Music: Most Overrated and Most Underrated Rock Band in History

[tarheelhockey]

I think you might want to re-read with less assumed negativity the context in which I was using the words "assume" and "force". I wasn't referring to you trying to wildly force your opinion onto others. I just mean why are you "assuming" that "professional" should even be part of the equation and "force" an objective requirement into something subjective, even just in the context of you forming your own personal opinion. I gave reasons for why I don't see its relevance. The latter was also not in response to your initial comment, but to your most recent response about how there's no point if it is subjective rather than objective.

I'm not sure how I'm caricaturing your opinions or what's bad faith about this-- I'm just addressing why I don't find what you're saying reasonable or well-founded.

I don't think I'm reading with "assumed negativity" when you say a thing like "I don't find what you're saying reasonable or well-founded". Especially when the first paragraph of the prior post kicked off by characterizing my perspective as a "gross misconception" and "really silly".

You don't need to share my perspective. Feel free to disregard it. Just know that lines like "Conversations like these are worthwhile for the sake of sharing perspectives and potentially broadening our own by listening to others" ring pretty hollow in that context.

 

[angusyoung]

So many to choose from

Over- U2, the Police, Nirvana

Under- System of a down, Faith no more,Accept.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Based on what?

How can one even know what they want or don't want to listen to unless one has an extremely broad grasp of music?

One does not need an extremely broad grasp of music to be able to say "I don't like this" and change the channel.

One does not need an extremely broad grasp of music to be able to say "I like this so much, I'm going to spend my hard-earned money just so I can listen to this on repeat".

Of course you'll find that you like more things as you're exposed to more things, but we are not living in ancient history where people might only hear one or two styles of music in their lifetime. If someone is at all engaged with the world in 2021, they're inevitably sampling dozens of different genres and making clear choices about which ones to listen to regularly. Follow those data points and it becomes unmistakably clear which music captures the largest audience.

 

[Weztex]

One could also say Oasis are a realistic option for both.

Kind of.

In the public eye, Oasis were victims of their antics (same with Amy Winehouse). It distracted a lot of people (and critics) from their music and probably made them slightly underrated with time. Their last 2 albums, while a little uneven, featured a handful of really cool songs (The Importance of Being Idle, Falling Down, I'm Outta Time, The Shock of the Lightning...). Noel Gallagher is still a very good composer IMO.

But yeah I get why they could tick both boxes.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't think I'm reading with "assumed negativity" when you say a thing like "I don't find what you're saying reasonable or well-founded". Especially when the first paragraph of the prior post kicked off by characterizing my perspective as a "gross misconception" and "really silly".

You don't need to share my perspective. Feel free to disregard it. Just know that lines like "Conversations like these are worthwhile for the sake of sharing perspectives and potentially broadening our own by listening to others" ring pretty hollow in that context.

First of all, I was referring to "conversations like these" as in the thread topic that you considered pointless if it couldn't be objective (I'm saying that bouncing what we consider overrated and underrated off of each other is worthwhile even if no consensus can possibly be reached), not the disagreement we were having, which I agree, is not really about sharing or broadening perspectives at all.

Second, finding certain points and ideas unreasonable, not well-founded, a gross misconception, or silly is a far cry from making a disingenuous bad faith argument and mischaracterizing the other as making assumptions or forcing opinions on others (which I took exception to because I didn't do). The former seems like perfectly fair game in any disagreement, as long as fair reasons are given as to why one thinks that, which I think I've given without resorting to anything mean-spirited, personal, or uncalled for. It's blunt and perhaps uncharitable, but it's impersonal and criticizing the idea, not the person.

 

[Perennial]

The Beatles are the #1 band of all-time, so I'm not sure how they can be overrated unless we're talking technical ability...

From the standpoint of creating music, their library of hits is more impressive than any other musical act in history

They have about 30 songs that are almost universally known among music fans of a certain age

Nobody else comes close to that...

 

[Fantomas]

One does not need an extremely broad grasp of music to be able to say "I don't like this" and change the channel.

One does not need an extremely broad grasp of music to be able to say "I like this so much, I'm going to spend my hard-earned money just so I can listen to this on repeat".

True, but that's different from what knowing from one wants. I can listen to a piece of music now on Youtube and decide that I a) like it, b) dislike it.

But if I'm not exposed to certain kinds of music by an industry that curates what I will and will not listen to, then my preferences will be limited to a very narrow range of musical genres.

The industry doesn't know what you want. Part of the time they're guessing, the rest of the time they don't care. They're certainly not in the business of providing you with a broadest range of musical experiences to fully satisfy your - how did you put it - listener satisfaction.

you'll find that you like more things as you're exposed to more things, but we are not living in ancient history where people might only hear one or two styles of music in their lifetime. If someone is at all engaged with the world in 2021, they're inevitably sampling dozens of different genres and making clear choices about which ones to listen to regularly. Follow those data points and it becomes unmistakably clear which music captures the largest audience.

People indeed have the capacity to find many kinds of music these days. Whether we should thank the industry for this is doubtful. The industry isn't working to entice you to listen to Ornette Coleman.

