Most critically overrated vs. most critically underrated

[Harry 26,836]

9 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

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

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

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.

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.

So you think GGD members are not smart enough to understand your "fancy talk" so you dumb it down for them? And you really can't see why people think you look down on others...

But fair enough. You make some good points. But I still don't think you're very knowledgeable musically. I'll say it for possibly the millionth time in hopes that it will get into your head: I'm not talking about whether you personally enjoy it or not. But saying, for example, that Bjork sings badly "deliberately" is not subjective and it comes across like you're saying it factually. How would you know that was her intention? She just has unorthodox methods - that goes for her songwriting and production, too. Of course it's polarising. But no, to you it's just her thinking "she has to weirdify the hell out of it". How on earth do you know her process? What about just accepting and celebrating the fact that some people are different instead of making ridiculous accusations because it's not your cup of tea? If she made "normal" music as you suggest she should, you'd accuse her of being too basic.

That's just one example. You're incapable of genuinely critically analyising music, and your opinion is the only one worth anything in your eyes. You always have reasons to explain good reviews that you disagree with, instead of actually countering those reviews with a well researched response. I've never seen you give any kind of review or opinion on here where you refer to specific musical elements, you just use sweeping statements like "bad production" when you clearly have limited knowledge/experience in music production. That's implying that someone has done a bad job, when actually you just mean it's not your cup of tea. It's lazy. You don't give credit where credit is due. Not to mention your bias comes into play far too often.

You say you want "proper discussions" but you don't allow that yourself.

[Fiona Apple 13,006]

Lana Del Rey got 79 with Honeymoon.And it honestly wasn't good enough for that score

[Snow 1,582]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

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

Amen! This and some other remarks on The OP truly reveal The amout one knows about music, musicality, songwriting, talent etc. Totally ignorant. -_- 

I find this topic a bit offensive actually. Its perfectly fine to not like or prefer certain artists or their work, but its insulting to Try to mask opinion as critizism and even more by using term like overrated. Like Björk for instance has sure deserved ALL the acclaim for her talents, whether you like her personally. Same goes to Radiohead abd others. And The OP insist on making these sly remarks that are just so uneducated. And yes, tells ALL, you are an amateur "critic"

This thread should be called "which artists I don't like" full stop. Thats what this is about.

[Versace 7,973]

Sia is so underrated critically 

a Metascore of 76 for 1000 Forms of Fear and a 67 for This Is Acting

that's just cold, considering she's one of the best writers ever nowadays and writes all of her songs, add to that the fact that she has her own distinct sound that no one has vocally and sonically

[OmgSum1Actually 3,041]

9 minutes ago, Versace said:

Sia is so underrated critically 

a Metascore of 76 for 1000 Forms of Fear and a 67 for This Is Acting

that's just cold, considering she's one of the best writers ever nowadays and writes all of her songs, add to that the fact that she has her own distinct sound that no one has vocally and sonically

If a song is fun it doesn't mean lyrics are good.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

I can stand everyone on your list but Kendrick; hes not overrated; his flow, his VERSES, his ability to replicate live, his creative vision, social awareness, commentary; he's a real MC, one of the best  we have mainstream and his album getting snubbed for AOTY was an injustice. Whether you like him or not, he's entirely deserving of his praise, which is the definition of not overrated  Unless you'd like to extrapolate the traits that people find appealing to him subjectively as 'not worth being valued' in which case you would be arguing against traits that are intertwined with music in general, not to mention rap as an art form  

As for me, I think Adele is overrated. She has good lyrics and a beautiful voice, but I like vocal diversity and maybe im petty but I don't enjoy her range. The tessitura is basically mid-low all of the time  She has good songs, but she is in my opinion not a "great" in terms of the vast history of famous singer-songwriters. Great personality though  

I would say Carly Rae Jepsen is underrated, but her album was a critical darling (for the RIGHT REASONS!) and the internet (thanks to the gays~) finally caught wind of it, people of all ages enjoyed and enjoy EMOTION because its a genuinely well made, effective record. So in that light, im gonna have to go with FKA Twigs  

[Versace 7,973]

3 hours ago, OmgSum1Actually said:

If a song is fun it doesn't mean lyrics are good.

