Most critically overrated vs. most critically underrated

[Duella Dvil 10,183]

3 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 

Repeating the same old complaints over and over doesn't bother me, you should realise that by now. But what does bother me is how people actually like what you have to say. Liking a piece of bullying is low.

It's not ignorance, it's personal opinion. It's only mistaken for ignorance in the minds of music snobs. Music affects us all differently and that's the end of it. There wouldn't be terms like "overrated" and "underrated" if music was subjective.

She used to be bad live, she's awesome now. If she's performing for her fans especially, she really comes alive. She can do semi operatic notes and everything. I used to think the same as you but then I heard that she's better now and I went to see her live and was blown away.

 

Well, I'm glad she shaped up.

[Klou 2,365]

Metacritic

Honeymoon - 78/100

Ultraviolence - 74/100

 

Lana underrated? That to me comes across as a spoiled child complaining that they didn't get a new car for their bday. Just because she doesn't get Grammy noms doesn't mean she's underrated. Her last two albums are very well received critically.

[Deleted4234 388]

22 hours ago, Steve Nasty said:

Overrated: Beyonce (but not by too much - she is pretty great)

Underrated: Azealia Banks, Charli XCX, Allie X

Probably the MOST severely underrated artist in the industry right now. She's amazing

[Sister 9,907]

overrated :

The Beatles  I like a lot of their songs, but they really do not pull much interest from me besides certain records.

Green Day  I hate their music, all of it .

Radiohead  I like three songs.

Beyoncé  She owns the world but I feel indifferent about her and her music, it doesn't move me and isn't memorable.

Oasis  So dull, uninspired and boring, everything sounds the same and they only try to be their generations Beatles.

Coldplay  So lukewarm and dull, every song remains the same, shake it up boys!

Taylor Swift So plain and forgetful, childish, annoying and unoriginal. I like one song and video by her, Style.

U2  so paint by paint formula but some lyrics are fantastic through the years. Heard one song, heard them all.

Underrated:

Little Richard  He inspired ALL of the world's greatest, from Elvis to punk, pop and even rock and roll glam with Bowie, T Rex and the beginning of disco music favorites and he doesn't even get much love from his home town. For Shame

HIM  At least in North America this band is, give their catalog a listen from their beginnings to their latest and you'll agree.

I can't think of any others to truly add at the moment, only because a lot of artist who I have felt were at once underrated, have stopped doing their past greatest work and seem to have settled or became bored of any inspiration.

So, I would say in my opinion, most artists are placed about where they should be, critically.

examples:

Sonic Youth

Richard Ashcroft / The Verve

PJ Harvey

[GloZell Green 11,723]

Overrated:

Iggy Azalea, because I see nothing innovative or impressive about her. Yes she has a number one. That's it.

Even though I somewhat stan ha, Rihanna is. People praise her as an amazing artist but she can't really sing well and dance, she makes catchy music but now her popular songs have shallow lyrics. It's a shame that her better songs aren't released as singles or they flop.

Underrated: 

Shakira, probably because when she sticks to her roots it's in Spanish and the US doesn't play with it and if she sings in English she's accused of "Americanizing" her sound, whatever that means. 

[Goldfish 577]

please just dont go there with Joanna Newsom, i love her so much and she is severely underrated in a commerical sense but deserves the acclaim she gets from critics, her voice is just amazing and id rather listen to an interesting voice like hers over Beyonce's anyday 

[Harry 26,836]

5 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Because you act this way every time I state my opinion, just to bring me down. That is obsessive and petty and it's most certainly cyberbullying, if you want to be specific. Don't you ever understand how hurtful that is to think someone follows you about, just waiting to speak bad about you? I think I know a bit about bullying, thank you. I've been made to feel different my whole life and I think there's just something about me that just draws people to treat me badly before I've even said anything. So, think before you accuse me of trivialising the term of bullying. You know nothing about my past.

