Originally posted by m.leland: Agreed, although I'll admit her successors, such as PJ Harvey, have been more consistent. Patti was hit-or-miss.
That is true, and also, thinking about it more, she has a huge catalog and I can't really name another album that would be considered "classic," while i think every PJ Harvey album is a classic to some people.
I mean you have a group of people saying that this band is overated while some other group of people are saying the same band is underated.
Doesn't that seem just a little idiotic to you?
I mean, I would say Beck is underated if anything simply due to his originality and sheer talent, while some other person says he's overated based on who knows what? So what does that accomplish? Nothing.
I'd say Nirvana is underated as well because I don't think people appreciate what they did for music. And then along will come some other guy to say they are overated because they became so popular and are still seen as semi-legendary.
So who's right, who's wrong...and does it even matter? Your criteria for calling someone overated or underated may be totally different than mine. And in reality I think this thread is a kin to telling someone that their taste in music is no good.
I mean, is Radiohead overated because they are a phenomenal band that millions adore? Are you calling them overated because so many people happen to love them?
Because to me, calling a band overated is like saying I shouldn't like them so much, just because so many other people like them intensely as well.
Well maybe they deserve that widespead praise...and even if they don't you have no basis for proving otherwise.
Call it whatever you want, but it's a place for people to voice their opinions and respectfully debate those who have an opposite opinion. It's not idiotic. The problem is, without justification of why an artist is over/underrated, it turns into more of a thread that mirrors RavingL's description.
I'm not sure the point of message boards is to come to a clear cut decision and move on. Actually, have you ever seen that in a thread? Where someone says something that shuts everyone else up with its correctness? I found this thread really interesting, reading about bands people think are over or underrated that i would have never guessed. It is kind of annoying though, when a band is labeled over rated simply because they're loved by a lot of people. I was flipping through a magazine that had an overated list, and it listed Elvis, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. Saying something is overated to be original or "against the mainstream." Is so ridiculous. As i was flipping through it, i was just waiting to see them ever so cooly list every band that anyone thought had an important influence on music, and sure enough, i was right.
The only thing I would point out about this thread, is that it's somewhat silly to refer to an artist as underrated when they're fairly well known, well-liked, and critically acclaimed. So saying Beck or Nirvana or Kanye West are underrated is a tough case to sell. If anything, they're correctly rated. Underrated would be an artist who has been consistantly great and isn't that well known, and isn't mentioned a lot. Like if I were to say Mission of Burma or Kitchens of Distinction are underrated, I may have a case.
----- People claim I'm possessed by the devil, but mama, I know I'm possessed by your daughter.
Originally posted by ericg75: The only thing I would point out about this thread, is that it's somewhat silly to refer to an artist as underrated when they're fairly well known, well-liked, and critically acclaimed. So saying Beck or Nirvana or Kanye West are underrated is a tough case to sell. If anything, they're correctly rated. Underrated would be an artist who has been consistantly great and isn't that well known, and isn't mentioned a lot. Like if I were to say Mission of Burma or Kitchens of Distinction are underrated, I may have a case.
I can go along with that reasoning. I guess what I meant is if you're going to call Beck or Nirvana underrated, you better be able to justify it since like you said, that's a pretty tough sell. But conversely, if you want to call them overrated, you better have more than just that they're popular.
Perhaps Nirvana is under-appreciated. Perhaps I think that they shaped music in a way that very few bands ever have or will and therefore deserve more praise than they receive. You may not agree.
So what's the point of this thread? For me to say Nirvana deserve they're praise and for you to say they're overated? Wow, that's intelligent.
And a lot of people have just posted lists of who's overated and underated with no support for their post...that's even more pointless.
I usually have a great time surfing the boards here and occasionally i'll post, but this thread just strikes me as...spinning your wheels and, did I mention pointless?
It's one thing to start a thread and debate certain albums and their worth, but it's another to start a thread for the purpose of having everyone throw all the same bands into two stupid categories(overated, underated). Since when did critiqueing music become such a narrow-minded endeavor?
Originally posted by hudson: Since when did critiqueing music become such a narrow-minded endeavor?
It's not. This is one thread among hundreds on MC where you can critique and discuss music. It just happens to be a narrowly focused and perhaps futile one.
Originally posted by hudson: Perhaps Nirvana is under-appreciated. Perhaps I think that they shaped music in a way that very few bands ever have or will and therefore deserve more praise than they receive. You may not agree.
So what's the point of this thread? For me to say Nirvana deserve they're praise and for you to say they're overated? Wow, that's intelligent.
And a lot of people have just posted lists of who's overated and underated with no support for their post...that's even more pointless.
I usually have a great time surfing the boards here and occasionally i'll post, but this thread just strikes me as...spinning your wheels and, did I mention pointless?
It's one thing to start a thread and debate certain albums and their worth, but it's another to start a thread for the purpose of having everyone throw all the same bands into two stupid categories(overated, underated). Since when did critiqueing music become such a narrow-minded endeavor?
