Can it be the reason why Uriah Heep never were taken seriously....

Keep in mind that the RIAA didn't start awarding platinum certifications until later. In the early '70s gold was it, so it sounds like they were doing very well in the US at least for a few years.

 

Thank you some of these people don't no anything about Uriah Heep.

 

I would say they were a second tier band in there prime! There 1971 album Look At Yourself was as heavy as anything in 1971.

 

Salisbury is in my personal top 10. I like it and Look at Yourself more than the more acclaimed records that followed.

 

Two great albums for sure. I also really like there debut album the song Gypsy has some of the finest organ ever recorded.

 

It didn't look that stupid in 1973 but the truth is their songs were not that good.

 

David Byron didn't look any more stupid than any other rock singer. He took command of the stage, and had a fine voice for the material. Freddy Mercury probably owes a lot of his career to him.

And how "seriously" are we talking anyway? The band had a huge number of gold records, they managed to record ten albums with Byron in just 7 years (and have continued without him to this very day), and believe it or not, have made some very entertaining albums.

In fact, I just left a love letter for them here the other day, in a thread that didn't really go anywhere. Perhaps rather than rewriting the same post all over, I can just quote it here?

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...ah-heep-1970-1973.286092/page-2#post-11801574

 

Just your opinion, so there's no right or wrong.

Sod the image, it's all about the music...at least for me, it is.

 

Some of the finest Hammond playing ever!

 

Uriah Heep fronted by David Byron were one of the best and tightest live bands of their era. They were huge in the U.K., Eorope, Japan and Australasia.
I saw them on the early seventies tour tour that generated the first live album. They were not over the top in anyway. Just a band, their gear, and a few lights. Sensational.
FWIW- Byron was an exceptional vocalist with several octaves of range, and great phrasing.

 

Still better than Coldplay!

 

I'll tell you who might have mixed feelings about that video - John Wetton.

 

thank you for posting this. Heep were fantastic but I'm kind of ok with people believing otherwise.

 

It goes to show you have no clue what you are talking about. You must be reading wrong history books.

 

Yeah, so the only people who can post about the Beatles are the one who were there? Dare I ask who has the right to post about Bach??

 

I don't find him more stupid than other singers..and he was a good one !

 

Man that's horrible.

 

Oh...he looked silly alright.

 

Didn't Roger Dean do a couple album covers for them?

 

It's because their name looks like 'urine'.

Oh no, now you've got me posting this.

 

I wouldn't say "stupid" - just a little weird. He seems to have had a very eccentric personality, and that shows on stage.

 

It's only rock 'n' roll - strictly not to be taken seriously.

That's why I like it.

 

Heep had a great run of albums in the early 70s but drugs, alcohol and constant lineup shifts ruined the band. I read a bio on UH several years ago and it seemed David Byron's abuse of the bottle was just as bad if not worse than John Bonham. In just a few short years, Heep went from headlining arenas in the US to opening for the likes of Kiss by 1977. And to be honest, you can kind of hear why beginning with "Return to Fantasy". There were still a few good songs but UH couldn't make up their minds whether they wanted to be a hard rock band, a pop band, a boogie band or a funk band. Eventually Heep got themselves sorted out and went from strength to strength beginning with "Abominog" and continue to put out solid albums today. But with David Byron long dead and a lineup that only retains Mick Box from the classic years, it just isn't the same, IMO.

At their best, I took them seriously. I don't put much stock in rating someone a B, C or D grade level band. It's just an easy way of saying if they aren't as ubiquitous as Zeppelin or Sabbath, they suck, particularly for those who don't take hard rock music seriously.

 

They were an excellent hard rock/prog band but came across as the poor man's Deep Purple. I had a best mate who was bonkers on them, he played and played "Look At Yourself" and "Magician's Birthday" until the rest of got to like a bunch of songs. One punk/new wave happened, they looked and sounded ridiculous, (just like Deep Purple and Rainbow did).

 

Who said Uriah Heep were never taken seriously? These guys were huge when I was at school in the 70s and I still love them today. They were much more popular than Deep Purple, their obvious competitor, and almost up there with Zeppelin. As this was a small country town, UH never made it my way for a concert and I was too young to go to Sydney for their local tours.

But these days I live in the big smoke and UH is coming to town!!! They play Doncaster Shopping Town in March, the local venue for all old, washed up bands who can't fill any large venues in the city. And I will be there, for my first ever UH show. Rock N Roll, I can't wait!! Of course Dave Byron won't be there unfirtunately. He may look like a goose in that video but to be honest I haven't watched and don't think I want too. But its only rock and roll. Its entertainment. Why do people get so uptight about UH?

The OP says that they weren't taken seriously like its a bad thing. Well you don't have to take them seriously you just have to relax and have fun. Sex, drugs, rock n roll. That's what its about. Actually I don't do drugs but I'm going to drink a few gallons of beer at Doncaster Shoppingtown, bang my head all night then take my wife home. 2 out of 3 ain't bad!

I might be in a minority here but I love UH. The had at least 4 classic albums in the 70s and a few other good ones. Sure it was never the same without David and I tuned out pretty much after he left. But that is not going to stop me having a real good time on 20 March.