Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
See but you're basing that assumption off of something objective (how well received he is) meaning it isn't strictly a subjective opinion. Then we could get into the artistic merit and craft of the songs to argue you this further - unless you want to get incredibly solipsistic/philosophical about this conversations about an artist being overrated do have an objective foundation.
As far his him being rated higher than he's deserved - how so? He's well received but he's never released an album that's been regarded as 10/10 or a masterpiece (only his own masterpiece though - we're not talking Aeroplane levels of praise.) I certainly don't think he's so overrated he deserves to be placed along side the Manic Street Preachers and the Arcade Fire and that he's nothing more than a typical nothing special singer/songwriter as was originally suggested.
In my experience - and I regularly read magazines like Under the Radar - hes really only moderately praised (if at all) outside the indie circle. He was dropped from his label and owed them a bunch of money after they dropped him. To argue his Oscar nomination was indicative of some sort of mainstream success is factually wrong.
Now as far as praise inside the indie circle, again there's praise around certain albums and there's respect towards him but it isn't overblown in the slightest. New Moon was received very well but it retrospect (since it's basically been forgotten) it was more praised because of Elliott Smith as a man, not so much the content of the album. It's really only Either/Or that is put on any sort of pedestal on a regular basis. I don't know of any examples of him receiving a sickening amount of recognition (as in the case of the Manic Street Preachers and Arcade Fire) and I'd be interested to hear these other examples you implied you had.
|
How well received he is or was isn't really objective at all when you think about it. It's not like there's any kind of reliable metric to use to determine who is well received and who isn't. You and I are both simply basing our assessment on our particular perception of how well received the person was but both our perceptions are hugely skewed by our choices in music magazines, the people we've discussed music with, radio we've listened to, etc., etc. Another thing that probably plays a pretty big role in our perspectives is our respective ages. I was in college during Elliott Smith's heyday which means when he was at his peak I was also surrounded by basically his exact listening demographic. On the other hand, because of your age you probably got into him after he was already dead or at least at the very end of his career, which means you never experienced the Elliott Smith hype that I did. This doesn't mean that either one of our perspectives is better than the other, it simply means that they are both highly subjective.