Most overrated musical act of all time?

[simulatedworld]

Just saying, you are of course free to like/dislike whatever you want; that is all opinion. It's just there's a difference between "I dislike it" and "It's bad."

For instance, I don't really like a lot of Led Zeppelin material, but they were an incredible band. To say that they were doing a bad job simply because I don't enjoy that much of what they did would be ignorant.

Sim plays his little guitar and gives people music lessons rather than deliver pizza. (Delivering pizza was his old job.)
And because he plays his little guitar and gives music lessons, he thinks it gives him the right to tell off everyone in this thread.
If you start a thread on pizza, he will 'slap you around' on that topic as well.
After all, he is an "expert" in music and pizza.

Bet you don't know how many pepperonis go on a large pizza!

 

[pure_mercury]

I didn't really feel like explaining at the time, but okay, here you go.

You're correct that there's no such thing as truly objective criticism of any art. We cannot actually prove empirically that any given art is good or bad, as these are technically subjective value judgments.

However, we can evaluate it with some degree of objectivity, even if not total objectivity, based on a number of different factors, including but not limited to:

--What the artist intended to accomplish with the work and how well that goal was achieved
--How many people enjoyed it
--How it compares to similar artists from the same genre during the same time period
--How much innovation/originality the work represented during its time
--The collective opinions of people who have put a lot of study into that area of art

etc. etc...so while we can't really show an empirical test to "prove" that, say, I'm a better painter than Rembrandt, if I run around claiming that I am, it's generally understood that I'm a moron.

When you get to really high levels of skill it becomes harder to judge objectively, because comparisons come down to just stylistic differences. It's hard to say whether Eric Clapton or Pat Metheney is a better guitarist, for instance, as both are masters of their respective styles.

It's not hard to say, however, that both of them are clearly superior to me, and if I claimed to be better than either, we can say with some degree of objectivity (though not total objectivity) that I'm wrong. Technically we can't show quantifiable evidence that Clapton is a better guitarist than me, but it's generally understood by anyone who has any idea what he's talking about that he obviously is.

Make sense?

This is the attitude I try to bring all artistic criticism. Someone may TRULY believe that Backstreet Boys are better than The Beatles, but we should be able to say they are wrong. Now, are The Beatles better than Bach? William F. Buckley would have said no, but people can make legitimate arguments either way. Or that it is impossible to decide fairly, given the radically different timeframes, aims, and media in which they worked.

 

[Thursday]

The Beatles. Give me the Stones any day.

damn skippy.

 

[miss fortune]

Bet you don't know how many pepperonis go on a large pizza!

if I'm making it the answer is "the entire package"

I like pepperoni

 

[Jaguar]

Bet you don't know how many pepperonis go on a large pizza!

As many as I desire. Lol.

 

[EJCC]

I didn't really feel like explaining at the time, but okay, here you go.

You're correct that there's no such thing as truly objective criticism of any art. We cannot actually prove empirically that any given art is good or bad, as these are technically subjective value judgments.

However, we can evaluate it with some degree of objectivity, even if not total objectivity, based on a number of different factors, including but not limited to:

--What the artist intended to accomplish with the work and how well that goal was achieved
--How many people enjoyed it
--How it compares to similar artists from the same genre during the same time period
--How much innovation/originality the work represented during its time
--The collective opinions of people who have put a lot of study into that area of art

etc. etc...so while we can't really show an empirical test to "prove" that, say, I'm a better painter than Rembrandt, if I run around claiming that I am, it's generally understood that I'm a moron.

When you get to really high levels of skill it becomes harder to judge objectively, because comparisons come down to just stylistic differences. It's hard to say whether Eric Clapton or Pat Metheney is a better guitarist, for instance, as both are masters of their respective styles.

It's not hard to say, however, that both of them are clearly superior to me, and if I claimed to be better than either, we can say with some degree of objectivity (though not total objectivity) that I'm wrong. Technically we can't show quantifiable evidence that Clapton is a better guitarist than me, but it's generally understood by anyone who has any idea what he's talking about that he obviously is.

Make sense?

Yes it does! Thank you Sim - I very much appreciated the explanation! See how much nicer and more civilized that was than just saying "fail" and leaving it at that?

Yeah, it totally makes sense, but at the same time, most people don't use that sort of criteria when they judge music, from my experience. If those qualifications were universally used and understood, I would agree with you. But at the same time, unless you actually analyze the music you listen to (which most people don't), you're probably going to end up saying "I like ____ music because it's awesome and makes me feel happy/profound/insert-emotion-here." Which, of course, is not even remotely objective.

Also, the fact that most musicians that one would consider overrated still do very, very well on that scale is a sign that it's very hard to be objective on a topic such as this one. In fact, I'm pretty much unable to come up with an overrated musician based on your scale, partially because I'd have to ignore the popularity and critical-adoration parts of it, and partially because, if the musician/band was so adored by critics as to be "overrated", they were probably influential, even if they sucked.

