Most critically overrated vs. most critically underrated

[AJH219 4,448]

23 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Best post of 2016 tbh  

After seeing Florence in concert this past weekend, my opinion is only solidified. It is truly infuriating how much this floppy country pays that flawless band dust. 

[Harry 26,836]

How did I know those two users would get on so fabulously

[super ultra 878]

On 2016. 05. 16. at 9:37 PM, StrawberryBlond said:

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.

The first thing that comes to my mind when I see the "overrated" label's the huge sales/praise and not what these artists' music does for me personally. It seems you didn't explain the thread completely, that's why there's some tension. Everyone has different opinions. I just wrote down some facts but what the music does for you is another topic. There are artists that doesn't move me either but they're considered as legendary. Anyway, it was good that you cleared the things up. 

[Snow 1,582]

13 minutes ago, super ultra said:

 It seems you didn't explain the thread completely, that's why there's some tension. Everyone has different opinions. I just wrote down some facts but what the music does for you is another topic. There are artists that doesn't move me either but they're considered as legendary. Anyway, it was good that you cleared the things up. 

@StrawberryBlondi agree totally. And as said before, this is perfectly great topic for conversation. So good of you to add The disclaimer to set things straight to avoid misunderstandings. 

And for The question itself, I will go with an extremely general one:

Under rated: very talented musicians/artists

Over rated: erm less musically or othervice talented peeps

 

 

[StrawberryBlond 14,787]

14 hours ago, Didymus said:

No it's not at all, and when did I ever tell you what music to like and what not to like? Don't put words in my mouth please I respect your opinion perfectly, I just take issue with how you write it because it's not expressed as an opinion (again: writing Björk's supposed thought process down and criticizing her for it, even though you have no proof that's how she works, is not an opinion - how hard is that to realize?). That comment has been made so many times in this thread now, I can't believe you still don't get what we're talking about.

You already replied to my first post categorizing me as an annoying Björk fan who thought alternative music was the best (like holy ****, what an instant assumption), even though I never said so. What I meant with willful delusion is that you imagine you know the deal about artists (like, once more, you apparently having the ability to look into Björk's head and see she's just being weird for no reason) when you could easily just say you think her music is weird and you don't get what's great about it. To slam her artistic process was just too much for me, because you obviously don't know anything about that. That, and similar stuff, is literally all I'm annoyed by. I couldn't give a **** about your personal opinion, you have every right to express it. But you don't need to drag in fantasies in order to refrain from having to state it's just your personal opinion.

You've stated that plenty of times now, indeed, but you don't get the contrast between saying it was just your opinion and then having written "Björk thinks she has to weirdify the hell out of her stuff" which, again, is not an opinion But whatever, I don't want to look like I'm policing you or telling you what to say and what not to say, I was just voicing my concern and annoyance about how you present your opinions (again), never have I attacked your opinion itself (except once when you slammed Madonna and Gaga for displaying nudity in public), just the logic and the form of it. You have every right not to care about that, and it's clear by now you don't, so I guess I won't make a remark about it again.

You've been telling me my criticism isn't criticism and my opinion are not opinions (???) and telling me I'm listening to the music wrong. That sure sounds like someone who're trying to tell me what to think. The scary thing is, you don't even realise you're doing it. When I talked about Bjork's artistic methods, I was talking about how it comes across to my ears. That was why I never said I knew her intentions for certain. Look back, I never said it. If I don't say something, I don't mean it. This was all about what it sounds like to my ears and the overall impression that I personally got from it, therefore, I am not listening to her music wrongly, you just don't like my thoughts on it. I just think writing "just my opinion" like a stuck record after every sentence wastes so much space, not to mention suggesting that you have weak views that you're being tentative about. I just put forward my opinions very confidently, that's all. I still don't realise what you're talking about? You're the one who doesn't realise what I'm talking about! Part of critiquing art is coming up with an overall impression that the work has given you, good or bad. Whether it actually mirrors the truth behind the artist's intention is irrelevant. Part of the reason they put the work out there is to see what impression they get from the world and seeing if you're expressing yourself in the best possible way. This world would be so boring if we only talked about the things we knew absolutely for certain. That's not how humans function! We're natural debaters, speculators, judges. Telling us not to these things is like telling a bird not to fly. It's in our nature, it's not a crime!