I didn't say that 

what is fun ? 

what are you talking about ?

Nvm I rather not know 

[froot 659]

Underrated in the 2000s is Madonna tbh, like this generation literally doesn't realise what she did for music, it's so pathetic

[Thomas P 18,479]

You best take Beyoncé off the list! I also strongly disagree with the fact that Kendrick made it in that list

[Harry 26,836]

4 minutes ago, froot said:

Underrated in the 2000s is Madonna tbh, like this generation literally doesn't realise what she did for music, it's so pathetic

I really agree with this. She's sorta just seen as a joke nowadays and it's really sad. I feel like people won't recognise all she has done until she dies

[CakeLikeLG 6,275]

very overrated: Beyonce, Adele

still underrated: Gaga 

[StrawberryBlond 14,873]

15 hours ago, JGD said:

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.

As I said, I think she's a good performer, but that alone couldn't possibly make me like her music. A good performance doesn't mean much if the song being performed is terrible. Performing abilities are all very well but music is the #1 priority for me, so if it's not there, I can't fully support the artist. Trust me, the hate she gets is nothing to do with "jealous gays." I'm a straight female who can't stand Beyonce as a person and am very neutral towards her as an artist and it's nothing to do with jealousy. Believe it or not, sometimes we just don't like the music or the attitude.

14 hours ago, hellothing said:

Kanye, Bieber and ANTi Rihanna are sooo overrated

Sorta agree. Kanye in the early days was ok, he hit his stride with My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy and Yeezus, but I feel he's truly lost his way now and The Life Of Pablo was the first album of his I didn't like, yet the critics rave about it as usual. Justin was panned in the past but yeah, his new work is overrated. And yeah, Anti is sometimes praised as being something more than it is too just because it's something different to previous Rihanna albums and she played a part in the writing of all the songs. Experimental by Rihanna's standards, not so by general standards.

14 hours ago, M Monstre said:

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. 

It's nothing to do about revolutionising the industry or how talented they are. The thread's about which artists you think get too much or too little praise according to your personal tastes.

14 hours ago, teo said:

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.

Look at the reply I said above. I think some people are missing the point of this thread. And I'm not comparing them to my current favourites, I'm just listing whoever I think gets too much or too little praise, regardless of when they started their career. I think this only extends my reasoning that they are overrated because dare to say they're not all that and hellfire rains upon you. That's the definition of overratedness - thinking something is immune to criticism.

6 hours ago, Didymus said:

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

This is what I'm talking about when I once said that Bjork fans were hard to deal with. The ones I've experienced like to think anyone who doesn't like Bjork's music is an uncultured cretin. We just have different ears that attune to different things. No form of music is greater than another. Alternative doesn't have to automatically mean good. Get over it.

6 hours ago, Harry said:

So you think GGD members are not smart enough to understand your "fancy talk" so you dumb it down for them? And you really can't see why people think you look down on others...

But fair enough. You make some good points. But I still don't think you're very knowledgeable musically. I'll say it for possibly the millionth time in hopes that it will get into your head: I'm not talking about whether you personally enjoy it or not. But saying, for example, that Bjork sings badly "deliberately" is not subjective and it comes across like you're saying it factually. How would you know that was her intention? She just has unorthodox methods - that goes for her songwriting and production, too. Of course it's polarising. But no, to you it's just her thinking "she has to weirdify the hell out of it". How on earth do you know her process? What about just accepting and celebrating the fact that some people are different instead of making ridiculous accusations because it's not your cup of tea? If she made "normal" music as you suggest she should, you'd accuse her of being too basic.

That's just one example. You're incapable of genuinely critically analyising music, and your opinion is the only one worth anything in your eyes. You always have reasons to explain good reviews that you disagree with, instead of actually countering those reviews with a well researched response. I've never seen you give any kind of review or opinion on here where you refer to specific musical elements, you just use sweeping statements like "bad production" when you clearly have limited knowledge/experience in music production. That's implying that someone has done a bad job, when actually you just mean it's not your cup of tea. It's lazy. You don't give credit where credit is due. Not to mention your bias comes into play far too often.

