If you combine the output of Joy Division / New Order...

[Spring in Fialta]

I personally strongly prefer The Velvet Ubderground to The Beatles, but I think The Beatles pretty obviously are better at short classic pop songs. YMMV for how important that is to you, but The Beatles have dozens of them while The Velvet Underground barely even attempted any. Their most pop album is Loaded, and that seems to be the fourth favorite album for most VU fans I’ve spoken to.

I'll agree that Loaded is the weakest of the 4 VU albums, but I'd also argue that Sunday Morning, I'll Be Your Mirror, Femme Fatale and most of the third album are pop songs and a lot of them blow out the best of Beatles pop (Candy Says, Jesus, I'm Set Free). Lou Reed schemed to get rid of John Cale after White Light/White Heat specifically in an attempt at making the band more accessible and pop.

 

[OzzyFan]

But that's ultimately just a fallacious appeal to popularity, accessibility, narrative authority, lowest common denominator average perception, and pop culture relevance, which are undeniable with those "consensus" bands for sure, but I really don't see what's objectively compelling about that when it comes to what we ought to think about actual greatness.

I mean, look at what those standards suggest about modern acts-- Why are we happy to apply those same clearly faulty standards to the 60s and 70s, dripped with historical bias, nostalgia, and non-music-based sentiment? If anything, it's an unlikely outlier that The Beatles, Stones, or Zeppelin are as popular as they are given how good they actually are (and it's driven by numerous other factors that have nothing to do with how good their music is, such as fashion, marketability, charisma, accessibility, being at the right place and time doing the right thing, etc.)-- it shouldn't be viewed as a correlation that suggests anything about their level of greatness by any means.

If we want to label them as clearly the most iconic artists of all time, on this basis, sure, that would be pretty fair and I would go along with that argument (The Rolling Stones are clearly far more iconic than Joy Division). But that's a very different idea altogether.

While there obviously isn't really an objectively satisfying way to measure how great a band is in general, this "more verifiable" method is certainly an invalid and irrational one, and when you remove it from consideration, the lines become very blurred, ambiguous, and dependent on what qualities one actually finds meaningful and valuable.

In my view, the term "greatness" has much more appropriate meaning if it's used to refer to the artists that we think deserve the most credit rather than the artists that happen to get it for a multitude of reasons (some relevant but many irrelevant).

While I agree with most of your sentiments, I think it's your conclusions that are off base. Popularity and widespread music appeal/acknowledgement of excellence is as close as your going to get to indiscriminate greatness judged by the masses. Now if you wanted to ask music enthusiasts/historians/etc, then that's a whole other thing. But the whole "Beatles/Stones" answer to a question like this is as consensus as you're going to get in general.

The variability in the definition of greatness and the characteristics by which greatness is ranked is interesting, but a whole argument in itself. I can say The Beatles, Bach, Miles Davis, Frank Zappa, and Leonard Cohen are the 5 greatest artist/band/musical-creators of all time, and given my translation of the definition of the word greatness, I won't be wrong. The variation of how one judges this question asked is so enormous that it's not truly fair to throw out 1 or 2 bands and vague terms and hope for widespread agreement or proper intellectual debate. That's why I proposed the asterisk theory. Is Joy Divison (and as proven, New Order to a much lesser extent) one of the greatest bands of all time(at minimum from a discography standpoint), the answer is maybe, but the general consensus would be no. That depends on your interpretation of the word greatest, your guidelines for this ranking, and lastly of course...your taste/opinion on music (which can't be understated in the slightest).

 

[x Tame Impala]

In my view, the term greatness has much more appropriate meaning if it's used to refer to the artists that we think deserve the most credit rather than the artists that happen to get it for a multitude of reasons (some relevant but many irrelevant).

The qualities you listed are completely fair and reasonable standards. Things like accessibility, popularity, song quality, discophraphy quality & longevity, standards the band/artist set with their work, ability to transcend, etc...

If none of those things count, or if any number of those things don’t count, then it sounds like you’ve just got an extra special appreciation for a specific artist/band and want to use certain criteria to make them sound greater than they were.

Specifically popularity and accessibility...the “Transformers” movies are usually thrown into the mix whenever this sort of discussion happens. “Transformers made over a BILLION DOLLARS, does that mean you think it’s better than...”