Your haughty attitude put you in that category. Like I said above, speculation is just how we function and critiquing art involves speculation. You have to ponder it, consider motivations, possibilities and come up with a conclusion based on what has been presented to you. It's funny how you say that I should just say that "I think her music's weird and don't get what's great about it." Guaranteed, if I did that, I would get mocked for being uneducated and not understanding her work (even I think an opinion like that makes a person look ignorant). Which is precisely why I didn't do it. So, I approached it more like a critic and explained that I'd listened to all her work to come up with this impression and was deemed uneducated. I just can't win. Some people want me to go into detail, others want me to be short and sweet. Both sides think I'm doing something wrong. Do you see the tough place I'm in? And I'm not dragging in "fantasies." It's all personal opinion and an overall impression based on that. The same as everyone else is doing. Yet, I'm in the wrong. Think for just a moment what you're saying here.

Ah, you've skimmed over a very important part of my quote. The part where I said "Always struck me as an artist who tries to be weird just for the sake of it." The phrase "always struck me as" is the theme of personal impression that I was talking about. That was the part of my post that made it clear this was my personal impression and was not me stating facts, which you seem to think I've been doing. Maybe you just need to read what I've said more carefully. You've never attacked my opinion itself? Well, I'd beg to differ on that one. I've felt very attacked by you for a long time. You should learn not to put forward your opinions of people who you're talking to so rudely. Or am I the only one who's not expressing myself correctly? I notice how you only criticise the validity of opinions that you don't agree with. You need to change that too. You need to work on having a discussion with someone of a differing viewpoint without resorting to personal attacks.

54 minutes ago, super ultra said:

The first thing that comes to my mind when I see the "overrated" label's the huge sales/praise and not what these artists' music does for me personally. It seems you didn't explain the thread completely, that's why there's some tension. Everyone has different opinions. I just wrote down some facts but what the music does for you is another topic. There are artists that doesn't move me either but they're considered as legendary. Anyway, it was good that you cleared the things up. 

No offence but, I thought everyone thought "overrated" meant "they're so successful and praised but I personally don't understand where that love comes from." I didn't think I needed to explain what the word meant as I thought everyone held the same definition. I also thought it was a given that everything people said was an opinion. I just think that if anyone but me had posted this topic, there would not be this misunderstanding or hostility, but that's another story.

So, what artists do you think are overrated, based on that definition?

34 minutes ago, Snow said:

@StrawberryBlondi agree totally. And as said before, this is perfectly great topic for conversation. So good of you to add The disclaimer to set things straight to avoid misunderstandings. 

And for The question itself, I will go with an extremely general one:

Under rated: very talented musicians/artists

Over rated: erm less musically or othervice talented peeps

You can be more specific than that. Don't be afraid to say what you think. Mind you, I speak my mind and look where that gets me - "uneducated!", "ignorant!" So, if you want to be general, that's understandable.

[Didymus 34,379]

Just now, StrawberryBlond said:

We're natural debaters, speculators, judges. Telling us not to these things is like telling a bird not to fly. It's in our nature, it's not a crime!

Jesus, stop this nonsense The point I'm making is immediately illustrated when we put your own little theory to the test, that an addition of "in my opinion" would make it unnecessarily clear that it's just that.

° "In my opinion Radiohead is a band that thinks it's saying something more than it is"
° "In my opinion Björk thinks she has to weirdify the hell out of her music"
° "In my opinion it's rare to find a band like The Pretty Reckless"

These just don't make sense when you add it, because they're not opinions. They're supposed to be facts and nothing less and that's the only way they can function. You either know it or you don't. I'm only criticizing you for using those statements in what should be reviews of actual musical work, as you now say yourself.

I mean, now you're all "I wanted to act more like a critic" but that's not what you're doing. This thread is supposed to be about why you disagree with critics' appreciation of artists and you make no reference to critics' arguments about the artists'/albums' greatness at all, and you then inevitably use no real arguments about why they're invalid. So cut the "research" crap, this was just nothing but irrelevant personal opinion, worthy of being expressed, but not in this way (i.e. you pretending you're presenting well put together criticisms).

[StrawberryBlond 14,787]

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Jesus, stop this nonsense The point I'm making is immediately illustrated when we put your own little theory to the test, that an addition of "in my opinion" would make it unnecessarily clear that it's just that.

° "In my opinion Radiohead is a band that thinks it's saying something more than it is"
° "In my opinion Björk thinks she has to weirdify the hell out of her music"
° "In my opinion it's rare to find a band like The Pretty Reckless"

These just don't make sense when you add it, because they're not opinions. They're supposed to be facts and nothing less and that's the only way they can function. You either know it or you don't. I'm only criticizing you for using those statements in what should be reviews of actual musical work, as you now say yourself.