Example: The Sex Pistols. They were not a very good band in my opinion, because they were bad musicians (couldn't play their instruments at all), their songs all sound like they took five minutes to write, and their were many other punk bands of the time that were better musicians/songwriters than them. However, since they were so hyped/adored, they were influential, and people were inspired by them. Also, to address the final criterion, their intent was to rock out, and that they did.

I'm derailing the thread a little... but I'm curious as to what musician/band you would list that fits all your criteria.

p.s.

Just saying, you are of course free to like/dislike whatever you want; that is all opinion. It's just there's a difference between "I dislike it" and "It's bad."

There's absolutely a difference! I couldn't agree more. It bugs me when people do that.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yes it does! Thank you Sim - I very much appreciated the explanation! See how much nicer and more civilized that was than just saying "fail" and leaving it at that?

Yeah, it totally makes sense, but at the same time, most people don't use that sort of criteria when they judge music, from my experience. If those qualifications were universally used and understood, I would agree with you. But at the same time, unless you actually analyze the music you listen to (which most people don't), you're probably going to end up saying "I like ____ music because it's awesome and makes me feel happy/profound/insert-emotion-here." Which, of course, is not even remotely objective.

That's the problem. If you're going to run around saying that some music or artist is overrated or bad, you need to show a reason other than "I don't personally enjoy it." That's my whole point. I realize that most people don't think about art this way, so most people are making a mistake when they think their personal likes and dislikes count as legitimate art criticism.

Also, the fact that most musicians that one would consider overrated still do very, very well on that scale is a sign that it's very hard to be objective on a topic such as this one. In fact, I'm pretty much unable to come up with an overrated musician based on your scale, partially because I'd have to ignore the popularity and critical-adoration parts of it, and partially because, if the musician/band was so adored by critics as to be "overrated", they were probably influential, even if they sucked.

You just have to have some knowledge of music and the context in which the music you're judging was created. For instance, I once read a review of a jazz record that basically amounted to, "This is boring and it's not moving me so it sucks."

Well, of course you won't enjoy it if you don't listen to jazz. The reviewer had no background in jazz at all and no idea what to look for in a jazz record, so she judged it according to her personal tastes, which is pointless and nonsensical. A music review isn't about what you enjoy; it's about how the music compares to music created under similar conditions.

Example: The Sex Pistols. They were not a very good band in my opinion, because they were bad musicians (couldn't play their instruments at all), and their songs all sound like they took five minutes to write. However, since they were so hyped/adored, they were influential, and people were inspired by them. Also, to address the final criterion, their intent was to rock out, and that they did.

The Sex Pistols were probably more culturally than musically influential. I think other similar groups at the time did a much better job of the same style, so I'm not a big Pistols fan, but I do recognize their cultural significance, at least.

On a technical basis, yes, they sucked at their instruments, but that's not really the point. A lot of great artists had pretty poor technical understanding and still ended up making music that influenced and moved entire generations of musicians and listeners.

I'm derailing the thread a little... but I'm curious as to what musician/band you would list that fits all your criteria.

p.s.

There's absolutely a difference! I couldn't agree more. It bugs me when people do that.

The Beatles are a great example of a band that some people rip on without knowing wtf they're talking about. If you simply don't enjoy pop music, then fine--you have every right to dislike the Beatles. But if you think they were bad, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Jaguar]

Start a music critique blog, if it bothers you so much.

 

[simulatedworld]

Start a music critique blog, if it bothers you so much.

So rather than complaining about music critique on the internet, I should complain about music critique on the internet?

 

[Laurie]

Sim seems to be an expert in a lot of things with no room for other opinions. What an amazing man!

 

[highlander]

the most overrated band to me is pink floyd.. especially within the context of someone telling me how "deep" they are if you listen to the wall while watching fantasia or whatever along those lines.

they were kind of cool with syd barrett though.

Blasphemy. Pink Floyd was genius.

I don't know about being deep, but they were incredibly innovative.

 

[Jaguar]

So rather than complaining about music critique on the internet, I should complain about music critique on the internet?

As usual, you miss the point. This thread is not controlled by you, or anyone.
If you want some type of control, then go start a blog.
This is a forum thread where people can say whatever they wish, as long as they are not breaking some forum policy.
That means, they can say whatever they want about music without you moaning about proper critique methods.

Just because you don't like the underlying reasons people may have for their music choices, doesn't mean it's wrong.

I don't see anything wrong with someone commenting that a piece of music didn't move them.
I don't see anything wrong with someone commenting a poem, or painting didn't move them.
Art, in any form, has the ability to move people. (Except you, perhaps.)
You're so busy putting everything from people to music in little Ti boxes, it makes me wonder how the hell you enjoy anything in life.

Pink Floyd was genius.
I don't know about being deep, but they were incredibly innovative.