You say you want "proper discussions" but you don't allow that yourself.

No, I didn't say GGD members weren't smart enough, I said that on many forums, people go there to switch off from serious life and just have fun and don't respond very well to intellectual musings and long-winded posts (this is why I get criticised a lot for my "essays"). People here have as good as said so. If you write something really intelligent and long-winded, a lot of people don't want to hear it. I don't like this idea but it's just the way things are. I'd write intellectually more often if it wasn't dismissed so often. A lot of the time now, I just think "Why bother?" It's not a question of dumbing down, it's just making things easily digestible and entertaining to read, so it'll get read and taken in. My reviews of music are kept very casual for this reason.

Well, thank you for saying I made some good points. I never claimed that I'm all-knowledgeable musically. Not playing an instrument is a big part of that. But I'm trying to self-teach and find out more. I never said that Bjork sings badly deliberately for certain. I implied that it comes across to me like she does this. I believe in saying what you mean and meaning what you say, so if I didn't say something is the case for certain, then I'm talking subjectively. Understand this about me and we'll get along a lot better. Unless I know the full story, I never state something factually, even though people like to think I do. Go back and read what I say and you'll see it. I critique Bjork's methods purely in the way they come across to me and how it affects my ears to hear it. If I ever find out it's not her intention to do what she does, I'll start my critiques with "I know she doesn't intend it, but..." Yes, I celebrate being different but I'll only give it praise if it's good to me. I don't praise differences just for the sake of it. It's too broad to say if she made normal music, I'd criticise her for being basic because there's all different kinds of normal music. On the contrary, I've suggested that if she sang a bit more normally, I'd be more accepting of her. I'd think a lot of the songs on Vulnicura could have come across better to me if she'd sung it in a more normal, flowing way, as opposed to the jagged, fragmented way she did. I've criticised other artists for not hitting notes in a more pleasant way before. I think the aim should be to make your voice sound as pleasant as possible, to give your listeners a nice experience. Making your voice sound unattractive should only be reserved for very occasional moments. I love Higher by Rihanna but no way would I listen to a whole album of songs like that.

I can critically analyse music but the problem is that the option to do that around here rarely arises. I'll only bring it up if the situation calls for it. I could happily give a critical analysis of every track on an album but again, not everyone wants to see that and I don't have the time. My opinion is not the only worthwhile one - I've said this a million times. I'm just putting forward my views like everyone else. How are they so different to me? Yes, I have reasons to disagree with good reviews and actually yes, I do counter them with a well-researched response. It blows me away how critics can call something so well-written and different when it sounds as generic as can be and as a critic who reviews lots of albums, they should know this, so how can I, as an amateur, see what they can't? That's something that I frequently say. I said it a lot for Taylor's 1989 and even said she seemed inspired by a much more superior work (Carly Rae Jepsen's Kiss) that came out 2 years before, yet no critic noted this which is odd, considering they reviewed this album and should have remembered its sound and aesthetic. Well, you've kinda got a point when you say that I don't refer to specific musical elements but again, that's because that kind of stuff doesn't crop up round here, as I said before. Yes, I have no physical experience with production but I can be more specific about sounds, I can assure you, it's just the time doesn't always call for it. But I do remember this one thread I posted in recently that finally gave me a chance to get some of this stuff out. The only thing that bothered me is that no one replied to the main bulk of it and it was a shame because I was so proud of it!

I never say "bad production" when it's just simply not my cup of tea (although subjectivity will of course come into your judgement a bit) but when I genuinely think it's bad. For example: overly repetative and migraine enducing (3 Words), a fart being put through a loudspeaker (Bitch I'm Madonna) and novelty-sounding and reminiscent of sounds of PSY and LMFAO (Me Too). But not all those sounds can be pinned down, so just saying "bad production" can just sum it up. I always give credit where it's due, that's why I said I praise the ghostwriters more than the singer. And I never let bias come into my reviewing. I've had to give bad reviews to my favourites (it hurt to no longer call Xtina one of my favourites after Bionic) and give decent reviews to people I can't stand (even Chris Brown got a 3/5 from me once). I'm here to judge the music, not the artist. The only time I let any preconceived judgements come in is if the artist makes references to something bad they did in their past and make out like it's no big deal (again, Chris Brown does this a lot). If they're allowing their eyebrow raising personal life to enter their music, well, I don't want to indulge them.