We’re not talking about junk pop-music or mindless CGI action fest movies...we’re specifically comparing highly regarded bands that have seen decades of musical popularity. A band’s ability to be accessible and showcase their great music to as many people as possible IS a standard used to compare other bands. Whether you see it or not.

New Order and Joy Division were great bands. I loved them. But they don’t appeal to as many people the way the big 3 do. Which is fine. Their music isn’t for everyone and it never was meant for everyone. Whereas the big 3 made awesome music that most people could enjoy.

My username is Tame Impala for a reason. I f***ing love that band. I think they’re up there with the best bands of this century. But it would be ridiculous for me to make a case that they’re the best band ever. Or that they’re better than the Beatles.

Another thing, in particular the way you just toss out the musical and technical contributions Jimmy Paige, John Bonham, and Jean Paul Jones and the stylistic and frontman contributions from Plant...as if they weren’t monumental to moving rock forward and/or if their talents weren’t legendary, to me shows a general lack of true acknowledgment for how influential and important they were.

Long story short, just because you’re in love with NO/JD doesn’t make them the greatest thing on earth. Which is the impression I’ve always gotten from you guys trying to promote your contrarian opinions.

Captain Beefheart....GTFO

I personally strongly prefer The Velvet Ubderground to The Beatles, but I think The Beatles pretty obviously are better at short classic pop songs. YMMV for how important that is to you, but The Beatles have dozens of them while The Velvet Underground barely even attempted any. Their most pop album is Loaded, and that seems to be the fourth favorite album for most VU fans I’ve spoken to.

The Velvet Underground has been my favorite band for 7 years now. I’d never even dream of thinking they’re better than the big 3.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The qualities you listed are completely fair and reasonable standards. Things like accessibility, popularity, song quality, discophraphy quality & longevity, standards the band/artist set with their work, ability to transcend, etc...

If none of those things count, or if any number of those things don’t count, then it sounds like you’ve just got an extra special appreciation for a specific artist/band and want to use certain criteria to make them sound greater than they were.

Specifically popularity and accessibility...the “Transformers” movies are usually thrown into the mix whenever this sort of discussion happens. “Transformers made over a BILLION DOLLARS, does that mean you think it’s better than...”

We’re not talking about junk pop-music or mindless CGI action fest movies...we’re specifically comparing highly regarded bands that have seen decades of musical popularity. A band’s ability to be accessible and showcase their great music to as many people as possible IS a standard used to compare other bands. Whether you see it or not.

New Order and Joy Division were great bands. I loved them. But they don’t appeal to as many people the way the big 3 do. Which is fine. Their music isn’t for everyone and it never was meant for everyone. Whereas the big 3 made awesome music that most people could enjoy.

My username is Tame Impala for a reason. I f***ing love that band. I think they’re up there with the best bands of this century. But it would be ridiculous for me to make a case that they’re the best band ever. Or that they’re better than the Beatles.

Another thing, in particular the way you just toss out the musical and technical contributions Jimmy Paige, John Bonham, and Jean Paul Jones and the stylistic and frontman contributions from Plant...as if they weren’t monumental to moving rock forward and/or if their talents weren’t legendary, to me shows a general lack of true acknowledgment for how influential and important they were.

Long story short, just because you’re in love with NO/JD doesn’t make them the greatest thing on earth. Which is the impression I’ve always gotten from you guys trying to promote your contrarian opinions.

Captain Beefheart....GTFO





The Velvet Underground has been my favorite band for 7 years now. I’d never even dream of thinking they’re better than the big 3.

It doesn't compute with me that if a band is tour favorite, you would never 'dream' of thinking they're better than another band because they have had more mainstream popularity. I mean, so it doesn't mean anything that a big part why The Beatles were able to have an audience for their progressive music is because they already had an insane audience from being teeny-bop superstars to begin their careers. A fanbase was already built-in from having gained success from a different genre of music. It doesn't take credit away from the good, sometimes phenomenal music that they subsequently make, but I would never dismiss their advantage fron having a legion of consumers already built-in when they made that drastic shift.

 

[Shareefruck]

The qualities you listed are completely fair and reasonable standards. Things like accessibility, popularity, song quality, discophraphy quality & longevity, standards the band/artist set with their work, ability to transcend, etc...

If none of those things count, or if any number of those things don’t count, then it sounds like you’ve just got an extra special appreciation for a specific artist/band and want to use certain criteria to make them sound greater than they were.

