Most critically overrated vs. most critically underrated

[Rivington Rebel 359]

You can't get anymore underrated than Melanie Martinez.

[teo 609]

8 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?

I wasn't talking about your post in particular and that's why I didn't quote you directly. I'm talking about a lot of other posts here and something that I've seen for a while not only in this thread. And even thought I do see the point you're making I can't agree that that current artists and the ones from the past can and should be compared and judged the same. Cause by that logic nobody in music is more overrated than Mozart, Schubert and Bach.

And talking about the definition of overrated how can you say Lana in underrated when all her albums are certified, critically acclaimed and she's on a world tour? Also she has been the face of a world famous fashion brands, she was the most googled woman(2013?) and has been praised for her looks and aesthetics by mainstream media all over the place not to mention being a gif queen in numerous hipster blogs?
 

[super ultra 878]

Everytime I see someone says The Beatles is overrated I'm just like  I'd agree with if you said their "earlier" works (like AHDN, etc.) weren't that revolutionary but after '65 they basically changed "the game" and not to mention the Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership  I don't want to start an argument but they really had an impact on me, so...

[super ultra 878]

On 2016. 05. 14. at 7:29 PM, Harry said:

I mean, even The Beatles... Sorry to say but you genuinely don't know much about popular music if you think they are only praised because "you're supposed to". I wouldn't consider myself a fan outside of a few songs, but you don't simply become the most influential band in the world by chance. Their impact and influence is simply factual and I find it hilarious that someone who proclaims to be a critic would ever try and dismiss that. There's even entire Wikipedia pages about their impact on pop culture/music and their use of recording technology. That's probably a good place for you to start your research. This might help you avoid coming across as so uneducated in future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_the_Beatles & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_recording_technology

Happy learning!

I just wrote a (short ) comment like this but thank you for explaining it a little bit longer 

[MaryJaneHolland 77,348]

2 hours 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

2000s Madonna was the 8th world wonder. 2010s Madonna is underrated

 

2 hours ago, Harry said:

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

This.

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

Overrated: selling records
Underrated: not selling records

[Benji 20,113]

I agree with your underrated picks but some of your overrated ones are 

Radiohead definitely aren't overrated.

[Snow 1,582]

2 hours ago, 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.

@StrawberryBlond this is for you and I agree with above. You really just don't get The point and the problem here. This is a bout your personal preferance and question of taste and that's indeed quite different from critisism and objective analysis. Thats what is my problem. Music can be absolutely analyzed and criticizes by objective manners regardless of personal taste. So for The lack of a better word, there is indeed "better" music etc. and not so good.

So indeed this thread is either about personal musical tastes' versus general acclaim or success of certain artists. Or you are vastly uneducated and ignorant about music and production etc.IF you are indeed claiming this to be objective unbiased critisism. 

I hope and pray its The first option. Then there's no problem (eventhough it is slightly irritating that you try to present your argumentation and act like you are a professional musicologist however not succeeding in it). 

Musical tastes are always preferences and subjective and should be hailed for their variety. It makes Life great. However thats never a basis for calling some overrated etc. only in The sence that you just happen to not like someone acclaimed. 

 

[Didymus 34,379]

12 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

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.

And I'm one of those? lol

It took me years to get into Björk's music, so I understand more than anyone the obstacles people encounter to appreciating her (and on top of that, I'm 100% aware that it's possible to just not like her stuff).

But when you're gonna slam an artist for thinking outside the box, for discovering new ways to express herself vocally and musically,... You can still appreciate an artist for what they do without liking it. Your "review" however was the most horrifying thing I've ever read from a self-proclaimed (amateur) "critic".

"Weird just for the sake of it"; "aural torture"; "thinks she's got to weirdify the hell out of it", "deliberately bad",... How dare you. Like @Harry said, that's not an opinion, that's pretending your opinion is fact. Which is why it's willful delusion.

Once again you prove yourself to be one of the most lousy feminists out there. You have a tendency of slamming women for expressing themselves in their own unique way when it doesn't appeal to your ideals. It's ugly, it's disappointing and it's sort of frightening. Add on top of that just weird ass statements like "Seeing as critics seem to weirdly like everything"... What the ****, girl? What are you actually talking about?