I do want proper discussions - that's why I put at the bottom of my post "agree, disagree? add your picks" to get people to submit their thoughts and discuss it all. I only take issue when they start making the discussion disrespectful.

5 hours ago, Snow said:

Amen! This and some other remarks on The OP truly reveal The amout one knows about music, musicality, songwriting, talent etc. Totally ignorant. -_- 

I find this topic a bit offensive actually. Its perfectly fine to not like or prefer certain artists or their work, but its insulting to Try to mask opinion as critizism and even more by using term like overrated. Like Björk for instance has sure deserved ALL the acclaim for her talents, whether you like her personally. Same goes to Radiohead abd others. And The OP insist on making these sly remarks that are just so uneducated. And yes, tells ALL, you are an amateur "critic"

This thread should be called "which artists I don't like" full stop. Thats what this is about.

I am not ignorant, this is just my opinion. You can be the most musically educated person in the world but not like an artist. If you did like every artist, well, you'd be a very boring person. I get it - you're musically educated, I am not. That doesn't make you better than me. Music was made to be listened to and judged by all, stop trying to say only certain people are qualified to do it.

It's not meant to be offensive. They've put themselves out there to be judged. If they want their music to only be listened to by like-minded people, they shouldn't be putting it out for the public to consume. Hold on a minute - are you saying an opinion and criticism are 2 different things? They're not! You criticise based on personal opinion! So, how can I be masking personal opinion as criticism? You're just looking for reasons to discredit me. If an artist doesn't appeal to you personally, why should they deserve their acclaim, then? You have a strange way of thinking. Surely a talented person not using their talent well is a problem?

No, it should not be called "which artists I don't like." That's a completely different thing. I'm talking about artists who aren't necessarily bad but nevertheless get too much acclaim. And vice versa. You take differing opinions very badly, don't you?

[Harry 26,836]

20 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

As I said, I think she's a good performer, but that alone couldn't possibly make me like her music. A good performance doesn't mean much if the song being performed is terrible. Performing abilities are all very well but music is the #1 priority for me, so if it's not there, I can't fully support the artist. Trust me, the hate she gets is nothing to do with "jealous gays." I'm a straight female who can't stand Beyonce as a person and am very neutral towards her as an artist and it's nothing to do with jealousy. Believe it or not, sometimes we just don't like the music or the attitude.

Sorta agree. Kanye in the early days was ok, he hit his stride with My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy and Yeezus, but I feel he's truly lost his way now and The Life Of Pablo was the first album of his I didn't like, yet the critics rave about it as usual. Justin was panned in the past but yeah, his new work is overrated. And yeah, Anti is sometimes praised as being something more than it is too just because it's something different to previous Rihanna albums and she played a part in the writing of all the songs. Experimental by Rihanna's standards, not so by general standards.

It's nothing to do about revolutionising the industry or how talented they are. The thread's about which artists you think get too much or too little praise according to your personal tastes.

Look at the reply I said above. I think some people are missing the point of this thread. And I'm not comparing them to my current favourites, I'm just listing whoever I think gets too much or too little praise, regardless of when they started their career. I think this only extends my reasoning that they are overrated because dare to say they're not all that and hellfire rains upon you. That's the definition of overratedness - thinking something is immune to criticism.

This is what I'm talking about when I once said that Bjork fans were hard to deal with. The ones I've experienced like to think anyone who doesn't like Bjork's music is an uncultured cretin. We just have different ears that attune to different things. No form of music is greater than another. Alternative doesn't have to automatically mean good. Get over it.