I didn't say I can't appreciate these artists talents, just that their actual output doesn't do anything for me. I think giving a good score on an album just because there's talent behind it is pointless. It means you won't remember what YOU like. When I look back at my reviews to select the best albums of the year, it's a hard job, especially when so many are rated the same. So, that 5 star scoring system based completely on what it does for me and me alone, is key in working out how to rank them and also key to compiling my favourite albums of all time list. If I just gave everything a good score because there was talent behind it, my scores would mean nothing. Music is about a personal experience and if it doesn't move me, a good score is meaningless. All that matters is what the individual thinks about an album, be they a qualified critic or Joe Public. Art wasn't designed to be liked by everyone and if everyone does like a particular piece of art, well, chances are, it's very boring and doesn't challenge. And why do you keep bringing up Demi just because I praised one album of hers? I don't even call myself a fan, but you focus right in on that like it defines me as someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about. You act like it's a crime to like something that may possibly be considered low brow. I'm not uneducated about music, I just have my own opinion. It's not the same thing. For someone who once accused me of being a music snob (ironic, I'm against pretentiousness), you sure come across like one yourself. I dismissed these artists praise because that's the whole point of calling someone overrated. This whole thread is about subjective taste, if you hadn't already gathered. What's the point in making a thread about something if all anyone does is question why you didn't make it about something else?

I didn't say The Beatles were only praised because people feel like they're supposed to, just that this is what it FEELS like at times. Like it or not, they've been drummed into us as being the best of the best and that's going to have an effect to some degree. That's what leads something to be overrated. And nothing annoys me more in music than when I think people are being forced into liking or disliking something by what the majority think. I never said they didn't have impact or influence, just that it hasn't impacted or influenced me. I critique music for the everyday person and from a purely personal view, like it should be done. I don't praise something just because there's talent behind it or it's made by a legend. Nor would I bash something just because they're not the biggest talent or they're not well-known or well-liked. That's what being fair's about. And seriously, happy learning? And you call me self-righteous and arrogant?

Take a look at this, it's about film, but the same can equally be applied for music. Pay special attention to the conclusion, as that perfectly sums up what I feel about critiquing something and what I think of art:

 

Oh boohoo, whatever.

& You don't appreciate them though… You make several very uneducated comments in the OP including a couple of times how you can’t see how people could possibly like them, or whatever. You described Bjork as “aural torture”.

Who said that people gave albums good scores just because there is talent behind it? Once again it’s just a case of you being unable to look beyond your bias and not realising that people may find value in a work that you don’t personally find value in. I don’t get why this is so difficult for you to grasp. And this thread isn’t about albums, it’s about artists.

I specifically stated several times in my post that subjective feelings about particular meaning have nothing to do with it, but obviously you chose to ignore it. Why do you purposely ignore my points and then write large chunks of nonsense? “Art wasn’t designed to be liked by everyone” “You act like it’s a crime to like something that may possibly be considered low brow” - I never ****ing said anything that would imply these things lol… Read, girl. Read. Some critic.

If your post was just about subjective taste you wouldn’t be saying things like: “always a band that thinks it’s saying something more than it is”, “making her voice deliberately bad”, “suspected her of paying for reviews”, “she was just in the right place at the right time”, “I think people praise them just because they think they’re supposed to”, “emotionless songs about girls WE (you are the authoritative voice for ‘we’ now?) don’t care about”, “genuinely dumfounded as to what people see”, “a country album is the most blandest time of your life”.

Those are not subjective statements, and many of them are asserting your opinion as higher than anyone else. It’s not the same as saying “I don’t like The Beatles”. You’d realise I also don’t, for the record, if you actually read my post.

Using the term “overrated” is disrespectful to artists who have worked hard, and in the case of several artists listed in your OP, have been incredibly influential and innovative. Just because you don’t like Adele it doesn’t mean her success is only explained by her being “in the right place at the right time”. Just because you don’t like Beyonce it doesn’t mean her success is only explained by her race. In my opinion 'overrated' is the laziest kind of word you could use to critically evaluate something. It means nothing except you don't like it when a lot of people do. Why don't you say something meaningful?

The point is you’re allowed to not be so fond of artists who are acclaimed, but you are a fool if you just take up a blissful ignorance against those who have made great contributions to art. You’re unable to separate subjectivity and objectivity when it comes to music, and that’s why I think you’re uneducated. Popular music critics are a mix of the two and that’s why people will never consistently agree with them. I’ve studied a lot of artists and composers throughout my education who I respect the hell out of, but you sure as hell wouldn’t catch me listening to them by choice…

If you just judged albums based on the content and not the people behind it, then your main critique of Lemonade wouldn't be that Beyonce worked with several producers now, would it?

