wrote can be applied to how Hip Hop music was basically destroyed by the mid 2000s. It is finally unrecognizable and completely cut off from its artistic/spiritual roots. Its fascinating to see an artform from your era of youth disappear. Inevitably you are looking back on your life. In a radio podcast last year, De La Soul was asked by some (Gen X) fans why hip hop sucks so much now, and they said "Look....you guys grew up, finished college, got jobs, brought home, started raising families and STOPPED buying music as much. You left!"
This was filmed in 1972, and yet Lester does mention Led Zeppelin, or seem to consider them an important band, when they were easily the biggest band in the world.
"Happened?!" Punk "happened" to precisely the extent that any other loser clown bullshit "happens." The punks spent all their time demanding the rest of us notice their "shocking" hair styles (already done), anti-corporate attitude (ooh, fresh!), and preparedness to burn their draft cards under the circumstances of no one actually they go out and die for your countries. If there was anything more original about "punk" than farting in one's own oatmeal it has yet to be discovered.
I was a huge emerson ,lake and palmer fan back then and in looking back he wasn't wrong, as he said of keith emerson, trained fingers might as well be trained seals if there's not a mind behind it.
I didnt care for his ceaseless grinding on bands he didn't like. I did enjoy when he spoke of bands he did like or waaa hen he got in fights with performers.
People like Lester Bangs are needed now more than ever, because if all we’re surrounding an artist with is yes-people, we’re gonna get pretty shit art.
@alexlancer11 I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying. He loved their music and was really hoping for Roxy Music to tear the lid off of rock'n'roll. But when he met Bryan Ferry he realized that they guy behind it all was about all the wrong things and just didn't have it in him. At least according to Bangs. Ferry gave (and still does imho) the impression of being overly shallow. And so Roxy Music never hit their true potential.
There was good music then, there is good music now. There was bad music then and there is bad music now, but in the 60s and earlier there was GREAT music. In my opinion,that was his point. I can't say I agree 100%. There is still great music today and there was great music in the 70s, but over time it became easier to find the bad stuff than the good stuff. Now there is plenty of good stuff but it is much lower key than the bad. With a few exceptions...
How in the world is ELP sterile? I understand bangs didn't like progressive rock because it did not fit his idea of how rock should be, but it was anything but sterile. To me on the other hand I really like because it's different.
Their sound is easily one of the whitest ever recorded and is a jam band that doesn't jam in any real interconnected sense. Just a bunch of different solos.
Well other than progressive rock I do listen tho things like psychedelic rock, hard rock & heavy metal, glam rock, post-punk and a little bit of new wave, folk rock, jazz fusion. Plus I'm always buying albums but not just from the mainstream but also obscure underground groups that might never have gotten the attention they deserved. complex and sophisticated or plain and simple I'll take it just as long it's good.
I really think he would have like the indie/college rock scene of the 80's and 90's when rock music was deconstructed down by bands like R.E.M., Dinosaur Jr., My Bloody Valentine, and Pavement.
The 70's. Nothing's happened? So there was this band from down under. Sydney, Australia. AC/DC. You might have heard of them. In my opinion they are the epitome of a rock band. No pretentious bullshit, no ballads, just down and dirty, ball busting, testosterone fueled rock music.
God, all the people with the bland 'critics are parasites' comments here. It's such an anodyne observation from people who don't have the personality or critical thinking to construct an original comment. Say what you like about the guy, at least try to be original about it (if you can that is). He was a writer and he was good at writing. That was his thing. What thing do people have round here, apart from writing half-assed generically illiterate comments under RU-vid videos?