I mean, now you're all "I wanted to act more like a critic" but that's not what you're doing. This thread is supposed to be about why you disagree with critics' appreciation of artists and you make no reference to critics' arguments about the artists'/albums' greatness at all, and you then inevitably use no real arguments about why they're invalid. So cut the "research" crap, this was just nothing but irrelevant personal opinion, worthy of being expressed, but not in this way (i.e. you pretending you're presenting well put together criticisms).

Right, I'm genuinely lost as to what you're talking about now. You're just going round in circles and looking for ways to discredit me. Your explanations are laughable and you should be embarrassed at the nonsense you're spewing.

How in the world does adding "in my opinion" before a musical critique make it less invalid than not adding it at all? When is an opinion not an opinion? And then you said they're supposed to be facts and nothing less and that's the only way they can function. Are you drunk? Are you referring to your interpretation of what I've said or how you think opinions should be presented? Either way is incorrect. I'm having trouble critiquing what you just said, it's so incoherent. And I'm not giving a review of their work, but my personal views on their overall discography. Where in my thread did I say this was going to be reviews? Stop making stuff up to make me look bad!

I said I was acting more like a critic because I gave more than a ignorant one word justification as to why I didn't like someone. A critic says more than that, hence I was acting more like a critic. I didn't need to make reference to the critics arguments because we know what the critic's arguments are - they're brilliant! If you think I'm going to search through every critics opinion of every artist that on this list and critique every line they say, you're out your mind. I have a life, you know! And you'd criticise that too! And what is a "real argument as to why it's invalid?" Go on, give me your definition. Of course it's nothing but personal opinion, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. My criticism was meant to be short and to the point. It's not meant to be a thesis.

I am blown away by your rudeness, by the way. If anyone should be criticised for doing bad research, it's you. You've misinterpreted everything I've said thus far. And you're far from the only one. It's funny, I can have these discussions in real life without anything popping off, I do it online and I get in the neck. Does being online make some people's brains fall out or something?

[Didymus 34,379]

12 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

If anyone should be criticised for doing bad research, it's you. You've misinterpreted everything I've said thus far.

lmao I've been 100% consistent, you're just not getting it. But that's fine.

There's nothing to misinterpret about you claiming to see inside artists' heads as you like to do. It's not an opinion, it's a fantasy and that's final. I don't see why that's so challenging to accept.

A real argument as to why it's invalid would be, for example:

Critic makes a claim about an imaginary artist: he's innovative and original!

Respondent points to other artists who have done similar things before him!

It's really that simple. Critics don't praise artists for nothing, incl. the ones you listed in your OP. They use arguments. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but when you're gonna make a thread about who is overrated and underrated you better refer to those arguments. Like I've told you before, it makes no sense to call Beyoncé overrated because she's not a main songwriter. No Beyoncé review I ever read praised her for her songwriting skills, in fact, most of the reviews mention her co-writers and the amount of them. So to call Beyoncé underrated for reasons that have nothing to do with what critics write about them is clearly an invalid argument. It's that easy.

Your arguments suck, they're lazy and they're awfully biased to a degree which makes your "I do research!", "I'm not as biased as the critics!" presentation ridiculous. It just makes for very boring discussions because you act like you have something substantial to say but you really don't. You could, but you won't. You'll defend this "Björk should just make normal music, stop being weird, freak" bs as an example of a feminist, researched critique of music. It's just ludicrous.

[malazam 15,710]

Overrated: Maroon 5

Underrated: Imagine Dragons 

 

Seriously I can't with Night Visions having a metascore of 53 and Smoke + Mirrors 60

Their songs are AMAZING!

[StrawberryBlond 14,787]

26 minutes ago, Didymus said:

lmao I've been 100% consistent, you're just not getting it. But that's fine.

There's nothing to misinterpret about you claiming to see inside artists' heads as you like to do. It's not an opinion, it's a fantasy and that's final. I don't see why that's so challenging to accept.

A real argument as to why it's invalid would be, for example:

Critic makes a claim about an imaginary artist: he's innovative and original!

Respondent points to other artists who have done similar things before him!

It's really that simple. Critics don't praise artists for nothing, incl. the ones you listed in your OP. They use arguments. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but when you're gonna make a thread about who is overrated and underrated you better refer to those arguments. Like I've told you before, it makes no sense to call Beyoncé overrated because she's not a main songwriter. No Beyoncé review I ever read praised her for her songwriting skills, in fact, most of the reviews mention her co-writers and the amount of them. So to call Beyoncé underrated for reasons that have nothing to do with what critics write about them is clearly an invalid argument. It's that easy.

