The Ubiquitous Overrated/Underrated Statement - Music

RFNAPLES
Level 8

Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA

Often some people feel they are right and everybody else is wrong. For instance, you may feel Coldplay is overrated but it may be that your opinion is in the minority and that Coldplay deserved the praise. People have different tastes, desires, and expectations for music and thus assign different ratings.

Personally, I rank Coldplay’s A Rush Of Blood To The Head at #47 and I expect people to disagree. Its BestEverAlbum overall rank is 56. As for Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band's Trout Mask Replica, I rank it at 60 while BestEverAlbum assigns an overall rank of 67. So I would conclude that those albums are fairly rated since there is very little variance in rank.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

maxxy wrote:

What's RYM? Rate Your Music? And what if you really do enjoy TMR? mmm....
Actually Naples is right this time.

Oh and I don't think Coldplay deserves all that much praise. Enjoyable? Yes. Fantastic? No.

Maxxy, do you think Coldplay gets too much critical praise? I mean, they're commercially successful in the mainstream, but they're not really lauded in the widespread community of critics (professional and non-professional). They may get a good write up in the irrelevant Rolling Stone or some pop culture, mainstream mag like Entertainment Weekly or Blender-- turn the page and you'll see some photos of Cameron Diaz on the beach!-- but the majority of respectable critics aren't going gaga over them, are they?

They're accessible and enjoyable, like you said, and that's all you need to be commercially successful, so I don't really feel they're "overrated" in that sense. I think a band deserves commercial success as their accessibility-- and not their artistic merit-- warrants it.

This site seems to be the only place where I've seen Coldplay "overrated." But the number of people (113 votes, 90 favorites for Rush of Blood to the Head) is such a small sample with an obvious bias that the results are far from depicting the general consensus on the band. It reminds me of that time Kirk from "Gilmore Girls" polled only himself and said that 100% of voters are voting for Jackson.

On the other hand, go to RYM where Rush of Blood has over 5,000 votes-- a much more accurate way to gauge general consensus of music listeners, as opposed to mainstream consumers-- and you'll see that they don't even crack the top 5,000. The album is 47 here, but ranked #179 for the just the year 2002.

RFNAPLES
Level 8

Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA

There is no single general authority on ratings or rankings. That is why it is your perception of what others think of an album compared to your opinion of that album which causes it to be overrated or underrated in your mind. Some would argue that commercial success is an indicator of rating or ranking while other will suggest that is not true since some people buy albums they don't like or no longer do.

Enjoy the music you do and don't worry about its ratings or rankings. With over 2,344,479 editions, does it really matter where in the top 3000 one is ranked or rated? Use the ratings and rankings as a filter to help you discover more music given limited economic and time constraints.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

maxperenchio

Location: Chicago

I think accessibility is a virtue that is unfairly damned by most serious critics. In the case of Coldplay, i give them credit for the fact that they have any critical appreciation at all, considering their commercial juggernaut status. When Chris Martin was on the cover of Rolling Stone, they still called him "wuss rock jesus" or something like that.

I've always been on the side of the critical underdog simply because I know how difficult it is to write a successful pop song. It must be immaculately constructed, sensationally listenable, and equipped with emotional resonance for the everyman. A writer known for difficult, idiosyncratic music might not be able to create what "wuss-rockers" do with ease. (not that they'd really want to... but still)

My definition of an overrated band is one which is culturally irrelevant, but whose importance is improperly inflated by critics as a fashion statement.

In the case of Trout Mask- its such a bizarre, singular example of the overrated/underrated discussion that it rises to a class of its own. I don't think it had much of a cultural or musical influence before its enormous critical resurgence in the 90s. What happened in result was many bands became sensationally influenced by the record, even if the first time they heard it was in a top 100 list! The reason of course is because the music is fascinating. Some people hate it, it happens to be one of my favorites (but not as great as Safe as Milk!) but that's whats great about great art!

telefunker

Gender: Male
Age: 39

precisely

i think it's important to highlight the distinction between personal opinion/taste and objective musical quality

if somebody genuinely enjoys trout mask replica, coldplay or speak the hungarian rapper then that is always their individual perogative.. after all it's just sound, and if that sound can induce an emotional response in the person, then who is anyone else to argue with that?

whereas objective critical analysis, i feel, should consider the the quality of the music from a technical perspective, so as not to cloud judgement with personal bias ..and on those grounds i would certainly attest that 'a rush of blood to the head' is a good album, though i don't care for it much on a personal level
_________________
no fat chicks

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

maxperenchio wrote:

I think accessibility is a virtue that is unfairly damned by most serious critics. In the case of Coldplay, i give them credit for the fact that they have any critical appreciation at all, considering their commercial juggernaut status. When Chris Martin was on the cover of Rolling Stone, they still called him "wuss rock jesus" or something like that.

I've always been on the side of the critical underdog simply because I know how difficult it is to write a successful pop song. It must be immaculately constructed, sensationally listenable, and equipped with emotional resonance for the everyman. A writer known for difficult, idiosyncratic music might not be able to create what "wuss-rockers" do with ease. (not that they'd really want to... but still)

My definition of an overrated band is one which is culturally irrelevant, but whose importance is improperly inflated by critics as a fashion statement.