 

[Shareefruck]

The Beatles are the #1 band of all-time, so I'm not sure how they can be overrated unless we're talking technical ability...

From the standpoint of creating music, their library of hits is more impressive than any other musical act in history

They have about 30 songs that are almost universally known among music fans of a certain age

Nobody else comes close to that...

I personally don't find The Beatles overrated (or at least, they're only overrated to a degree that's unavoidable for anyone placed all the way at the top), but these two points seem like requirements needed for something to be overrated, not reasons why something can't be.

Something needs to be thought highly of and widely recognized in order for the feeling of them being overrated to make sense.

 

[NyQuil]

They have about 30 songs that are almost universally known among music fans of a certain age

The fact that their entire catalogue existed before I was born, and the sheer number of covers and general usage of the songs, makes them more like "traditional folk songs" or "standards" as opposed to distinct music.

I never felt like I had to actively listen to the Beatles, they were always playing somewhere. My folks were big fans and had all the LPs.

I don't think their impact and popularity are really in question though.

 

[C0DITH]

Overrated - U2
Underrated - Our Lady Peace

 

[Osprey]

I'm annoyed that the OP called Nirvana a rock band. They killed rock and I'm still bitter about it.

That's my only contribution to this thread.

 

[tarheelhockey]

True, but that's different from what knowing from one wants. I can listen to a piece of music now on Youtube and decide that I a) like it, b) dislike it.

But if I'm not exposed to certain kinds of music by an industry that curates what I will and will not listen to, then my preferences will be limited to a very narrow range of musical genres.

The industry doesn't know what you want. Part of the time they're guessing, the rest of the time they don't care. They're certainly not in the business of providing you with a broadest range of musical experiences to fully satisfy your - how did you put it - listener satisfaction.

People indeed have the capacity to find many kinds of music these days. Whether we should thank the industry for this is doubtful. The industry isn't working to entice you to listen to Ornette Coleman.

I don't think anyone believes (and I certainly don't believe) that the music industry is curating listener interest as though the goal were to create High Art in its purest form, maximizing some sublime musical experience. What they are doing, is paying attention to what people like to listen to, and what they don't like to listen to, according to their own behaviors.

In the case of Ornette Coleman, we know for a proven fact that people generally tend not to listen to a lot of jazz. And that's not because people aren't exposed to jazz. Anyone who is remotely connected with the world has heard plenty of jazz. In all likelihood, they can name at least one jazz artist that they kind-of like, and they can tell you the things they do and don't like about jazz as a genre. They can hear jazz on NPR stations all across the country every day... if they want to, which most people don't. So I wouldn't say that the Music Industry is at fault for Ornette Coleman's lack of widespread popularity. It has a lot more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of people hear 10 seconds of an Ornette Coleman song, say "meh", and change the channel. It has a niche appeal to people who have an acquired taste for jazz, which is great for people whose interests trend in that direction, but isn't a very compelling argument for why Coleman should be any more widely appreciated than he already is.

Or to make that argument a lot shorter -- if Coleman was capable of being more popular, someone would have found a way to get rich doing that by now.

 

[Fantomas]

I don't think anyone believes (and I certainly don't believe) that the music industry is curating listener interest as though the goal were to create High Art in its purest form. What they are doing, is paying attention to what people like to listen to, and what they don't like to listen to, according to their own behaviors.

I said nothing about creating high art. I said that the industry has no real capacity, not interest, in satisfying the wants of listeners.

In the case of Ornette Coleman, we know for a proven fact that people generally tend not to listen to a lot of jazz. And that's not because people aren't exposed to jazz. Anyone who is remotely connected with the world has heard plenty of jazz. In all likelihood, they can name at least one jazz artist that they kind-of like, and they can tell you the things they do and don't like about jazz as a genre. They can hear jazz on NPR stations all across the country every day... if they want to, which most people don't. So I wouldn't say that the Music Industry is at fault for Ornette Coleman's lack of widespread popularity. It has a lot more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of people hear 10 seconds of an Ornette Coleman song, say "meh", and change the channel. It has a niche appeal to people who have an acquired taste for jazz, which is great for people whose interests trend in that direction, but isn't a very compelling argument for why Coleman should be any more widely appreciated than he already is.

You got this information from what academic study?

 

[Mikeaveli]

Most Overrated: Arcade Fire, The Doors

Most Underrated: The United States of America, Can

To expand to all genres:

Most Overrated: Kanye West, Kendrick Lamar

Most Underrated: Sweet Trip, Broadcast, El-P

I am very thankful to be living in the age of the internet where I can discover artists I love that I would've otherwise had no idea even existed.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I'm annoyed that the OP called Nirvana a rock band. They killed rock and I'm still bitter about it.

That's my only contribution to this thread.

Better stay off anyway. Such another simple thread, made boring and confusing by another attempt at objectivity.

I don't think anyone believes (and I certainly don't believe) that the music industry is curating listener interest as though the goal were to create High Art in its purest form, maximizing some sublime musical experience. What they are doing, is paying attention to what people like to listen to, and what they don't like to listen to, according to their own behaviors.