The reason so many people have an issue with the way you present these opinions is that you not only say how you feel, but you also make up a reason that someone else enjoys an artist as it’s the only plausible excuse for you. Rather than accepting to believe the fact that they might simply just like it.

Side note: confused by your constant implications that critics shouldn't be trusted... You deem yourself to be a critic, no? So why should we listen to you?

You should listen to the guy in the video you posted. "The important thing is how well you share and communicate... That's what a good critic should do. Teach you how to communicate better. Not agree, but convey... Share your thoughts. Compare them. Don't let anyone say there's a right way or wrong way to enjoy things." You're incapable of simply letting people like the music they like. You feel obligated to write essays about why they actually like it rather than just listening and having a real conversation.

[StrawberryBlond 13,299]

5 hours ago, Gagaloth said:

Wow so many replies to an obvious troll OP 

 

 

tsss....

I am not a troll. This is all genuine and coming from an amateur critic.

5 hours ago, Swan Heart said:

Radiohead, Björk and Kendrick Lamar, overrated? Gurl, these are some of the most fascinating musical acts of our time..

Fascinating maybe. But to me, their music just isn't good enough and their voices don't appeal to me.

2 hours ago, Klou said:

Metacritic

Honeymoon - 78/100

Ultraviolence - 74/100

 

Lana underrated? That to me comes across as a spoiled child complaining that they didn't get a new car for their bday. Just because she doesn't get Grammy noms doesn't mean she's underrated. Her last two albums are very well received critically.

I know it was kinda close to the wire but she still struggles critically in other ways, especially when it comes to winning awards. And there's still a lot of critics who dislike her and call her a poser and that her dad bought her career for her and whatnot. That is where the biggest disrespect comes in and it annoys me greatly. If someone makes good music, I don't care where they come from or how they got to where they are. I'd rather an amazingly talented artist paid their way to the top than an untalented artist who got to the top based on luck and superficial factors.

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Oh boohoo, whatever.

& You don't appreciate them though… You make several very uneducated comments in the OP including a couple of times how you can’t see how people could possibly like them, or whatever. You described Bjork as “aural torture”.

Who said that people gave albums good scores just because there is talent behind it? Once again it’s just a case of you being unable to look beyond your bias and not realising that people may find value in a work that you don’t personally find value in. I don’t get why this is so difficult for you to grasp. And this thread isn’t about albums, it’s about artists.

I specifically stated several times in my post that subjective feelings about particular meaning have nothing to do with it, but obviously you chose to ignore it. Why do you purposely ignore my points and then write large chunks of nonsense? “Art wasn’t designed to be liked by everyone” “You act like it’s a crime to like something that may possibly be considered low brow” - I never ****ing said anything that would imply these things lol… Read, girl. Read. Some critic.

If your post was just about subjective taste you wouldn’t be saying things like: “always a band that thinks it’s saying something more than it is”, “making her voice deliberately bad”, “suspected her of paying for reviews”, “she was just in the right place at the right time”, “I think people praise them just because they think they’re supposed to”, “emotionless songs about girls WE (you are the authoritative voice for ‘we’ now?) don’t care about”, “genuinely dumfounded as to what people see”, “a country album is the most blandest time of your life”.

Those are not subjective statements, and many of them are asserting your opinion as higher than anyone else. It’s not the same as saying “I don’t like The Beatles”. You’d realise I also don’t, for the record, if you actually read my post.

Using the term “overrated” is disrespectful to artists who have worked hard, and in the case of several artists listed in your OP, have been incredibly influential and innovative. Just because you don’t like Adele it doesn’t mean her success is only explained by her being “in the right place at the right time”. Just because you don’t like Beyonce it doesn’t mean her success is only explained by her race. In my opinion 'overrated' is the laziest kind of word you could use to critically evaluate something. It means nothing except you don't like it when a lot of people do. Why don't you say something meaningful?

The point is you’re allowed to not be so fond of artists who are acclaimed, but you are a fool if you just take up a blissful ignorance against those who have made great contributions to art. You’re unable to separate subjectivity and objectivity when it comes to music, and that’s why I think you’re uneducated. Popular music critics are a mix of the two and that’s why people will never consistently agree with them. I’ve studied a lot of artists and composers throughout my education who I respect the hell out of, but you sure as hell wouldn’t catch me listening to them by choice…

If you just judged albums based on the content and not the people behind it, then your main critique of Lemonade wouldn't be that Beyonce worked with several producers now, would it?