Your arguments suck, they're lazy and they're awfully biased to a degree which makes your "I do research!", "I'm not as biased as the critics!" presentation ridiculous. It just makes for very boring discussions because you act like you have something substantial to say but you really don't. You could, but you won't. You'll defend this "Björk should just make normal music, stop being weird, freak" bs as an example of a feminist, researched critique of music. It's just ludicrous.

Maybe you're the one with wilful delusion, then. You seem very blind to reality.

I didn't claim to see inside artists heads. I said I make judgements about them based on the impression I get from their work. Just like everyone else. Maybe I've judged them wrong. But I never claim my impressions as facts. I see nothing wrong with speculating. Maybe you do. I don't.

This thread isn't about refuting every critic's claim (though I did say previously that critics claims that 1989 was so fresh-sounding and innovative seemed to have forgotten Carly Rae Jepsen's Kiss album, released in 2012, which got much more lukewarm reviews, despite it being an extremely similar style. I got the distinct impression Taylor was inspired by it). It's about writing a short and sweet explanation about the artists you personally find to be overrated. If you want to make a thread about refuting critics opinions with evidence, make one yourself. But this is my thread, therefore, I make the rules. I've stated my intention for this thread. Don't like it? Make your own with your own rules.

No, I'm not going to refer to every critic's argument or I'd be here all day. Who are you to tell me the rules of a thread I made? I made it, I know it's intentions, you don't (isn't that ironic?)! Stop telling me what to do and not to do in my own thread! Who the hell do you think you are?! And Beyonce has been praised for her songwriting and she's won awards for it. Don't play dumb with me. And it wasn't the only criticism I made of her.

Your arguments are the biased ones. You only reserve proper, indepth analysis for artists that you like. You don't have any time for ones you dislike. Sounds like bias to me. You also think you have something more substantial to say than you actually do. You just bore people with endless facts that mean nothing to them (all those Beyonce stats you threw at me I knew already), thinking that qualifies as validity and will make people like the artist or something. I did not say that about Bjork. You're putting words in my mouth. Hypocrite.

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

On 13 de mayo de 2016 at 5:33 PM, Skai Jackson said:

Death Grips are a bit overrated.

MC Ride can get inside of me anytime he wants 

[VenusBlackStar 1,301]

On 5/13/2016 at 7:54 PM, Uncle ARTPOP said:

I was agreeing that she is underrated albumwise but then overrated as a whole.

I believe La Isla Bonita is there as well!

 

Overrated IMO: Maroon 5, Sam Smith

Underrated IMO: Lana Del Rey, GreenDay

[Didymus 34,379]

2 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

No, I'm not going to refer to every critic's argument or I'd be here all day. Who are you to tell me the rules of a thread I made? I made it, I know it's intentions, you don't (isn't that ironic?)! Stop telling me what to do and not to do in my own thread! Who the hell do you think you are?! And Beyonce has been praised for her songwriting and she's won awards for it. Don't play dumb with me. And it wasn't the only criticism I made of her.

We all know what the intentions are lmao, it's to identify artists you feel are critically over/underrated and explain why. You did so and I'm criticizing your argumentation and the way you went about it. Is that so damnable? You specifically made a thread about critics' ratings, not general ones, so you're telling me it's unnecessary to respond to those critics' arguments? Doesn't mean you have to respond to every one of them, stop exaggerating.

And no, Beyoncé has never been awarded for her songwriting, except once all the way back in 2001 (undeservedly so) Never has the praise for her "songwriting" (which I have genuinely never seen recently) outdo the praise for her singing and general entertainment value. A lot of the Lemonade reviews mentioned the amount of co-writers on the album and still gave it smashing scores, because the music was amazing and Beyoncé had directed the musical project as a whole. Those two can co-exist, yet in your argument you're acting like the critics are praising her for writing those songs on her own, which makes your whole argument just a mess, since it doesn't respond to critics' evaluation of her at all. And that's just one example.

15 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Your arguments are the biased ones. You only reserve proper, indepth analysis for artists that you like. You don't have any time for ones you dislike. Sounds like bias to me. You also think you have something more substantial to say than you actually do. You just bore people with endless facts that mean nothing to them (all those Beyonce stats you threw at me I knew already), thinking that qualifies as validity and will make people like the artist or something. I did not say that about Bjork. You're putting words in my mouth. Hypocrite.

