Hostility towards 70's Quo

Have to agree with mortified, it was all about snobbery, & as we can see, even now, lazy labels stick - like mud!

Quo in the '70s were a good time rock band belting out great tunes that got people moving, gave then huge chart hits & chart-topping albums & the most fantastic support on the road. They were as heavy as the heavy rock bands of the day but couldn't be taken as seriously as they had hit singles - not just the odd one, but lots of them. They weren't as pretentious as many of the prog rock bands, although they could also perform long, convoluted, multi section tracks just as well. They didn't tart themselves up in shiny outfits and attach themselves to the glam scene & consequently weren't seen in the same light as "good time" band Slade, although I suspect many music lovers were fans of both bands. Ironic as it seems after recent decades, but you'd have to say they weren't a gimmicky band. They just seemed like four blokes you might see down the pub who just happened to become something much greater than the individual components should have amounted to when they played music together, & what they did in the early-mid '70s made them the very best at it, especially live, for a few years.

I always thought that the coolest thing about Quo was the fact they were so uncool &, seemingly, not remotely arsed. Sadly, it seems it all bothered Francis a lot more than we all realised at the time.

This.  Often, Francis rhythm was/is even more distinct than Parfitts. 

And, to weigh in on the discussion. I've never understood that three-chord nonsense everyone keep throwing at them.

I found the harsher Journalistic criticism occurred after Punk broke. A lot of the music rags ( Especially Sounds ) nailed their loyalty well and truly to punk / New wave and Quo became the easiest of targets.
To be honest a lot of Punk personnel have since come out and said Quo we one of their influences. At the time though it wasn’t cool for them to admit to it.
It surprised me how much stick Quo got as they were closer to punk in Dress and musical energy than any other Band up to the end of 76 when things were starting to take off with New wave etc..
They couldn’t have made a bigger f.. up though by going lite bringing out 2 albums RAOTW & IYCSTH. Was like the band dished out the grenades themselves to get pelted with !
Thank god for the internet where we now have videos like “ April Spring “ which show Quo predated The Ramones etc...by a few years.

I read some classic shite about them in the 1970's but Mick Farren who was a real NME type seemed okay with them.

"During the early 1970s he contributed to the UK Underground press such as the International Times, also establishing Nasty Tales which he successfully defended from an obscenity charge. He later wrote for the mainstream New Musical Express, for which he wrote the article The Titanic Sails At Dawn, an analysis of what he considered the malaise afflicting then-contemporary rock music and which described the conditions that subsequently resulted in punk."

I stuck this on a few years back but it's worth repeating.

"It's Quo time. From the reverberations of enthusiasm in the crowd, it's quite obvious that they're the band that the majority of people have come to see.

Status Quo must be the most solid, workmanlike crowd pleasers working in this country today. They're unmistakenly beer-and-fags British. They are obviously aware of their limitations, and they are quite clear that the people have come to hear nothing more than their hallmarked overdrive R&B – and they don't disappoint them.

Within their very limited terms of reference, Quo are brilliant. Their sound is their product and they undoubtedly give value for money.

The sun has gone and the darkness is starting to close in. For the first time, the stage lights come on. Rossi stomps and roams the stage while the others fall into the bending, head bobbing stance that has become their trademark.

I take a walk out in the audience. The crush at the front is frenziedly echoing the move. They are obviously getting exactly what they want.

As I watch I realise that Quo are pretty much the Charles Bronsons of British rock. They have the horny-handed expertise of artists who don't aspire to anything more than entertaining their audience. Bronson will never play Hamlet and Quo will probably never produce a Sgt. Pepper. Both however, know their market and stick to it.

Just before it becomes totally dark, Chalkie and I climb the old tower of the castle. Looking out from the 600 year-old battlements we see that stage surrounded by a bobbing sea of people. Oddly enough it all fits together: very logical and Very British."

I'd probably agree but as a soloist, I just don't think he's a rock guitarist. Certainly not in the traditional sense; the blues sense. He just doesn't have the 'feel' for it. But that's a different argument. As an all round musician generally, I dare say he's as good as it gets. By the way, is it just me, or does he look like something from "The Hobbit" these days? 

See? We can all resort to personal insults when challenged. I'd have made a great 70's journalist   

I suppose the point I'm making - and a point I even tried to make back then when discussing Jan Akkerman with a workmate (and I have NO idea why I remember that!  - is that there is more to musicianship than dexterity and speed. That 'better' than someone else can be rendered completely subjective. 

Which takes us back to the 70's criticism that the band suffered. Round and round....

See what I did there? 

I had to Google Steve Howe

Sorry 😆

(Not a Yes man 😉)