quote:

Originally posted by erikjoplin:
I have to agree. Here are some totally overhyped:

1)Animal Collective: These guys border on being noise. Don't get it at all.

What's wrong with noise? Esp. since Animal Collective's noise is some of the least jumbled, most cohesive noise I've hear.. that's why they're talked about outside of the "avant-garde" thread, I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
I don't think Radiohead is that popular among non-music geeks. I don't think the average Joe is aware that they had any success after "Creep".

Seriously. Maybe it's where I live, but it seems like most people's idea of a hot indie band is the Plain White T's.

I agree with this. Depends a little on where you live, I think. Radiohead gets radio play in Europe, so they're more mainstream than here (US of A). My friends who aren't musicheads have heard of Radiohead but have no idea what they sound like.

I go to school with a guy that looks just like Thom Yorke, and I mentioned this to him one day. He was like, "What are you talking about? What's Radiohead? Oh, you mean that band or something?". It's strange to think that there isn't a large portion of the population that knows who they are, or could identify them a crowd.

I'd probably put Kanye's "graduation" up there with over-hyped album of the year. It's good, but it's not that friggin' good.

im gonna admit it.. i haven't listened to most of the 'hyped' albums of the year (of montreal, arcade fire etc). i don't really have a reasoning behind it.. other than it ain't as good as everyone is making it out to be. The best music out there requires searching. If it's laying out in front of me, ripe for the picking then im probably not going to give it a try.

Sometimes i don't even understand myself.

I know what you are saying, in a way GG, but five to ten years ago the bands you listed would have been Very hard to find. I think you would feel better if you loosened up a little bit.

Imagine for a moment that the internet doesn't exist. How over hyped do you think Of Montreal would be? Where would you have heard about Arcade Fire? These are still very obscure bands for the most part.

I hope you have given The National's Boxer a fair ten spins.

over-hyped.....The Shins is a good listen, but boring on repeats

I was going to add MIA, because I have Arular and it was over-hyped, then checked Kala out last month and it is a strong album!!

Radiohead's decently well-known in my part of the States. Sure, only "Creep" gets played often, but one of the local stations does make sure to play whatever new songs are making their way out (I remember "Optimistic" and "There There" on the radio) and the concert at Atlanta was a sell-out crowd at the biggest possible venue.

quote:

Originally posted by Shadrach:
I know what you are saying, in a way GG, but five to ten years ago the bands you listed would have been Very hard to find. I think you would feel better if you loosened up a little bit.

Wait, what does 5-10 years ago have to do with today?

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Shadrach:
I know what you are saying, in a way GG, but five to ten years ago the bands you listed would have been Very hard to find. I think you would feel better if you loosened up a little bit.

Wait, what does 5-10 years ago have to do with today?

Right. That was confusing.

What I'm saying is, because we have the internet and this instant connection and communication even really obscure bands that are on really small record labels and have never even gone on tour can be highly talked about and hyped. If these bands had come out before the internet, or before the internet was the go-to source for information that it is today no one would have heard of them. If, for instance, Random Spirit Lover was recorded in 1995 it would most likely have only been heard by a relatively small group of people in Canada.

Now, that small group of canadians can get on the internet and write on a blog about how awesome it is. People can read it and actually download some of the songs, and the "hype" can spread. there are definitely some really good bands out there that no one is talking about, but I think it's silly for us to discredit groups that are popular simply because they are "hyped" on the internet.

I'm not challenging anyone's point of view, and I hope GG knows I respect his approach. However you enjoy the artform of music, don't let anyone change it. That's my philosophy, or course. Just consider where your point of view is coming from.

While I do tend to like a lot of really obscure stuff, I pretty much agree with you, Shadrach. As long as the hype is a result of enthusiastic fans and honest reviews and not the result of an advertising campaign or major-label promotional push, it's fairly harmless. Certainly bands like Of Montreal and Sunset Rubdown are not all that popular in the world at large.