Bias or a more respectable way of planning your time? Why would I be as analytical towards artists I didn't feel drawn to? Why is it "biased" to spend more time on the artists I actually care about? Imo it functions exactly oppositely as evident from your critical posts.

Nice to see you completely misrepresent our conversation about Beyoncé as if you didn't bring up all those "stats" arguments yourself in your first post there. Foolish girl. Besides, it was never about liking her. It was about being honest to objective reality despite your opinion about her, which you could've expressed without the lies too. I repeated that many times so the fact that you're now intentionally forgetting that part is just the cherry on top here.

And what exactly is wrong about my presentation of your opinion about Björk? You literally said that if she made something normal she'd be better but she thinks she has to make something weird of it, ruining whatever good she's got. The only thing I added was the "freak" thing which admittedly was dramatic, though your "her music is just odd", "aural torture" comments make it semi-permissible.

I only think I have something substantial to say when I know I can successfully point out that someone is not being logical or is making conclusions that aren't warranted, such as: "Beyoncé does the same things over and over again". It's your thread and it's your rules, indeed, but when I see a weak argument I might wanna point it out, especially because I have a personal problem with the way you present your negative opinions. It's your thread, your rules, you don't have to take offense and immediately jump on me calling me an elitist Björk fan/music snob for no reason, just ignore me then.

[StrawberryBlond 14,787]

58 minutes ago, Didymus said:

We all know what the intentions are lmao, it's to identify artists you feel are critically over/underrated and explain why. You did so and I'm criticizing your argumentation and the way you went about it. Is that so damnable? You specifically made a thread about critics' ratings, not general ones, so you're telling me it's unnecessary to respond to those critics' arguments? Doesn't mean you have to respond to every one of them, stop exaggerating.

And no, Beyoncé has never been awarded for her songwriting, except once all the way back in 2001 (undeservedly so) Never has the praise for her "songwriting" (which I have genuinely never seen recently) outdo the praise for her singing and general entertainment value. A lot of the Lemonade reviews mentioned the amount of co-writers on the album and still gave it smashing scores, because the music was amazing and Beyoncé had directed the musical project as a whole. Those two can co-exist, yet in your argument you're acting like the critics are praising her for writing those songs on her own, which makes your whole argument just a mess, since it doesn't respond to critics' evaluation of her at all. And that's just one example.

Bias or a more respectable way of planning your time? Why would I be as analytical towards artists I didn't feel drawn to? Why is it "biased" to spend more time on the artists I actually care about? Imo it functions exactly oppositely as evident from your critical posts.

Nice to see you completely misrepresent our conversation about Beyoncé as if you didn't bring up all those "stats" arguments yourself in your first post there. Foolish girl. Besides, it was never about liking her. It was about being honest to objective reality despite your opinion about her, which you could've expressed without the lies too. I repeated that many times so the fact that you're now intentionally forgetting that part is just the cherry on top here.

And what exactly is wrong about my presentation of your opinion about Björk? You literally said that if she made something normal she'd be better but she thinks she has to make something weird of it, ruining whatever good she's got. The only thing I added was the "freak" thing which admittedly was dramatic, though your "her music is just odd", "aural torture" comments make it semi-permissible.

I only think I have something substantial to say when I know I can successfully point out that someone is not being logical or is making conclusions that aren't warranted, such as: "Beyoncé does the same things over and over again". It's your thread and it's your rules, indeed, but when I see a weak argument I might wanna point it out, especially because I have a personal problem with the way you present your negative opinions. It's your thread, your rules, you don't have to take offense and immediately jump on me calling me an elitist Björk fan/music snob for no reason, just ignore me then.

There's no point continuing this. You're just going round in circles again and repeating things. If you can't accept people's opinions or their expressions of them, maybe you shouldn't be on a forum. Maybe one day you'll realise that your attitude needs adjusting and learn to read people a bit better instead of jumping to conclusions, making derogatory remarks and demanding they change.

What's wrong with the way you present my opinions is that you make them sound childish and not based on solid reasoning. You need to stop treating people like they're beneath you and instead view them as equals.

If you want to be ignored, why do you keep quoting me and starting arguments? Did it ever occur to you that if you're nice and respectful, I will return it? I'm only short with people who unfairly criticise and judge me, especially when I haven't done anything to them. Treat people how you want to be treated and you'll realise that I'm not the person you think I am. Maybe then you'd see the positive impact I can have around here if you'd just be a bit more open minded and understanding.

[FGGrayson 9,670]

Radiohead & Björk?? bye