Specifically popularity and accessibility...the “Transformers” movies are usually thrown into the mix whenever this sort of discussion happens. “Transformers made over a BILLION DOLLARS, does that mean you think it’s better than...”

We’re not talking about junk pop-music or mindless CGI action fest movies...we’re specifically comparing highly regarded bands that have seen decades of musical popularity. A band’s ability to be accessible and showcase their great music to as many people as possible IS a standard used to compare other bands. Whether you see it or not.

New Order and Joy Division were great bands. I loved them. But they don’t appeal to as many people the way the big 3 do. Which is fine. Their music isn’t for everyone and it never was meant for everyone. Whereas the big 3 made awesome music that most people could enjoy.

My username is Tame Impala for a reason. I f***ing love that band. I think they’re up there with the best bands of this century. But it would be ridiculous for me to make a case that they’re the best band ever. Or that they’re better than the Beatles.

Another thing, in particular the way you just toss out the musical and technical contributions Jimmy Paige, John Bonham, and Jean Paul Jones and the stylistic and frontman contributions from Plant...as if they weren’t monumental to moving rock forward and/or if their talents weren’t legendary, to me shows a general lack of true acknowledgment for how influential and important they were.

Long story short, just because you’re in love with NO/JD doesn’t make them the greatest thing on earth. Which is the impression I’ve always gotten from you guys trying to promote your contrarian opinions.

Captain Beefheart....GTFO





The Velvet Underground has been my favorite band for 7 years now. I’d never even dream of thinking they’re better than the big 3.

I never said that song/discography quality and ability to transcend are unreasonable standards-- they're clearly important. But using public perception of these things to gauge whether or not someone meets those standards is a faulty metric because that is essentially still just appealing to popularity, which is a measurement that is at the mercy of a million unimportant external factors.

The factors that make mindless things popular are still the same factors that make things that are actually good popular-- it doesn't suddenly become a meaningful metric out of nowhere once you move past a certain standard of quality. They're not incompatible, I agree, but they also don't correlate with each other in any meaningful way. For example, while I think The Beatles are much better than The Stones (and in turn deserve the greater credit that they receive), they're not verifiably better simply because of how much more popular and more well appreciated they are in general by the masses-- that would be an absurd argument that I would never make even if it heavily suits and favors my preferences.

Also, arguing that their popularity is irrelevant is not the same thing as tossing out the actual contributions made by these bands. I think the Stones and Zeppelin are very very good bands. I'm merely arguing that they can't be gauged by what the consensus is. Like with any argument, any given person should instead be arguing their merits for what they are and how they function instead of citing how many people feel that this is true and treating that as some kind of evidence and authority for it.

Also, I don't particularly care that much for New Order, and don't feel that they're necessarily superior to the Stones or Zeppelin (you're mistaking me for the other posters that love them). I find Beggar's Banquet to be a better album than anything New Order has ever done, personally. Joy Division, I would argue had a stronger two-three year stretch, and whether or not they should be considered better depends more on how important longevity is to you (it's not very important to me). I think that Closer rivals Revolver and that both dwarf any albums from Zeppelin/The Stones.

And hell, even if I were to be generous and say that accessibility IS an important factor (which I don't really agree with-- some of the greatest bands in the world are completely inaccessible to most-- it can be a feature that can highlight how uncompromised their work is-- that's not some black mark on its quality simply because it can't reach as wide of an audience), I don't think there's an argument that can be made that it's an overruling factor that can be used as the sole barometer of anything.

---

Edit: I noticed that you just now "liked" one of my previous posts in a videogame thread where I argued pretty much the exact same thing, so I'm a little confused about why you're scoffing at the same sentiment here.

I strongly disagree with the whole "I didn't like it but it was good" thing, and it always irks me-- to me, whether you like something and whether you think something is good (the subjective and the closest thing to objective than an individual can get) should be pretty closely aligned, if not identical, otherwise it's like, what are you even doing? There's no real point to rating something if you're just going to modestly defer to authority/known conventions and standards that don't actually apply to your own sensibilities and values.

 

[Shareefruck]

It doesn't compute with me that if a band is tour favorite, you would never 'dream' of thinking they're better than another band because they have had more mainstream popularity. I mean, so it doesn't mean anything that a big part why The Beatles were able to have an audience for their progressive music is because they already had an insane audience from being teeny-bop superstars to begin their careers. A fanbase was already built-in from having gained success from a different genre of music. It doesn't take credit away from the good, sometimes phenomenal music that they subsequently make, but I would never dismiss their advantage fron having a legion of consumers already built-in when they made that drastic shift.