Like I've told you countless times before: if you stop pretending your opinion is more valuable than anyone else (because it's grounded in facts or whatever bs you come up with) you'd actually be able to make a nice contribution to this forum. It's sad that you don't see that.

[HighlandHeart 993]

On 13/05/2016 at 11:25 PM, StrawberryBlond said:

Who are your most overrated and most underrated artists by critics (not the public) and why?

Mine are...

Overrated

Radiohead - Lyrics composed of nothingness, always a band that thinks it's saying something more than it is. Annoying vocals. Production is ordinary too, despite that being their USP, apparently. OK Computer is one of the best critically received albums of all time and I swear, Exit Music (For A Film) is the only decent one on there. Maybe the second part of Paranoid Android. Everything else absolutely baffles me as to what people see in it.

Bjork - Always struck me as an artist who tries to be weird just for the sake of it. For someone who can actually sing well given the chance, she pushes the most ear-splitting vocals on you, making you wince and her diction is terrible for someone who speaks fluent English. Her music is just odd. Like she could have put together something normal but thinks she's got to weirdify the hell out of it, even if it involves making her voice deliberately bad, thus ruining any good lyrics. She's got 2 albums I quite like, everything else is pretty much aural torture.

Taylor Swift - Fairly basic songwriter, very basic singer, basically talented musician. Just all-round basic. Will never get the appeal apart from the occasional song or two. I've been suspecting her of paying for reviews for ages. I just can't understand why grown, middle aged male critics could get anything out of her material.

Beyonce - Great singer and dancer but that's about it. Gets a large amount of help for all her work, yet gets praised like she's the ultimate creator. Steals a lot of people's work but never suffers for it. Very basic songs for the most part and gets a lot of help when she needs to do something more experimental. Just does the same things over and over again, pretty much.

U2 - They're just sorta...there. Only about 2 songs of theirs have ever stirred me up. Just never moved me all that much.

Adele - Basic songwriter, but is raised up as if she is something more than she is. Singing abilities massively overrated as her voice is actually very prone to failure and she has bad habits that led to her vocal problems. What she does has been done many times and done much better. She was just in the right place at the right time.

The Beatles - Just never did it for me bar a handful of songs. Their "comedic" songs never got a laugh out of me. I sometimes think people praise them just because they think they're supposed to. Anyone who's ever witnessed Paul McCartney singing the old hits live makes me truly wonder why they are seen as the be all and end all of music.

Kendrick Lamar - I don't know what he's rapping about half the time. Maybe it's just too high-faluting for me, I don't know. But I seriously get into him at all. His debut was better to me, yet it's his new album that critics really went crazy over and I just can't put my finger on why that is. The beats are annoying too.

Drake - His emotionless drawl of a voice that veers into parody, his boring, emotionless songs about girls we don't care about, his constant whining about nothing. At least his new album is finally getting a bit more rightful harshness bestowed upon it but it's not harsh enough. He's terrible. I'm genuinely dumfounded as to what people see.

Joanna Newsom - Lyrics are way too non-understandable for me and...THAT VOICE. How does one acquire a record deal with such pipes?

And a whole bunch of country artists. The majority of a country album is the most blandest time of your life and yet, country critics give out A reviews like nobodie's business.

Underrated (not much here because critics pretty much like everything)

Lana Del Rey - Outstanding lyrics, outstanding production values, a haunting voice (that's really good now, if you'd research it) and one of the few good poets around in music today. Yes, she's getting better reviews now than she did at the beginning, but she should still be getting perfect reviews across the board and winning every Grammy going. Why she doesn't win more awards voted for by critics is beyond me.

The Pretty Reckless - One of the few decent rock bands around now and yet critics are so lukewarm towards them. Maybe they just don't trust a rock band where the lead singer is a teenage rebel who was on Gossip Girl but if they do, that's the worst kind of music snobbery. The beats are rocking, the guitar solos are orgasmic, the lyrics are brilliant, the vocals are passionate. Turn on any of their uptempo numbers to hear Taylor Momsen spit fire. It's rare to find a band who still makes rock music like this. Critics don't know a good thing when they see it.