In the case of Ornette Coleman, we know for a proven fact that people generally tend not to listen to a lot of jazz. And that's not because people aren't exposed to jazz. Anyone who is remotely connected with the world has heard plenty of jazz. In all likelihood, they can name at least one jazz artist that they kind-of like, and they can tell you the things they do and don't like about jazz as a genre. They can hear jazz on NPR stations all across the country every day... if they want to, which most people don't. So I wouldn't say that the Music Industry is at fault for Ornette Coleman's lack of widespread popularity. It has a lot more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of people hear 10 seconds of an Ornette Coleman song, say "meh", and change the channel. It has a niche appeal to people who have an acquired taste for jazz, which is great for people whose interests trend in that direction, but isn't a very compelling argument for why Coleman should be any more widely appreciated than he already is.

Or to make that argument a lot shorter -- if Coleman was capable of being more popular, someone would have found a way to get rich doing that by now.

You can't put 5 people in a room and create an Ornette Coleman every month. So yeah, the "industry" grooms (younger) listeners towards other stuff, that's easier to produce and market. I'm really not sure how we got to this though.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Most Underrated: The United States of America,

Love them, but I'd say they're kind of overrated by a certain crowd. They only have one album, and it's pretty uneven (the highs are way up there though).

 

[Smelling Salt]

Staying with the Classic Rock beatdown:

Overrated: The Who
Underrated: April Wine

 

[tarheelhockey]

I said nothing about creating high art. I said that the industry has no real capacity, not interest, in satisfying the wants of listeners.

If listeners are very clearly signaling that they like a particular band or that they like a particular kind of music, and the industry produces more of that band or kind of music... how is that not a case of the industry satisfying the wants of listeners?

You got this information from what academic study?

Does it really require an academic study to observe that jazz has become a niche genre? We're going to argue about this?

 

[Fantomas]

If listeners are very clearly signaling that they like a particular band or that they like a particular kind of music, and the industry produces more of that band or kind of music... how is that not a case of the industry satisfying the wants of listeners?

There is a great clickhole piece about this. You should read it. I Am The New Person You Have To Know About Now

Does it really require an academic study to observe that jazz has become a niche genre? We're going to argue about this?

I wonder if there's a reason why it's this way. Maybe you can reflect and get back to me.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You can't put 5 people in a room and create an Ornette Coleman every month. So yeah, the "industry" grooms (younger) listeners towards other stuff, that's easier to produce and market. I'm really not sure how we got to this though.

But Coleman's music was what huge throngs of people really really wanted to hear, then companies would be falling all over themselves to scoop up those rights and make mega-bucks fulfilling that consumer demand. Sure, there's only one Coleman... but if you have the rights to his music then you'd be sitting on a gold mine. Right?

Well, it's not like Coleman wasn't produced by Atlantic. It's not like Atlantic didn't also produce John Coltrane. It's not like Miles Davis wasn't on Columbia. They were part of The Music Industry just as much as Taylor Swift. The difference is in the audience response, or relative lack thereof. The best-selling album any of these guys made was Kind of Blue, which just sold its 5 millionth copy a couple of years ago. It was made in 1959. Swift's Folklore will blow past 5x platinum in the next year or two. Is that because people don't know about Miles Davis? Because Atlantic didn't cut 5 million copies of that album? Or is it because the majority of people heavily prefer one of these artists to the other?

In reality, people flat-out don't want to listen to experimental jazz in large quantities. That's why it doesn't sell. There is a cultural subgenre of people who enjoy it, which is totally valid, but let's not pretend that people had to be 'groomed' out of wanting to rock out to extended avant-garde trumpet solos on the way home from work.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The best-selling album any of these guys made was Kind of Blue, which just sold its 5 millionth copy a couple of years ago. [...] Is that because people don't know about Miles Davis?

So, basically, if we go back to your post about what's overrated and what's not, Miles Davis is overrated, because he's both known and has undersold? Right.

As for the rest, yeah I do think that (a lot of) people are groomed into easy listeners, and popcorn eaters. I don't think the teens of the late 80s had a strong argument to make towards Def Leppard, just as I don't think the kids from today fundamentally relate to Drake's music. The next big star rarely appears from the shadows, it's built and branded - yes to answer to "what they want", but what they want is also mostly a construction.

 

[Saturated Fats]

I'm not big on overrated/underrated, but the one band I've never understood the hype for is Fleetwood Mac. They have one good album - and even then, it's a real mixed bag.

 

[Fantomas]

The next big star rarely appears from the shadows, it's built and branded - yes to answer to "what they want", but what they want is also mostly a construction.

Most of the time, I don't even know what I want. And I'm supposed to believe some industry has me pegged.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Most of the time, I don't even know what I want. And I'm supposed to believe some industry has me pegged.

Well, I have no idea if your Fantomas relates to the band (or the films or the comics), but I have you pegged as a man of great taste.

 

[Fantomas]

Well, I have no idea if your Fantomas relates to the band (or the films or the comics), but I have you pegged as a man of great taste.

Ha, the Andre Hunebelle films which I grew up watching. But I also like the band.