Why did critics hate STP

>But Scott was considered to be just be aping Vedder
Critcis and magazines were idiots
Both Vedder and Weiland were inspired by Jim Morrison, especially Weiland in those years, Bowie little later on.
Fact is they were probably hated a little because they were cool musicians and more polite california boys who wanted to ride the grunge wave kind of by playing hard heavy riffs and shit, but Dean DeLeo was into a lot more than just zeppelin or sabbath i guess.
youtube.com/watch?v=kATVimQsJG8

Attached: stone-temple-pilots-scott-weiland-dean-deleo-madison-square-garden-1996-credit-getty-500609512@2000x1270.jpg (2000x1270, 3.27M)

>overtly masculine
sexy type thing literally mocks toxic macho masculinity
youtube.com/watch?v=3hCnZ4WNug4&feature=youtu.be&t=329

it's really surprising how people still don't know and talk shit about this band

didn't know how good they had it back in 91

their best album

Attached: 81YyQf1uumL._SL1425_.jpg (1425x1425, 358.62K)

Because they were from California. It's that simple.

>STP
>masculine

Sex Type Thing was a fairly blatant satire which the critics deliberately misinterepreted because it gave them another reason to shit on the band.

because no one ever listened

Attached: STONE_TEMPLE_PILOTS_SHANGRI-LA+DEE+DA-187373.jpg (500x485, 51.18K)

This album is great
The singles (Trippin on a Hole in a Paper Heart, Lady Picture Show) are some of STP’s best, and then there are deeper cuts like Adhesive that show a lot of depth

Critics always get it wrong and parrot each other

it wasn't only critics anyway

and so i know is such an underrated track

they loved them when this album was out
MTV pumped them up big time.

The big thing with them was lots of people called Scott an Eddie Vedder ripoff which is weird because i saw 100s of other bands try to sound EXACTLY like Eddie Vedder

based

>HERE I COOM, I COOM, I COOM, I COOM

>HERE I COOM, I COOM, I COOM, I COOM

Attached: coomer.png (1545x869, 193.01K)

lel based

Did they not like purple? That albums filled with radio hits.

Because they came off really derivative and uninspired at the time. While the claims of them being copycats and wagon jumpers may have been (slightly) overblown, the bottom line is that to the critical ear, they just weren't very interesting and, whether intentional or not, they often just sounded like a cover band, certainly on that first album. Honestly, most of Core sounds like it was written in the studio in a day. In fact I can remember having conversations about that very fact with friends at the time.

Now nostalgia has caused people to reassess their worth, so you'll obviously disagree with everything I said. But that's the answer to your question.

Also, as a frontman Weiland was as shallow and one dimensional as they come. Total goof with nothing to say and being a rock star did him no good.. It seems like he would have been a lot happier of he'd just stayed a nobody

Critics are baboons. You can expect them to like and dislike certain canons, which is why most metal albums go under the radar while Pitchfork will review every single indie white west coast band. Songs From The Vatican Shop got a 1 (one) from Pitchfork. Purple is definitely genre defining. Weiland was a talented fellow, and so were his bandmates. They had a knowledge of music that boggles me. Particularly the DeLeo brothers, they were amazing. Their discography is sincerely flawless looking at the progression, although 4 is dull not counting certain tracks.

t. critic

It was just *Rolling Stone magazine

when they reviews Core the writer said the singer was "embarassingly Pearl Jam"

*Rolling Stone ratings mattered at the time.

It's an anti-rape song but I wouldn't say it's mocking toxic masculinity.

Nah just someone who was around back then actually liked interesting music.

Are you kidding? Show me one one good review of them from that era. They were a joke. Yeah they sold a lot of records, but so did Creed.

Maybe people were a tad too hard on them, and they did eventually make an album that wasn't totally embarrassing (Tiny Music), but was they were kinda shit.

>Nah just someone who was around back then actually liked interesting music

Attached: 1558154138928.jpg (750x829, 156.36K)

How fucking embarrassing. STP released their demo before Pearl Jam was a band.

there were lots of good reviews

Core was released to mixed reviews, not universally hated.

pretty much every bad review copied the "trying to be Pearl Jam line" tho.

but somehow I NEVER saw Nickelback or Creed be accused of trying to copy Pearl Jam when both of those guys sounded like Eddie Vedder impersonators.

also Christgau hated Core....

>also Christgau hated Core
He addressed the band's claim about STT being intended sarcastically but he didn't believe them.

Also this fucker thinks Born in the USA was the #1 album of 1984 and even claimed it's rock and roll. There's nothing resembling "rock" on there or Let It Be, his #2 album of that year.

Attached: 8053672926415_shad_qt.jpg (640x415, 17K)

Christgau seems to be the type to think that if you play "macho" music, then you are probably a wife beating asshole

He is the same guy who mocked Jonathan Davis and said he wasn't abused after Davis said he was raped as a kid, if Davis played some "New Yorkan" style he would declare him brave or shit

>He is the same guy who mocked Jonathan Davis and said he wasn't abused after Davis said he was raped as a kid
Bet he wouldn't pull that shit if it were a woman...

STP were hated for cultural reasons not for musical reasons. They were seen as latecomers that ripped off the Seattle sound

Now critics love Fiona Apple, but in the late 90s they hated her too.
There is an SNL comedy sketch making fun of Fiona from that time.
I remember reading critics on her sophomore album from 99 that admitted the album was great but would only give it an 8 because they wouldn't give a higher score to someone like her.

youtu.be/42gNkySFycA

It was both. They were a perfect storm of suck.

Honestly guys why does it matter? You like a mediocre to terrible rock band. Most people have one or two of those in their collection. If you like them, then like them, but at this late stage you're never going to convince the world that they were objectively good.

No, she was considered a talented trainwreck from the start

>Now critics love Fiona Apple, but in the late 90s they hated her too.
Cuckgau still dislikes her debut album.

only feminists lesbians liked her
and old timey footfags

Scott was like Bowie on cocaine. So, Bowie basically.

>total goof with nothing to say
but his lyrics were good, he had great stage presence, and generally decent pipes. perhaps you are wrong or are just a pleb.

Again, mediocre to terrible in all respects, but if you're into them just go with it. We can disagree, but the thread was asking about the reasons for the critical perception of them, and in that respect, your assessment just doesn't jibe with reality at all. Have fun.

Am I the only one who thinks that Dead and Bloated sounds more like early Tool than Pearl Jam? I guess the AiC influence is mutual.

>mediocre to terrible
if you are going to use such strong judgement words, can you at least explain why you chose them? what do you find "terrible" about Scott?

PEARL JAM IS THE ONLY BAND ALLOWED TO HAVE MEDIOCRE & BLAND SOFT POP ROCK

IF ANYBODY ELSE STRIVES TO BE BLAND THEN THEY ARE JUST RIPPING OFF PEARL JAM

True. Not Washington.
Because grunge was made in Seattle, not in San Diego.

kek

The DeLeo brothers are both very musically talented for rock players and I respect them. Their music mostly sucks outside of a couple songs though.

7 cage tigers is cool
i dont think it was from this album tho

THE SECOND ALBUM

TWELVE GRACIOUS MELODIES

>LEEEEAVINNNNN ON A SOUTHERN TRAIN ONLY YESTERDAY....

better than anything that trash can Eddie Vedder ever belted out

STP and AIC are the only grunge things still listenable

HUM?
Failure?
Soundgarden?

Failure kicks ass