Exactly. Advertising campaigns and powerful review rachets are looseing their power (Pitchfork not included) now that people have the open communication provided by the internet. I think the modern "hype" machine is a lot more accurate and less money driven than it was in years past. Talent is really starting to get the recognition it deserves. Someone can sit down and record a great song and put it on the internet that very evening. If someone hears it and it's good they will share it with their friends. It can become huge in a week and a half. If it's garbage, people will shrug their shoulders and move on.

I would have to say that so far the most hyped album of 2007 was The Field - From Here We Go Sublime . . .

Or maybe I just don't get it.

Nicely put, Shadrach. I agree with you and RL, in large measure. "The internets" have gone a long way toward democratizing the process. You don't need an A&R guy telling some suit what the next big thing is going to be, and Columbia selling it to the kids, who will buy it because its the only product available to them. I think Radiohead's "In Rainbows" proved that.

I'm more concerned about "hype/backlash." When more people hear a work, or if a particular publication champions a work, there seems to be an inevitable backlash. And, of course, hating a work because people or certain publications, like it, is own form of anti-hype.

I think that the discovery-hype-backlash-hate-rediscovery cycle is speeding up, too. Soon we can do all of the above in just a few days!

Even (or should I say, especially), surgeons?!?

I think it was Bjork. "Volta" was definitely hyped and I was definitely disappointed. It must be about her 7th best album. Even the packaging sucks--it opens in the middle and only that paper sticker holds it closed, plus at least in my copy it's extremely difficult to get the booklet out of the pouch.

Björk is kinda special for me. I like most of her albums enough to listen to them occasionally, but, as far as I'm concerned, she has ONE brilliant album, homogenic. That's a 10, plain and simple, and I find it difficult to believe that more than about 2% of this board would disagree with me about that.

I'm going to make a bold statement here: virtually nothing you read about on Metacritic is over-hyped!!

Like Shadrack and RL have stated more eloquently than I could, hype is something that is generated by large record labels and media conglomerates, and not by reviews and internet message boards. American Idol and Brittany Spears are over-hyped. An indie band, that no one but a select few has heard of, who receives positive record reviews and some buzz on the internet is not over-hyped.

Many, many people like Person Pitch and it will show up on a great many top 10 lists. It has received plenty of good and great reviews. I don't happen to like Person Pitch. But, just because I don't like it does not mean that it is over-rated. It just means that I don't like it.

I've said this before in the numerous threads we have about who is over-rated. Just because someone does not like an album that has received positive reviews and some internet buzz does not mean that the album is over-rated or over-hyped.

quote:

Originally posted by The Fall of Troy:
I'm going to make a bold statement here: virtually nothing you read about on Metacritic is over-hyped!!

Like Shadrack and RL have stated more eloquently than I could, hype is something that is generated by large record labels and media conglomerates, and not by reviews and internet message boards. American Idol and Brittany Spears are over-hyped. An indie band, that no one but a select few has heard of, who receives positive record reviews and some buzz on the internet is not over-hyped.

Many, many people like Person Pitch and it will show up on a great many top 10 lists. It has received plenty of good and great reviews. I don't happen to like Person Pitch. But, just because I don't like it does not mean that it is over-rated. It just means that I don't like it.

I've said this before in the numerous threads we have about who is over-rated. Just because someone does not like an album that has received positive reviews and some internet buzz does not mean that the album is over-rated or over-hyped.

I think hype can be relative to the genre. There's certainly indie hype. I mean, bands like Radiohead, Arcade fire, Deathcab, Sufjan, Decemberists, My morning jacket etc have been the target of immense indie hype.

I do think that indie hype tends to be more justifiably placed than pop hype. Meaning that, an indie band surrounded by hype probably deserves it more often than a pop band that receives a lot of hype. That's where the corporate publicist come in.

I'm not sure that "I don't like it" is the best phrase, although I'm certainly not backing down froim that opinion. My main comment would be that there is far too much other stuff to get hung up on Person Pitch. I realize that won't change anyone's opinion, and I'm not trying to change yours, unless you're one of those who have Andrew Bird at #50-70. That is just plain disrespectful AND ignorant.