Innovative? Hell, yes. I also think Gilmour's voice was quite unique - haunting.

 

[MacGuffin]

I mostly agree with simulatedworld too.

I don't know crap about some areas of music (jazz, world music, rap) and so I don't feel I'm qualified to pass judgment on something in those areas other than noting if I liked something I heard.

 

[simulatedworld]

As usual, you miss the point. This thread is not controlled by you, or anyone.
If you want some type of control, then go start a blog.
This is a forum thread where people can say whatever they wish, as long as they are not breaking some forum policy.
That means, they can say whatever they want about music without you moaning about proper critique methods.

Just because you don't like the underlying reasons people may have for their music choices, doesn't mean it's wrong.

I don't see anything wrong with someone commenting that a piece of music didn't move them.
I don't see anything wrong with someone commenting a poem, or painting didn't move them.
Art, in any form, has the ability to move people. (Except you, perhaps.)
You're so busy putting everything from people to music in little Ti boxes, it makes me wonder how the hell you enjoy anything in life.

Your point is to inform me that people have the right to say what they want to?

Great, thanks for that update. I also have a right to tell them I think their opinions are stupid. I never suggested that people don't have a right to share their opinions--telling them I think their opinions are dumb or misplaced doesn't mean I support removing their right to express them. I don't know why you think exercising my equally valid right to shoot down their opinions implies that I believe they should be censored.

People who make that argument are typically out of intelligible things to say on the topic..."OMG IT'S MY OPINION AND I HAVE A RIGHT TO IT!!!!!11" usually translates to, "I don't have any real basis for saying this, but I'm pissed!"

Also, you really don't get Ti. Next.

Sim seems to be an expert in a lot of things with no room for other opinions. What an amazing man!

There's a difference between a legitimately informed, differing opinion, and an uninformed idiot mouthing off about something he doesn't know anything about.

Anyone who says the Beatles were bad falls into the latter category. When I have this sort of discussion with people on this forum, you'll notice that I'm open and courteous with people who actually know what they're talking about. If I'm self-righteously correcting you on a subject I've put a lot of study into, it's because you don't know enough about that subject to have a meaningful opinion on it, so I don't care to waste my time indulging your ignorance.

I don't know crap about some areas of music (jazz, world music, rap) and so I don't feel I'm qualified to pass judgment on something in those areas other than noting if I liked something I heard.

Smart man.

 

[Jaguar]

Sim's world of music.

 

[simulatedworld]

That's your comeback?

 

[Jaguar]

That's your comeback?

You once told me how much it pisses you off when you take the time to type out a post to me, and then I blow it off.

 

[EJCC]

Your point is to inform me that people have the right to say what they want to?

Great, thanks for that update. I also have a right to tell that I think their opinions are stupid. I never suggested that people don't have a right to share their opinions--telling them I think their opinions are dumb or misplaced doesn't mean I support removing their right to express them.

Interesting how these Jaguar/simulatedworld debates always go. It's the same every time, and nothing ever gets solved. I would comment on more of these statements, but there's really no point, and nothing good would come of it, so I'm not going to bother.

Also, I would try and address the OP, to compensate for all the thread derailing I've helped to do, but I've overthought the concept of judging good/bad music to the point that my head hurts every time I think about it.

I will say, though, that everyone has their own music-judging scale, and there is definitely emotion involved in what musical styles people like, so trying to rationally convince them that certain music is good when they hate it, or vice versa, is not going to work.

That's your comeback?

That's kind of how I felt about the "fail" post. But there you go. We all have our moments.

 

[simulatedworld]

You once told me how much it pisses you off when you take the time to type out a post to me, and then I blow it off.

I find that I become desensitized to that as your posts get increasingly lazy.

Interesting how these Jaguar/simulatedworld debates always go. It's the same every time, and nothing ever gets solved. I would comment on more of these statements, but there's really no point, and nothing good would come of it, so I'm not going to bother.

It usually goes something like this:

Sim: [a bunch of Ne and/or Ti and/or Fe crap]
Jag: [insistence that Ne/Ti/Fe is stupid]

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Also, I would try and address the OP, to compensate for all the thread derailing I've helped to do, but I've overthought the concept of judging good/bad music to the point that my head hurts every time I think about it.

I will say, though, that everyone has their own music-judging scale, and there is definitely emotion involved in what musical styles people like, so trying to rationally convince them that certain music is good when they hate it, or vice versa, is not going to work.

You just have to be able to separate the two. There's bad music that I like and great music that I dislike; the only thing that bothers me is when people think the two are the same thing.

That's kind of how I felt about the "fail" post. But there you go. We all have our moments.

Well, I guess you got me there.

 

[Jaguar]

Interesting how these Jaguar/simulatedworld debates always go.

Nothing new.

I find that I become desensitized to that as your posts get increasingly lazy.

Blah blah blah. Same bullshit as always.