In the case of Trout Mask- its such a bizarre, singular example of the overrated/underrated discussion that it rises to a class of its own. I don't think it had much of a cultural or musical influence before its enormous critical resurgence in the 90s. What happened in result was many bands became sensationally influenced by the record, even if the first time they heard it was in a top 100 list! The reason of course is because the music is fascinating. Some people hate it, it happens to be one of my favorites (but not as great as Safe as Milk!) but that's whats great about great art!

Interesting, Max. I don't see accessibility as a virtue. I'm up for a discussion on why, but that would be its on thread and a much bigger discussion. For now, I won't argue against it-- if you would like to talk about it, let me know.

I will, however, disagree that it is difficult to write a successful pop song. Is it difficult to write a great pop song? Yes. A successful one? No. Successful does not = great. Watch an episode of TRL and tell me if you think those successful pop songs are also great songs. It needs to be overproduced, trendy, formulaic, and void of significant artistic merit in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. But that's just the beginning. Its success is mainly the product of millions of dollars of marketing and selling the song to mainstream audiences. My hat goes off to the suits selling this stuff, not the songwriters.

Speculating on whether real artists could write pop songs that appeal to screaming teenage girls is ridiculous, and it doesn't take away anything from their artistic merit.

Could you give an example of a band that is culturally irrelevant, but whose importance is improperly inflated by critics as a fashion statement? I just don't see that happening. I don't see any critics out there rewriting history to make Slint, for example, seem more culturally relevant. Most critically acclaimed albums that weren't commercially successful are usually praised for their influence on the art form. That could be inflated, sure, but I don't see any critics claiming that Silver Apples or Beefheart were culturally relevant. Usually their relevance in terms of its inlfuence and innovation within the art form is what is praised. I'm not sure I get what you mean. Is there anyone out there inflating the cultural influence of TMR?

As far as its influence on the art form, I don't think that has been inflated. You have to remember that it came out during a kind of renaissance period and there was a ton of experimenting going on and bands feeding off of each other's creativity. Any significant innovation was going to catch the ears of the community of musicians. Beefheart was not obscure amongst musicians. Zappa, who was a big figure during the 60s, was his producer. He was giving interviews in Rolling Stone (not as big as it is now) and getting some press back during the Trout Mask days. His albums charted. People were hearing these records and being influenced by them. There's that famous picture of Lennon hanging out in his home with Safe As Milk posters in the background. The Beatles also wanted to sign him at some point. When the biggest band in the world takes notice of you who you are, you're good as gold.

My parents probably never heard of Beefheart, but musicians undoubtedly heard his music and were influenced by him-- you can hear it in some early records and there are a lot of artists who have been citing him as an influence for decades, it didn't just start in the 90s. Same with a band like the Silver Apples, who also got a big resurgence in the past decade. You just don't make records that innovative back in the late 60s and have it go unnoticed by musicians-- by the general public, yes, but not by musicians. Their music also had a significant influence, although they weren't really culturally significant. Again, because musicians had a nose for innovation, and Silver Apples records got as far as Germany and was an influence on Krautrock.

Beefheart may have be more culturally significant than most people think, though. I've seen a few interviews with him on the David Letterman show back in the 80s. He's not really that obscure.

maxperenchio

Location: Chicago

I think the accessibility-as-virtue issue fits fine into this thread. I wouldn't call it the most valuable of the many musical virtues, but there is certainly an artistry to it. Either way, your comments regarding the nature of successful pop singles are devastatingly restrictive. I find it hilarious when anyone claims that they could write a top 40 single. Dude, if you really can- make a demo, get an entertainment lawyer to shop it to a label, and become a MILLIONARE, for your own sake! (PS, i never said successfull= great)

And even worse, to use the "screaming girl" label to describe every single person that listens to commercial pop music? Yikes. We're talking 21st century art here- to suggest that no one in the music industry or its respective audience has a mental faculty for appreciating irony, the banal, or intentional decadence is a rather large leap. America has an infatuation with getting off on its own degradation, and the state of the industry has quite a bit of music that plays into that. But is there really anything wrong with that? There is an aesthetic to the hyper-slick and over-sexed because it says something about culture. Do we have to start discussing Jeff Koons or Duchamp's readymades? Smile

Regarding the Ol' Captain- I certainly did not mean to suggest that he was completely obscure in his time, especially to the music community. My point was a small one, in that the only reason he's ever been considered overrated was the enormous critical praise he started getting in the late 90's, when Trout Mask would frequently land in any given top 100 of all time- a designation no one would have dreamed of in decades prior. (which in turn sparked up the huge anti-trout sentiment you pointed out earlier)

maxxy

Gender: Male
Location: PA

joannajewsom wrote:

Maxxy, do you think Coldplay gets too much critical praise? I mean, they're commercially successful in the mainstream, but they're not really lauded in the widespread community of critics (professional and non-professional). They may get a good write up in the irrelevant Rolling Stone or some pop culture, mainstream mag like Entertainment Weekly or Blender-- turn the page and you'll see some photos of Cameron Diaz on the beach!-- but the majority of respectable critics aren't going gaga over them, are they?

You're right; I think they get to much popular praise (liked by everyone I meet for the past 5 years? Come on...) Take my brother. He thinks that coldplay are amazing, but by contrast dislikes better albums such as Funeral by Arcade Fire (which I find really odd), anything by Bob Dylan...IMO he doesn't really pay attention to the music as to the hype.
_________________
"I'm so ugly but that's OK cause so are you"