This too. I doubt The Beatles would be nearly as popular as they are if their entire career was up to the standards of their best work (if they started their career by secluding themselves in the studio and making Rubber Soul/Revolver for example, and tacked on a few more years of that level of greatness after Abbey Road). Their weakest material was arguably the greatest catalyst for their fame, which gives you an idea of how much popularity necessarily correlates with quality.

Then you have cases where The Kinks arguably made albums that were just as good as The Stones but missed out on fame due to unfortunate circumstances.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

This too. I doubt The Beatles would be nearly as popular as they are if their entire career was up to the standards of their best work (if they started their career by secluding themselves in the studio and making Rubber Soul/Revolver for example, and tacked on a few more years of that after Abbey Road). Their weakest material was arguably the greatest catalyst for their fame, which gives you an idea of how much popularity necessarily correlates with quality.

There are also other parallels from around the same time period that suggest the same thing, with The Kinks arguably making albums that were just as good as The Stones were but missing out on fame due to an unfortunate circumstances.

Radiohead is another example (but far less considerable) of The Beatles story. If they start with OK Computer or Kid A, they don't have receive massive attention from the start. At least, I doubt it. And that's not to say a band like Velvet Underground didn't have any help either, they were with Andy Warhol, but it was a completely different niche. Maybe VU and Nico is eventually discovered even later, but they still stayed within the scene/contacts from having that cachet to begin. with They weren't randoms from Oregon. You still have to make the work, but the platform helps tremendously.

 

[Shareefruck]

Radiohead is another example (but far less considerable) of The Beatles story. If they start with OK Computer or Kid A, they don't have receive massive attention from the start. At least, I doubt it. And that's not to say a band like Velvet Underground didn't have any help either, they were with Andy Warhol, but it was a completely different niche. Maybe VU and Nico is eventually discovered even later, but they still stayed within the scene/contacts from having that cachet to begin. with They weren't randoms from Oregon. You still have to make the work, but the platform helps tremendously.

Yep. Ultimately, the entirety of OK Computer, Kid A, and In Rainbows combined probably doesn't drive them to massive fame nearly as easily as a cheesy song like Creep does.

To a lesser extent, Dylan opportunistically capitalizing on political movements with protest songs playing a bigger role on his fame than if he went electric right away with his best and most personal material could be seen as another example of this (though that's much more debatable since many do prefer his protest stuff).

While I can't confidently claim this with 100% certainty, sometimes I feel like once you get past a certain threshold, the relationship between popularity and quality almost starts to become somewhat inversely proportional, if anything, with only a few opportune outlier circumstances like what we mentioned. Generally, in order to reach insane levels of universal popularity, the quality of your work usually needs to be somewhat artistically compromised and limited to a certain ceiling in order to be palletable to everyone, whereas in order to reach the highest peaks of quality and nuance, you usually need to be willing to alienate some of your audience and limit your universal appeal to a certain ceiling.

Whether that's exactly accurate or not, it's certainly not a linear relationship.

 

[x Tame Impala]

“If the Beatles didn’t make music on their first 2 albums that the whole world loved then they wouldn’t be considered as great as they are today”...well YEAH. Duh.

You two should take your convo to PMs (or
I should stop posting in this thread) because what you’re are saying is so ridiculous it clearly is just for the two of you.

The entire premise of Joy Division and New Order was to appeal to the castaways and abandoned souls in the UK who never felt loved and never fit in. Their entire M.O. was to make music for those who didn’t fit into the more popular mold music appealed to. They wanted to make those people who felt like they didn’t belong feel that there are poeple out there like them that also love great music. They specifically chose to limit their appeal which made them less alluring to less people which makes them less great of a band.

Most of their music is very good, some of it is even fantastic, but by no metric are they better than the Beatles other than meaningless subjectivity. They didn’t have more hits, they didn’t sell more albums, they didn’t have the longevity, their music doesn’t have the staying power The Beatles does. Long story short, the Beatles made legendary music for the whole world to enjoy, New Order and Joy Division had a couple really good albums for their niche fan base.

You two are choosing to devalue talent and consistently great contributions for no other reason than you want to. Accessibility isn’t a sin. I should’ve learned my lesson from 3 years ago not to get into this stuff with you because you can’t be reasoned with. Enjoy your wormhole of subjectivity in future discussions.