The category is "General Music Discussion" which implies that you can discuss general things about music. That means you can discuss things such as underrated bands, bad albums, or even the size of Fergie's humps. While discussing these topics, you can learn helpful things such as how to spell overrated, underrated, and critiquing, and also how to differentiate between there, their, and they're. All these things will make you a better person and a well rounded member of your community. Having said that, I don't think this is entirely pointless. Then again, I believe that people who take time to inform people that they're spinning their wheels are also spinning their own wheels. I just call it good ole fashioned discussion.
I also would like to update an earlier post. RavingLunatic was right. Nick Drake is not underrated after all. It turns out that his music simply doesn't get around much where I live. I should have posted it in the "Artists Who Have Music Which is Rated Just Fine but Doesn't Get Around Much" forum. I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong. (Let the healing begin.)
If someone posts something that you think is useless, then ignore it. Ignore the whole thread if you want. Yeah this thread isn't the best but it has given me a couple things to think about. The height of spinning one's wheels is meta-discussion, that is, talking about what we should be talking about.
You're welcome to start that thread of course. I won't care.
it's somewhat silly to refer to an artist as underrated when they're fairly well known, well-liked, and critically acclaimed. So saying Beck or Nirvana or Kanye West are underrated is a tough case to sell. If anything, they're correctly rated.
I think this all depends on your definition of "rated." One could conceivably argue that Beck or Nirvana (or whoever) are underrated because of how popular they are, i.e., many people just reflexively assume that they've been blown out of proportion and so their music isn't actually that valuable, or even worth listening to. There are those out there who are so careful to be seen (or heard) listening to only that music considered "indie" by the the all-powerful critic in sky, they wouldn't be caught dead listening to something like beck or nirvana (again, or whoever), because it's too mainstream.
I think that the very movement into mainstream that could make an artist become "overrated," could simultaneously make them become "underrated."
Originally posted by jorgethemolar: I think this all depends on your definition of "rated." One could conceivably argue that Beck or Nirvana (or whoever) are underrated because of how popular they are, i.e., many people just reflexively assume that they've been blown out of proportion and so their music isn't actually that valuable, or even worth listening to. There are those out there who are so careful to be seen (or heard) listening to only that music considered "indie" by the the all-powerful critic in sky, they wouldn't be caught dead listening to something like beck or nirvana (again, or whoever), because it's too mainstream.
But then you're getting into whether an artist is overrated by specific people, not in general. In the general music world, Beck and Nirvana get all the kudos they deserve. Yeah, there's some people out there who think Beck and Nirvana suck, but by that logic, anything could be overrated or underrated-- it depends on who's doing the rating.
Example: The Beatles probably get more praise than any other band in music history. There's no way I could say the Beatles are underrated, even though there are probably a few people out there who absolutely hate the Beatles.
----- People claim I'm possessed by the devil, but mama, I know I'm possessed by your daughter.
Originally posted by dubs: If someone posts something that you think is useless, then ignore it. Ignore the whole thread if you want. Yeah this thread isn't the best but it has given me a couple things to think about. The height of spinning one's wheels is meta-discussion, that is, talking about what we should be talking about.
You're welcome to start that thread of course. I won't care.
That's my feeling. I don't think this thread is a particularly productive one, but I have no problem with its existence. Those spam threads, on the other hand...
-------------------------------------------------- Anatomy to me is a homesick stomach and a broken heart
Originally posted by ericg75: Yeah, there's some people out there who think Beck and Nirvana suck, but by that logic, anything could be overrated or underrated-- it depends on who's doing the rating.
Right, that was pretty much my point about these "who's over-rated and who's underated" threads. So who's qualified to say which band truly is under or overated? Is everyone qualified? If so, what's the point of two people saying that the same band is both underated and overated simply for the sake of saying it? It accomplishes nothing really, imho.
Or should we change the focus of the thread to why I'm qualified to call Nirvana underated and you're not? So then it becomes a pissing contest.
Bottomline, I think it's better to start a thread and discuss the merits or lack thereof of certain bands rather than just throw out some subjective, absolute opinion as to which band is over or under rated.
Musical critiquieing(sp.) can be an objective thing. Sufjan rules, Matchbox 20 sucks. I could discuss and explain why this is true. That's musical critique.
Um, guys... IT'S A FUCKING MESSAGE BOARD. The only thing more useless than talking about trivial things on a messageboard is arguing about the virtues of TALKING ABOUT TRIVIAL THINGS ON A MESSAGEBOARD.
Wow.
You know its ok to hold a certain amount of detachment to what you say on here. It's not that important.
Originally posted by Yay!: Um, guys... IT'S A FUCKING MESSAGE BOARD.
Stating the obvious might be the most useless thing of them all. LOL. j/k
Yay, we're just having a little fun man. It's all good. I've noticed a few "overated/underated" threads pop up lately so I thought I'd revive this one. No biggie.
I have a job and life outside metacritic, you don't have to remind me that it's all trivial when it boils down to it.
Seemed like you dudes were really throwing down. I was concerned. Had to regulate.
Maybe the joke paralleling the Special Olympics to online arguments (about how no matter who wins, you're still retarded) would've been a better demonstration of how I felt at that moment?