The reason so many people have an issue with the way you present these opinions is that you not only say how you feel, but you also make up a reason that someone else enjoys an artist as it’s the only plausible excuse for you. Rather than accepting to believe the fact that they might simply just like it.

Side note: confused by your constant implications that critics shouldn't be trusted... You deem yourself to be a critic, no? So why should we listen to you?

You should listen to the guy in the video you posted. "The important thing is how well you share and communicate... That's what a good critic should do. Teach you how to communicate better. Not agree, but convey... Share your thoughts. Compare them. Don't let anyone say there's a right way or wrong way to enjoy things." You're incapable of simply letting people like the music they like. You feel obligated to write essays about why they actually like it rather than just listening and having a real conversation.

Saying I don't know why someone can't like them isn't uneducated, it's just a subjective opinion. We've all said this at some point or another, it's not a crime. Yes, I described Bjork as aural torture...to me. A lot of people don't like her voice and understandably so. I've even heard her fans say her voice is very polarising. If you're very sensitive to sound, her voice can hit all the wrong places. You can't help the way your ear is attuned. Almost everything I wrote is subjective. I've repeated that over and over again. I'm not going to write "this is just my opinion," after every sentence. Surely it's taken as a given now?

But you just said that critics can appreciate the talent these artists have, which suggests that you think that's what they base their scores on. By "appreciate," what do you mean? Because it sounded like you were saying: "You must give them good marks for being talented even if they music they're making with that talent isn't good."

I ignored what you said because this thread was designed to be subjective and you started going on about objective things and like I was speaking objectively, which I wasn't. I did read what you said and you said that someone who praises Demi as a good artist can't be very educated about music. That sounds like: "You can't like something that could possibly be considered low brow and still be credible." That's exactly what you meant.

You can be subjective and say all those things. I'm a very passionate person and I take music very seriously and thus, my opinions can come out very aggressively and polarising at times. I'm not trying to state my opinion as higher than everyone else's, this is just how I get my frustration out because I sure as hell can't talk about it to anyone offline. Everyone else can do it and not get picked apart for it, why can't I? And I never said you were a Beatles fan, look back at what I said. No such thing. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Using the term "overrated" in an internet forum means nothing, it's not like the artist can see it. It's a term that we use if we're human, give me a break. I don't care how influential or innovative they've been, this is just about judging what their music does for me as an individual. By the way, I'm not the first to say Adele's success came from her coming along at the right time - even critics have noted how she provided a welcome respite from the avalanche of dance music at the time and it caused us to fall in love with her. Sounds like good timing to me. if she'd released her albums back in the 90's when her style was all the rage, she wouldn't have stood out. And I never said anything about Beyonce's race in this thread and I told you I dropped that theory anyway. There you go again, making untrue statements about me to make me look bad. I use the term "overrated" because I'm on a forum and people don't like when it gets too fancy talk. I keep things real so people can understand me better and want to join in. It's not a lazy term, it's an understandable term that makes people want to put forward opinions. Maybe what I say isn't meaningful to you but it sure is to me. I could go into a long essay about why I don't like each artist but then you'd accuse me of writing an essay. So, I keep things short and sweet in a nutshell and you say I'm not being meaningful enough. I just can't win.

I didn't say I took up a blissful ignorance towards these artists contributions to art. I just said these contributions don't do it for me. I'm doing like you said, being not so fond of artists who are acclaimed, which you said I can do. So what's the problem? I can speak subjectively and objectively about music, you just haven't seen it. Plus, when you try to be objective, no one's interested because as I said previously, it gets into fancy talk and those who aren't interested in taking a deeper look at music won't be interested. I would love to talk to someone about music but most people in real life don't because they don't listen to all the albums I do and don't have extensive knowledge of multiple artists. So, I take it online. I do partly base my judgements on objectivity - bad production, bad vocals, etc. but subjectivity will still take up about 75%. And yes, I do respect artists I don't listen to but that doesn't mean I can't harshly critique the music they make. They chose to put themselves out there to be judged. No one gets a free pass.