 

Seeing as critics seem to weirdly like everything, it's not hard to find artists who are over-rated, but finding underrated ones are pretty rare. Agree or disagree with what I have to say? Add your own picks. Remember to keep everything respectful. Even though I may dislike these artists, I don't intend to insult their fans for liking them (some attitudes of them when they get defensive are another thing, though!). The idea of this thread is just to get our inner frustrations out on the artists, not the fans.

This. Thank you. I love you. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,777]

I'm putting up a disclaimer, by the way, so more people understand this topic better. Please read it.

21 hours ago, Harry said:

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.

Actually, I did add new things. You were accusing me of certain things and I replied, defending myself, saying that actually I had or hadn't done these things and offered examples. It seems like when I start making valid responses, you give up on me and I find that very offensive. I've been trying to change your opinion of me for ages and it's disheartening how you brush off every attempt, as if you're determined not to see my good side. Not to mention how much of my time you waste. Do you have any idea of how long I spend typing out something I'm really proud of, only to have it shot down and dismissed in a few words? And yes, I did consider why "overrated" isn't the best term to use in this situation...and concluded that there was nothing wrong with it. It's a term that we use if we're flawed humans, it's a term that real people use, it's part of our culture. Literally anyone else could have made this topic and you wouldn't have got at them like you did me. I am shocked that this discussion has turned out this way. This was just meant to be a fun discussion, getting out our frustrations and sharing our likes and dislikes. Why did you and everyone else have to take it all so seriously and make me out to be mean spirited? It's so unfair.

You are the one who isn't listening, not me. You are the one not responding to every paragraph I've posted. You are the one who is repeatedly ignoring the things I say and misinterpreting everything, even when I make it blatantly obvious what I mean. If you aren't listening, why should I? You've never seen me as an equal, I'm just someone to bring down. The funny thing is, you say the exact same thing about me. Well, I'm only so snappy with you because you were the one who started being mean to me and I've been defending myself ever since. I've been trying to ignore you and diffuse any red rag you've ever presented me recently. Yet, you continue to follow me and bash me. Seriously, what is your problem?

I have NEVER told someone their opinion is wrong. This is what I mean when I say that you misinterpret everything I say. It's exhausting to always defend myself. That's funny how you say "you just dismiss it as the product of something else, which you seem to is normal and totally fine." Other people on this thread have done exactly that (Beyonce haters are jealous gays, Bjork and Beatles haters are just uneducated) and you haven't criticised them! So I conclude that you are unfairly biased against me. And no, I don't think this behaviour is totally normal and fine which is why I only present it as a possibility and a theory.  I never said that the only reason why everyone liked Lemonade but I didn't (which is untrue - I gave it a 3/5) was all down to paid reviews and brainwashing. I said it was true within some people but not all. The hiding of any negative reviews of the album (as usual, the harder to please Slant's review is conspicuously absent from Wikipedia) and the fans over-gushing of Beyonce as a goddess who can do no wrong and bashing anyone who says otherwise makes me understandably be pondering these possibilities. I like to ponder and question things. It's just my way.
 

20 hours ago, teo said:

I wasn't talking about your post in particular and that's why I didn't quote you directly. I'm talking about a lot of other posts here and something that I've seen for a while not only in this thread. And even thought I do see the point you're making I can't agree that that current artists and the ones from the past can and should be compared and judged the same. Cause by that logic nobody in music is more overrated than Mozart, Schubert and Bach.

And talking about the definition of overrated how can you say Lana in underrated when all her albums are certified, critically acclaimed and she's on a world tour? Also she has been the face of a world famous fashion brands, she was the most googled woman(2013?) and has been praised for her looks and aesthetics by mainstream media all over the place not to mention being a gif queen in numerous hipster blogs?
 