No, I didn't say GGD members weren't smart enough, I said that on many forums, people go there to switch off from serious life and just have fun and don't respond very well to intellectual musings and long-winded posts (this is why I get criticised a lot for my "essays"). People here have as good as said so. If you write something really intelligent and long-winded, a lot of people don't want to hear it. I don't like this idea but it's just the way things are. I'd write intellectually more often if it wasn't dismissed so often. A lot of the time now, I just think "Why bother?" It's not a question of dumbing down, it's just making things easily digestible and entertaining to read, so it'll get read and taken in. My reviews of music are kept very casual for this reason.

Well, thank you for saying I made some good points. I never claimed that I'm all-knowledgeable musically. Not playing an instrument is a big part of that. But I'm trying to self-teach and find out more. I never said that Bjork sings badly deliberately for certain. I implied that it comes across to me like she does this. I believe in saying what you mean and meaning what you say, so if I didn't say something is the case for certain, then I'm talking subjectively. Understand this about me and we'll get along a lot better. Unless I know the full story, I never state something factually, even though people like to think I do. Go back and read what I say and you'll see it. I critique Bjork's methods purely in the way they come across to me and how it affects my ears to hear it. If I ever find out it's not her intention to do what she does, I'll start my critiques with "I know she doesn't intend it, but..." Yes, I celebrate being different but I'll only give it praise if it's good to me. I don't praise differences just for the sake of it. It's too broad to say if she made normal music, I'd criticise her for being basic because there's all different kinds of normal music. On the contrary, I've suggested that if she sang a bit more normally, I'd be more accepting of her. I'd think a lot of the songs on Vulnicura could have come across better to me if she'd sung it in a more normal, flowing way, as opposed to the jagged, fragmented way she did. I've criticised other artists for not hitting notes in a more pleasant way before. I think the aim should be to make your voice sound as pleasant as possible, to give your listeners a nice experience. Making your voice sound unattractive should only be reserved for very occasional moments. I love Higher by Rihanna but no way would I listen to a whole album of songs like that.

I can critically analyse music but the problem is that the option to do that around here rarely arises. I'll only bring it up if the situation calls for it. I could happily give a critical analysis of every track on an album but again, not everyone wants to see that and I don't have the time. My opinion is not the only worthwhile one - I've said this a million times. I'm just putting forward my views like everyone else. How are they so different to me? Yes, I have reasons to disagree with good reviews and actually yes, I do counter them with a well-researched response. It blows me away how critics can call something so well-written and different when it sounds as generic as can be and as a critic who reviews lots of albums, they should know this, so how can I, as an amateur, see what they can't? That's something that I frequently say. I said it a lot for Taylor's 1989 and even said she seemed inspired by a much more superior work (Carly Rae Jepsen's Kiss) that came out 2 years before, yet no critic noted this which is odd, considering they reviewed this album and should have remembered its sound and aesthetic. Well, you've kinda got a point when you say that I don't refer to specific musical elements but again, that's because that kind of stuff doesn't crop up round here, as I said before. Yes, I have no physical experience with production but I can be more specific about sounds, I can assure you, it's just the time doesn't always call for it. But I do remember this one thread I posted in recently that finally gave me a chance to get some of this stuff out. The only thing that bothered me is that no one replied to the main bulk of it and it was a shame because I was so proud of it!

I never say "bad production" when it's just simply not my cup of tea (although subjectivity will of course come into your judgement a bit) but when I genuinely think it's bad. For example: overly repetative and migraine enducing (3 Words), a fart being put through a loudspeaker (Bitch I'm Madonna) and novelty-sounding and reminiscent of sounds of PSY and LMFAO (Me Too). But not all those sounds can be pinned down, so just saying "bad production" can just sum it up. I always give credit where it's due, that's why I said I praise the ghostwriters more than the singer. And I never let bias come into my reviewing. I've had to give bad reviews to my favourites (it hurt to no longer call Xtina one of my favourites after Bionic) and give decent reviews to people I can't stand (even Chris Brown got a 3/5 from me once). I'm here to judge the music, not the artist. The only time I let any preconceived judgements come in is if the artist makes references to something bad they did in their past and make out like it's no big deal (again, Chris Brown does this a lot). If they're allowing their eyebrow raising personal life to enter their music, well, I don't want to indulge them.