 

[NyQuil]

Generally, in order to reach insane levels of universal popularity, the quality of your work usually needs to be somewhat artistically compromised and limited to a certain ceiling in order to be palletable to everyone, whereas in order to reach the highest peaks of quality and nuance, you usually need to be willing to alienate some of your audience and limit your universal appeal to a certain ceiling.

Whether that's exactly accurate or not, it's certainly not a linear relationship.

Yeah, I see it as the exact opposite.

The work is perceived as being artistically compromised once it has universal appeal.

There is an entire subset of people who dislike sharing their preferences with mainstream opinion as it contradicts their inherent belief that they have a unique and nuanced appreciation of an artform that the average person does not possess.

The critical perception of their artistry is a casualty and a victim of their own popularity.

What I admire about someone like @kihei is that he manages to bring his experienced lens for film to bear without seemingly being burdened by any preconceived notions of what a film critic -should- like or dislike.

One of my pet peeves is these retroactive reviews of albums that sites like Pitchfork put together - in some cases contradicting their original evaluations. I'd prefer if they just stood by their original opinions rather than trying to correct a past mistake or make up for a seemingly missed opportunity.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

“If the Beatles didn’t make music on their first 2 albums that the whole world loved then they wouldn’t be considered as great as they are today”...well YE
Duh.

You two should take your convo to PMs (or
I should stop posting in this thread) because what you’re are saying is so ridiculous it clearly is just for the two of you.

The entire premise of Joy Division and New Order was to appeal to the castaways and abandoned souls in the UK who never felt loved and never fit in. Their entire M.O. was to make music for those who didn’t fit into the more popular mold music appealed to. They wanted to make those people who felt like they didn’t belong feel that there are poeple out there like them that also love great music. They specifically chose to limit their appeal which made them less alluring to less people which makes them less great of a band.

Most of their music is very good, some of it is even fantastic, but by no metric are they better than the Beatles other than meaningless subjectivity. They didn’t have more hits, they didn’t sell more albums, they didn’t have the longevity, their music doesn’t have the staying power The Beatles does. Long story short, the Beatles made legendary music for the whole world to enjoy, New Order and Joy Division had a couple really good albums for their niche fan base.

You two are choosing to devalue talent and consistently great contributions for no other reason than you want to. Accessibility isn’t a sin. I should’ve learned my lesson from 3 years ago not to get into this stuff with you because you can’t be reasoned with. Enjoy your wormhole of subjectivity in future discussions.

At this point, I'm not sure whether you're trolling or simply have awful reading comprehension.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Yeah, I see it as the exact opposite.

The work is perceived as being artistically compromised once it has universal appeal.

There is an entire subset of people who dislike sharing their preferences with mainstream opinion as it contradicts their inherent belief that they have a unique and nuanced appreciation of an artform that the average person does not possess.

The critical perception of their artistry is a casualty and a victim of their own popularity.

What I admire about someone like @kihei is that he manages to bring his experienced lens for film to bear without seemingly being burdened by any preconceived notions of what a film critic -should- like or dislike.

One of my pet peeves is these retroactive reviews of albums that sites like Pitchfork put together - in some cases contradicting their original evaluations. I'd prefer if they just stood by their original opinions rather than trying to correct a past mistake or make up for a seemingly missed opportunity.

I'm not sure whether you think this is being done here but throughout this entire thread the one thing that has baffled me the most is some posters pretending like the bands being preferred to The Beatles or LZ or The Rolling Stones aren't massive, world famous bands themselves. No one here brought up some unknown and obscure band. Bands like Joy Division or VU have massive mainstream appeal. They may not have it had when they were active but they certainly do today.

And I 100% agree about the Pitchfork thing - that site sucks anyways.

 

[NyQuil]

I'm not sure whether you think this is being done here but throughout this entire thread the one thing that has baffled me the most is some posters pretending like the bands being preferred to The Beatles or LZ or The Rolling Stones aren't massive, world famous bands themselves. No one here brought up some unknown and obscure band. Bands like Joy Division or VU have massive mainstream appeal. They may not have it had when they were active but they certainly do today.

Sorry, I was responding to the quoted comment as opposed to making a commentary on the thread itself.

I do think that it is nearly impossible to be critically acclaimed and universally popular, and unlike some in this thread, I don't think it necessarily has to do with the quality of the art but rather more of a result of group psychology.