Why shouldn't artists of the past be compared to artists of the present? Bad music has existed at every point throughout history. Even people from my parents generation look back on the stuff they listened to back in the day and think some of it was rubbish. There's nothing wrong with thinking music from the past is bad. No time period is superior. We've just been raised to think it has. Music snobs have taken over and brainwashed us. Look back on your rose tinted memories and you'll perhaps realise they're not as good as you remember them. I've asked some people what their favourite albums are and then say: "When was the last time you listened to that album?" A lot of them say it was years ago. So, I always advise them to go back and see if its aged so well. I mean, I sometimes change my mind about albums that are only a couple of years old. I've listened to some "classic" albums of the past and was shocked at how mediocre they were. But that might have been different if I had witnessed the album at the time. With a modern pespective, things can be different. I'd urge everyone to do the same. It's also not unusual for me to discard the classic but prefer the older stuff or the newer stuff that isn't considered classic.

I say Lana is underrated because, yes, while her reviews are better now, it wasn't always that way. Her debut remains woefully underscored by critics who insisted she was nothing but a puppet whose career had been bankrolled by her rich father (not true, she writes all her own stuff and she got her career all on her own), relying on typically sexist assumptions that shouldn't be uttered in this day and age. And while her albums scores increased, she weirdly didn't gain any awards voted for by critics (or even nominations), even though her work is classic Grammy bait. And remember that I'm just talking about critics reactions to her, so that doesn't include how many albums she's sold or how googled she is. This thread is all about disagreeing with the critics alone.

20 hours ago, super ultra said:

Everytime I see someone says The Beatles is overrated I'm just like  I'd agree with if you said their "earlier" works (like AHDN, etc.) weren't that revolutionary but after '65 they basically changed "the game" and not to mention the Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership  I don't want to start an argument but they really had an impact on me, so...

We're all entitled to our opinions. This isn't about how revolutionary they are. It's about these artists music does for you personally. For me, The Beatles just don't move me. Just my opinion. I think people are misinterpreting this thread immensly and basing it on different criteria than what I intended it to be. I think I might edit in a disclaimer after this. It's about subjective opinion and nothing more. Take legendary status, talent and cultural impact out of it. It's all about what you think of the music, regardless of who's making it or what impact it had. I don't give too hoots how legendary someone is. If their music doesn't do it for me, I won't hesitate to call them overrated for me personally.

19 hours ago, Benji said:

I agree with your underrated picks but some of your overrated ones are 

Radiohead definitely aren't overrated.

Well, you're free to like them. But I think having all your albums rated practically nothing short of perfect seems pretty overrated to me, especially when I think their work is really rather ordinary and doesn't appear to be saying anything. Their new album had very little lyrics in it and were very basic and yet, critical acclaim abounds. Whatever it thinks it's saying, it's not coming across to me. I just find that kind of music pretentious, sorry.

18 hours ago, Snow said:

@StrawberryBlond this is for you and I agree with above. You really just don't get The point and the problem here. This is a bout your personal preferance and question of taste and that's indeed quite different from critisism and objective analysis. Thats what is my problem. Music can be absolutely analyzed and criticizes by objective manners regardless of personal taste. So for The lack of a better word, there is indeed "better" music etc. and not so good.

So indeed this thread is either about personal musical tastes' versus general acclaim or success of certain artists. Or you are vastly uneducated and ignorant about music and production etc.IF you are indeed claiming this to be objective unbiased critisism. 

I hope and pray its The first option. Then there's no problem (eventhough it is slightly irritating that you try to present your argumentation and act like you are a professional musicologist however not succeeding in it). 

Musical tastes are always preferences and subjective and should be hailed for their variety. It makes Life great. However thats never a basis for calling some overrated etc. only in The sence that you just happen to not like someone acclaimed. 

I do get the point - you and plenty of others are the ones who don't get it. I've never said this thread was about objective analysis. You are the one who has interpreted it wrong.

Yes, this thread IS about "personal musical tastes versus general acclaim." I never said it was anything more than that. If anyone else had made this thread, I can guarantee this reaction would not have happened. Some people are just out to get me when I give my views on music because I can be very harsh. But it's still unacceptable.