The only reason I picked up on the multiple producers aspect of Lemonade is because it hits you square in the eyes when you look at the tracklist. When you hear it, you realise it's Beyonce's most experimental work yet and seeing as she has all these writers, she alone cannot be given full credit for this new direction. I say that to any artist who gets most of their work written for them. I praise the writers more than the singer. You're only seeing me doing this to Beyonce because less and less singers are relying on writing camps these days and she's one of the few who still do, so it looks like I'm just bashing her. I took the same line with Rita Ora's and Cheryl Cole's heavily ghostwritten albums, no fear. And my main critique of the album wasn't its number of writers, it's that half of it just wasn't good enough.

I don't make up these reasons why someone might like them, I base it on research. That doesn't mean it's the only plausible excuse, it's always just one of many. Don't tell me you've never done it. I've accepted people's love for something many times. It's just I see something so blatant (to me, anyway) at times that I just feel like commenting on it.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Critics shouldn't be trusted, not even me. They're just a guideline, a heads-up. "Here's what the music aficianados think...make of this what you will." It's nothing deeper than that. After all, just like the public, I see no reason why critics can't be emotionally swayed or carried away by hype and end up regretting positive or negative reviews over time. They're just as human as anyone else and they're not better. They've just listened to more than the average person, that's all. It's like Anton Ego says in Ratatoullie: "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and ourselves to our judgement. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something. And that is in the discovery and defence of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends." It's this quote that actually got me seriously onto the idea of being a critic. If I had an office, this would be in a framed notice on the wall.

I am not incapable of letting people like the music they like. I am all up for discussing, sharing, communicating with others about musical tastes (why else would I send you the video?). It's just not everyone wants to do it. I have always maintained that there is no right and wrong way to enjoy something. Everyone is entitled to like what they like. I offer up my criticism in the hopes that people will tell me why this artist means so much to them in comparison. But no one ever does. Maybe if they did and we had a proper discussion, they'd see that I'm not an uneducated music snob who doesn't know what I'm talking about. Audio is my whole life. I care about it deeply. I want to share my thoughts on it, even if those thoughts aren't always so kind. The world would be a boring place if we all thought the same or just went about our lives, never commenting on people's tastes and motivations. Those things fascinate me. I want to discuss this. So, it pains me when I'm just accused of stirring things up and being hateful.

[JDi 1,495]

this is subjective and I don't even mean that kind of subjective. there's just too many ways you could look at it.

David Bowie, for instance, is heavily praised as an innovator and for his influence, but I still think he's the most underrated human being of all time. when his fans say he's a God, they aren't simply exaggerating/idolizing him. there's people who actually think he's a celestial being. and I honestly think everyone hesitating to agree he's the greatest artist of all time is in denial about what actually turns them off about him and it's all likely rooted in unconscious envy/inferiority complex.

so, as you can see, if we were to honestly share our convictions the way I did we would sound pretentious af and if we tried being more constructively critical in our reasoning like the op we would still fail and come off as ignorant and biased.

it's pointless, really. but yeah, Beyoncé is hella overrated.

[JGD 11,753]

I used to think Beyoncé was overrated, but after seeing her live on tour on Thursday, I finally understood why people love her so much.

To be honest, I don't get all the dislike she gets on this site.  Jealous gays I guess.

[Xaylan 1,326]

Lana is extremely overrated. 

Taylor Swift would be overrated, but the amount of hate she gets put her at soso. She can sing and she can write great songs. 

I think Charli XCX is extremely underrated. A lot of people didn't even know Charli had EPs and Mixtapes out. 

 

Demi is extremely underrated. Her vocal skills are so incredible and her music is amazing. She gets so much hate for nothing. 

[Quartz 11,923]

Kanye, Bieber and ANTi Rihanna are sooo overrated

[Reality 65,760]

The Beatles, overrated? They certainly are popular, but I think they're for all the right reasons. They've revolutionized the music industry and have made huge names for themselves, I mean, John, Paul, Ringo, and George were/are all wonderful musicians, I don't think they're overrated. 

But, to answer the O.P: 

overrated: Taylor; Bieber

underrated: Pink; Pentatonix

[teo 609]

I'm not a fan of The Beatles but you guys are ridiculous to call them overrated.Just google the many ways they revolutionized music and especially pop music and culture. The fact that they broke up like 50 years ago and still have an impact should be enough. Also it's really pointless to compare them to your current favorite stars. I know that their young fans are often annoying and pretentious, but that should in no way change your opinion on their legacy.
 

[Didymus 32,765]

The Björk comments sure are spectacular proof of your willful delusion.