To be clear, I'm not saying that a lot of crap isn't popular. But I also think that being popular has a negative impact on your critical acclaim.

There was an interesting comment by journalist Sam Smith during the "Last Dance" documentary series on Michael Jordan, where he stated (paraphrased) that Jordan was basically acknowledged as the league MVP by everyone throughout the vast majority of his career, and yet he did not win the award every season because "the media needs a story" and it was boring and seemingly limiting to simply have Michael Jordan win every year.

I believe that there also a degree of narcissism when it comes to expert opinion, where to justify their status and credibility as "experts", they feel the need to select an option that is unexpected or at odds with the prevailing opinion.

And I 100% agree about the Pitchfork thing - that site sucks anyways.

My two favorite Pitchfork references are as follows:

Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8

David Cross: Albums to Listen to While Reading Overwrought Pitchfork Reviews

 

[NyQuil]

I always liked this response from Rod Serling:

 

[kihei]

At this point, I'm not sure whether you're trolling or simply have awful reading comprehension.

This is dumbly dismissive response to a post that makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[x Tame Impala]

That's a great quote @NyQuil

 

[NyQuil]

That's a great quote @NyQuil

Well, I can't pretend that I found it through any kind of deep dive on this material.

It's actually a sample in an ambient song I listen to:

 

[Miguel Cairo]

The entire premise of Joy Division and New Order was to appeal to the castaways and abandoned souls in the UK who never felt loved and never fit in.

I always though New Order’s entire premise was taking a bunch of ecstasy and playing around with trying to replicate Kraftwerk’s sound in dance music.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Sorry, I was responding to the quoted comment as opposed to making a commentary on the thread itself.

I do think that it is nearly impossible to be critically acclaimed and universally popular, and unlike some in this thread, I don't think it necessarily has to do with the quality of the art but rather more of a result of group psychology.

To be clear, I'm not saying that a lot of crap isn't popular. But I also think that being popular has a negative impact on your critical acclaim.

There was an interesting comment by journalist Sam Smith during the "Last Dance" documentary series on Michael Jordan, where he stated (paraphrased) that Jordan was basically acknowledged as the league MVP by everyone throughout the vast majority of his career, and yet he did not win the award every season because "the media needs a story" and it was boring and seemingly limiting to simply have Michael Jordan win every year.

I believe that there also a degree of narcissism when it comes to expert opinion, where to justify their status and credibility as "experts", they feel the need to select an option that is unexpected or at odds with the prevailing opinion.



My two favorite Pitchfork references are as follows:

Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8

David Cross: Albums to Listen to While Reading Overwrought Pitchfork Reviews

Eum, I don't know, I do think that some artists are (justifiably) critically acclaimed and have universal appeal with mainstream audiences. For examples, I can think of artists like Kubrick, Watterson or Hemingway who are all phenomenal and have sustained both critical and commercial lauding.

What was discussed yesterday is just that certain bands were in a perfect position in that they already had an audience for whatever they put out. I don't even know why that would be controversial. We wouldn't deny it if One Direction put out an art rock record (and before somebody comes in hot, I'm not comparing OD to Beatles) but why is it unfair to mention it when it comes to the Beatles? Their most acclaimed/remembered music comes from when they stopped performing live. To deny that they had a massive potential audience for whatever they did from being world-famous as teenaged pop star just seems odd to me.

I'm not sure how it works with expert critics (i.e. those who make a living from it) in that I don't particularly know many by name/their history/their favorites but I'm not surprised that somebody who presumably would consume/watch/receive a ton of content would have some of their preferences not be extremely popular/well-known/mainstream picks. The odds just don't favor it by the sheer amount of content that person is actively reacting to. There are only so many cultural/mainstream darlings and then the rest. You're bound to find something that knocks you on your ass in the latter, particularly if you get out of major (often english-speaking) hubs.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

This is dumbly dismissive response to a post that makes a lot of sense to me.

It's arguing against something that wasn't argued. Nobody is saying if The Beatles didn't make the music that they did early on, they wouldn't be as beloved as they are today. That's obvious and silly to point out. The point that was made is that The Beatles gained a massive advantage to get their less radio-friendly music out to large audiences, critics, popular culture by having gained worldwide fame as radio pop stars beforehand. The world would indulge them more and this point is independent of the idea that the music was very good in and of itself.