I have never claimed to be a professional. I have never claimed to have the only correct opinion. I have never claimed to be speaking my opinion as fact. Please realise this and stop interpreting everything I say as something bad. It's extremely offensive to always be thought the worst of when I'm merely just giving my opinion. I know it means something very different, but I've always connected to Madonna's Human Nature song because the lyrics describe perfectly how I've felt throughout my life when people have made me feel like I have no right to my opinions. And I think this moment fits it very well. As a Madonna fan, maybe this will help you understand more how I feel. And don't say: "This isn't what she meant in the song." I know, it's just my way of connecting to songs that I can't normally connect to (and again, I think this proves that I'm not against sexuality, eh?)

I'm sorry, but in my world, the word "overrated" is not offensive. Maybe among some professionals it is, but this isn't a forum of professionals, it's a forum of regular people. And we should be allowed to use words like "overrated" without being made to feel bad for it.

9 hours ago, Didymus said:

And I'm one of those? lol

It took me years to get into Björk's music, so I understand more than anyone the obstacles people encounter to appreciating her (and on top of that, I'm 100% aware that it's possible to just not like her stuff).

But when you're gonna slam an artist for thinking outside the box, for discovering new ways to express herself vocally and musically,... You can still appreciate an artist for what they do without liking it. Your "review" however was the most horrifying thing I've ever read from a self-proclaimed (amateur) "critic".

"Weird just for the sake of it"; "aural torture"; "thinks she's got to weirdify the hell out of it", "deliberately bad",... How dare you. Like @Harry said, that's not an opinion, that's pretending your opinion is fact. Which is why it's willful delusion.

Once again you prove yourself to be one of the most lousy feminists out there. You have a tendency of slamming women for expressing themselves in their own unique way when it doesn't appeal to your ideals. It's ugly, it's disappointing and it's sort of frightening. Add on top of that just weird ass statements like "Seeing as critics seem to weirdly like everything"... What the ****, girl? What are you actually talking about?

Like I've told you countless times before: if you stop pretending your opinion is more valuable than anyone else (because it's grounded in facts or whatever bs you come up with) you'd actually be able to make a nice contribution to this forum. It's sad that you don't see that.

Pretty much. I'm telling you something about yourself you may not be aware of and how you're coming off to other people. And yet I'm the one with the attitude problem? I have never lorded it over others for liking "superior" music like you have.

I didn't slam her for thinking outside the box, I just said her way of thinking outside the box doesn't appeal to me. I just wish she'd think outside the box in a different way. So, I can't appreciate something I don't like. As I said previously, I have never claimed that my opinion is fact. I'm sick of people accusing me of this. It's not me, it will never be me. You are interpreting it all wrong. I've said this to people over and over but they don't listen. You are the ones who have the problems understanding, not me. Right now, you're just flaunting your self-importance and it's very off-putting.

How dare you accuse me of being a lousy feminist. Some feminist you are, bashing a woman for having an opinion! I have no problem with women expressing themselves however they choose, but that doesn't mean they're immune to criticism. I'm just as harsh on men, in case you hadn't noticed. No one is immune to criticism, no matter their gender. Men have no problem criticising other men, so why should women refuse to criticise other women? For fear of not being feminist? No, that's not being fair, that's wrapping women in cottonwool because you deem them too weak or too superior to be criticised. Which isn't what feminism is about. For your information, I see my critiques as a feminist statement. Not many critics are women. Not many critics are young women. A lot of albums by female artists get unfairly judged by male critics in a way that albums by male artists aren't. By being a young female critic and bigging up female talent, I think that's a great leap forward. I've always defended my right to a personal opinion and I've frequently had my opinion silenced in the past, which is why I'm making up for it now. I've always hated how a woman has to come across as a nicey-nice all the time. Men can be acid-tongued and that makes them cool, edgy, the boss, the man. When a woman dares to make a controversial opinion, she's shot down, she's a bitch, she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about, she needs to get laid, she gets rape and death threats. Being a woman who isn't afraid to have controversial opinions and isn't afraid to say them is a big part of my raison d'etre in this life, for myself and womankind. If there's enough of us not being afraid to stand up for what we believe in, those sexist insults will eventually disperse because our voice is too big. So, think of that before you call me a lousy feminist again.