I do want proper discussions - that's why I put at the bottom of my post "agree, disagree? add your picks" to get people to submit their thoughts and discuss it all. I only take issue when they start making the discussion disrespectful.

I am not ignorant, this is just my opinion. You can be the most musically educated person in the world but not like an artist. If you did like every artist, well, you'd be a very boring person. I get it - you're musically educated, I am not. That doesn't make you better than me. Music was made to be listened to and judged by all, stop trying to say only certain people are qualified to do it.

It's not meant to be offensive. They've put themselves out there to be judged. If they want their music to only be listened to by like-minded people, they shouldn't be putting it out for the public to consume. Hold on a minute - are you saying an opinion and criticism are 2 different things? They're not! You criticise based on personal opinion! So, how can I be masking personal opinion as criticism? You're just looking for reasons to discredit me. If an artist doesn't appeal to you personally, why should they deserve their acclaim, then? You have a strange way of thinking. Surely a talented person not using their talent well is a problem?

No, it should not be called "which artists I don't like." That's a completely different thing. I'm talking about artists who aren't necessarily bad but nevertheless get too much acclaim. And vice versa. You take differing opinions very badly, don't you?

Oh gosh you really just don't get it, do you?

Well. I tried. I tried to explain why people take issue with your way of conveying opinions but it seems like you just don't want to hear it.

[StrawberryBlond 14,873]

3 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I can stand everyone on your list but Kendrick; hes not overrated; his flow, his VERSES, his ability to replicate live, his creative vision, social awareness, commentary; he's a real MC, one of the best  we have mainstream and his album getting snubbed for AOTY was an injustice. Whether you like him or not, he's entirely deserving of his praise, which is the definition of not overrated  Unless you'd like to extrapolate the traits that people find appealing to him subjectively as 'not worth being valued' in which case you would be arguing against traits that are intertwined with music in general, not to mention rap as an art form  

It's nothing to do with not valuing his talents, it's just that his actual music doesn't do much for me. It's that simple. It doesn't go any deeper than that. I actually thought him not winning AOTY was an injustice too but only because he was winning everything else that night and it seemed inconsistent.

Just now, Harry said:

Oh gosh you really just don't get it, do you?

Well. I tried. I tried to explain why people take issue with your way of conveying opinions but it seems like you just don't want to hear it.

Why is it when I hit my stride, you abandon me? Did you actually read and take in what I said? I thought this might actually be the moment when you came around. Like I said before, it really annoys me when I make a really long post, putting in time and effort and then it gets summed up in a few words with a message of abandonment. You criticised me for not wanting discussion, but when I do try to discuss, you don't want to know. Make up your mind. Maybe you should look at how you convey your opinions.

[Harry 26,836]

5 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

It's nothing to do with not valuing his talents, it's just that his actual music doesn't do much for me. It's that simple. It doesn't go any deeper than that. I actually thought him not winning AOTY was an injustice too but only because he was winning everything else that night and it seemed inconsistent.

Why is it when I hit my stride, you abandon me? Did you actually read and take in what I said? I thought this might actually be the moment when you came around. Like I said before, it really annoys me when I make a really long post, putting in time and effort and then it gets summed up in a few words with a message of abandonment. You criticised me for not wanting discussion, but when I do try to discuss, you don't want to know. Make up your mind. Maybe you should look at how you convey your opinions.

You always use this argument of me "abandoning" but there was nothing in that last post that added anything new to the discussion. You were just going on about how fair you are and how you're exclusively talking about subjectivity, yet you refuse to consider why "overrated" is not really the best term to use in this situation.

We could go back and forth all day but if you aren't listening, why should I?

I may come across as harsh and snappy sometimes, I'm the first to admit it. But I'd never tell someone their opinion was wrong or try and dismiss it as the product of something else, which you think to seem is normal and totally fine. I mean, the critics and fans all loved Beyonce's latest album but StrawberryBlonde didn't... The only logical answer is that the reviews were paid for and the fans are all brainwashed! That's not even an exaggeration of the kind of arguments you make.