Again, whether JD or NO made music for the reason mentioned by Tame Impala (and I don't even know if that's actually true) is immaterial. I don't care whether they made music for outcasts or for one single freak that they met in an alley in Manchester. It sounds good and better than most to my ear. Why would I deny that because another band has more hit records, more fame and more fans? We don't think in these terms for other artforms, so why music? And this isn't only solely directed towards this board. You can even make that comparison between the Oscars and the Grammys, even considering the former's flaws.

 

[NyQuil]

What was discussed yesterday is just that certain bands were in a perfect position in that they already had an audience for whatever they put out. I don't even know why that would be controversial. We wouldn't deny it if One Direction put out an art rock record (and before somebody comes in hot, I'm not comparing OD to Beatles) but why is it unfair to mention it when it comes to the Beatles? Their most acclaimed/remembered music comes from when they stopped performing live. To deny that they had a massive potential audience for whatever they did from being world-famous as teenaged pop star just seems odd to me.

I think it's a fair comment.

It is interesting that the Beach Boys and the Beatles followed a similar route towards artistic acclaim.

One thing I've noticed about stand-up comedy, is that when you go back and watch a lot of the most highly regarded stand-ups in their early days, they are often forced into fairly conventional delivery and joke telling. It's really more about the format than the talent. They have 6 minutes and they can only fit so much material in.

Often it's only when they get over that hump, and they are given chunks of time to work with, that they have the freedom to work around the conventional edges of comedy and demonstrate their unique qualities.

Their inherent popularity gave them the clout with the funders and the luxury to be more adventurous.

I'm not sure how it works with expert critics (i.e. those who make a living from it) in that I don't particularly know many by name/their history/their favorites but I'm not surprised that somebody who presumably would consume/watch/receive a ton of content would have some of their preferences not be extremely popular/well-known/mainstream picks. The odds just don't favor it by the sheer amount of content that person is actively reacting to. There are only so many cultural/mainstream darlings and then the rest. You're bound to find something that knocks you on your ass in the latter, particularly if you get out of major (often english-speaking) hubs.

I think we differ on the fact that I believe that there is inherent pressure to deliberately seek out and promote the obscure at the critical expense of what may be more well-known.

Obviously like everyone and everything, there are exceptions.

When it comes to music, I like to listen to Alan Cross, host of the Ongoing History of New Music (podcasts as well) in that he seemingly treats all genres and artists with a degree of respect regardless of how commercial they are. He's extremely well-informed and well-regarded but he doesn't let that corner him into an ivory tower of cynical detachment and dilute an almost naive enthusiasm.

 

[kook10]

Coming from a fan: Joy Division is a fantastic spice, but other bands are capable of making meals.

 

[Eisen]

They have a bunch of good songs but I am not a fan. Not my music.

 

[Ceremony]

I always though New Order’s entire premise was taking a bunch of ecstasy and playing around with trying to replicate Kraftwerk’s sound in dance music.

Fun fact: The original name for World in Motion was E For England, but the FA said no.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I think it's a fair comment.

It is interesting that the Beach Boys and the Beatles followed a similar route towards artistic acclaim.

One thing I've noticed about stand-up comedy, is that when you go back and watch a lot of the most highly regarded stand-ups in their early days, they are often forced into fairly conventional delivery and joke telling. It's really more about the format than the talent. They have 6 minutes and they can only fit so much material in.

Often it's only when they get over that hump, and they are given chunks of time to work with, that they have the freedom to work around the conventional edges of comedy and demonstrate their unique qualities.

Their inherent popularity gave them the clout with the funders and the luxury to be more adventurous.

I fully agree.

I think we differ on the fact that I believe that there is inherent pressure to deliberately seek out and promote the obscure at the critical expense of what may be more well-known.

Obviously like everyone and everything, there are exceptions.

When it comes to music, I like to listen to Alan Cross, host of the Ongoing History of New Music (podcasts as well) in that he seemingly treats all genres and artists with a degree of respect regardless of how commercial they are. He's extremely well-informed and well-regarded but he doesn't let that corner him into an ivory tower of cynical detachment and dilute an almost naive enthusiasm.

That's possible. I don't know enough about how it works between critics, their own beliefs and the publications with which they work. Although, at first glance, I don't have a problem with a critic with trying to promote something more obscure so long as they genuinely believe in the work. John Peel was famous for it, no?

To me, a critic's sole essence, would be to review a work only from their own sensibilities and point of view without any other external factor coming in, which includes whether the piece is a work of commercial art or not.