By the "critics seem to weirdly like everything," comment, I'm basing it on constant research. It's extremely rare to see a terribly reviewed album. Every album gets mixed reception at the absolute least. Unless you're Robert Christgau or Slant Magazine, you'll rarely see a truly negative review from a music critic. I think this is very odd as every year, I stumble on about 15 terrible albums and even more mediocre ones. I have only found 2 albums this year that are above average. And I'm just an amateur, I don't know the ins and outs of being a professional music critic. So, you'd imagine that if a member of the public is unimpressed, the critics will be even less impressed, right? So, why do all these professionals seem so easily pleased? It makes no sense. I've called out albums before for being cliche, childish and generic but critics call it well-written and original. There's something wrong here when the critiques seem to switch places. I'd always been raised to believe that critics were hard-nosed snobs who were extremely difficult to please and they hate everything. But when I grew up and looked at the music reviews, I was shocked to find the exact opposite is true. So, this is when I rightfully started to question if paid-for reviews happen. And they do, although finding information about this dark side of the business is very difficult to come across. I've definitely heard movie and gaming critics speak openly about it before but music critics are very elusive. But let's just say I've seen more than enough reviews of albums that were panned by the public and should have been panned by critics that have ended up surprisingly well recieved. And I'm calling BS. Whether they are just that easily pleased or if there's shady dealings, critics for whatever reason, rarely properly negatively review an album. And I think that's suspicious.

I don't think my opinion is more valuable than others - I keep telling you that. I'm just expressing my view like everyone else. So, why do you have a problem with me but not others? Yes, sometimes my opinions are grounded in fact like my above paragraph delves into but that doesn't mean you have to be so rude about it. Just politely disagree and move on. I do make nice contributions to this forum. I frequently get praise for the things I write. You just don't see it as a positive contribution because it isn't nicey-nice all the time. Once again, if you're such a feminist, you should support a woman with opinions who knows her own mind. Just because she isn't sweetness and light all the time doesn't mean that she isn't making positive contributions. Don't you see the irony in criticising me for being harsh on artists who are doing their own thing, yet you're criticising me for doing my own thing?

8 hours ago, Drunk Poet said:

This. Thank you. I love you. 

Thanks so much for a bit of positive feedback. I loved your previous opinions on music before as well. We might be kindred spirits! Are you single?

[Redstreak 6,653]

Tegan and Sara are pretty underrated 

[Didymus 34,379]

3 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Don't you see the irony in criticising me for being harsh on artists who are doing their own thing, yet you're criticising me for doing my own thing?

I don't. lol

I'm criticizing you for a very specific thing, i.e. presenting your opinion as a fact. You keep claiming we're the one misunderstanding you, but there is literally nothing to misunderstand about that OP.

Things like:

° "always a band that thinks it's saying something more than it is"
° "thinks she's got to weirdify the hell out of it"
° "raised up as if she is something more than she is"
° "constant whining about nothing"
° "critics don't know a good thing when they see it"

Come on. You don't get to play the "you don't get me!" card. Most of what you said doesn't even qualify as criticism, it's just brainless negativity that requires no effort. If you think that's empowering or a feminist statement then think again.

Besides, how do deluded arguments even qualify as expressing yourself? "One of the few decent rock bands around now", really? Really? "It's rare to find a band who still makes rock music like this". Not an opinion, just another claim to objectivity that looks embarrassing. It's that category of statements that I just cannot stand from people who treat their opinions so dearly as you do, and that's coming from someone who actually enjoys The Pretty Reckless a lot.

I've had several atrocious conversations with you that all revolved around you desperately trying to bash (the same) female artists, so that is why I'm singling you out, particularly for you bringing in feminist narratives when you're trying to aggrandize your, I'll say it again: very basic, no-effort, and biased "opinions" disguised as intellectual endeavours. Here we have it again. Constant research, oh please.

[Andreyw 4,285]

these long ass essays no one cares about...  

[HighlandHeart 993]

53 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Thanks so much for a bit of positive feedback. I loved your previous opinions on music before as well. We might be kindred spirits! Are you single?

I honestly think we're twins. We have like the exact same opinions on music. Imagine we were best friends and were at each other's houses often, there'd be no arguing over what song to play haha!

I am but I'm afraid I'm straight lol. Nonetheless I love you. Haha.