Most Underrated/Overrated Artists (blues, beatles, u2, springsteen, Nickelback)

starrynight · 02-01-2012, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

On one hand you think it is cooler not to prejudge any kind of music but on the other hand you judge any music-listener who gives their own honest opinion making them out to be hipsters or calling them out for showing their ignorance.

There is nothing in the world that says you have to like everything you come across in music (songs, bands, genres, etc.) And when it comes to opinions it doesn't matter if they pick a few things or try to weigh everything by seeing all the plus&minuses - in the end they know what they like or don't like. I have to disagree about "by saying it's crap...that just showing ignorance" if they're saying something is crap what they really revealing is that they have a knowledge of something better than said crapola.

While it might not matter to you I guess for some music listeners it absolutely does matter if the group they listen to writes their own songs and plays their own instruments. That independent DIY spirit lays in stark contrast to the overrated pop star.

If people have an honest knowledgable opinion then I have no problem with that. People do throw the 'hipster' insult around aimlessly making it meaningless, sometimes just to criticise people who have heard of things they haven't.

People don't have to like everything, they can hear what they want. But I do find people's opinions on a genre more interesting if they have actually made an effort to understand how it works. Often when people say something is crap they do so from a position of just hating a style of music than from any specific gripes with a particular song, album or artist.

The 'DIY spirit' can be great, it can also be terrible with people who can't really write their own songs very well. A good singer/artist can be creative and make something their own even if they didn't write it, this was frequently the case with performers before the rock era. The main thing is that the song is good, whoever wrote it doesn't have to matter.

Neapolitan · 02-01-2012, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

A good singer/artist can be creative and make something their own even if they didn't write it, this was frequently the case with performers before the rock era. The main thing is that the song is good, whoever wrote it doesn't have to matter.

Back then singers were more likely to sing standards but even during the Rock and Roll era there were still singer-performers and vocal groups that didn't write their own material, that wasn't something that totally went away with Rock. Well again, in your opinion "...whoever wrote it doesn't have to matter." but it can matter for some music fans. And anyway artists that can write, sing and perform their own instruments show they are more versatile musically than pop stars who are handed lyrics to sing by song writers "what's his name?" and "who really cares?"

Howard the Duck · 02-01-2012, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

If people have an honest knowledgable opinion then I have no problem with that. People do throw the 'hipster' insult around aimlessly making it meaningless, sometimes just to criticise people who have heard of things they haven't.

People don't have to like everything, they can hear what they want. But I do find people's opinions on a genre more interesting if they have actually made an effort to understand how it works. Often when people say something is crap they do so from a position of just hating a style of music than from any specific gripes with a particular song, album or artist.

The 'DIY spirit' can be great, it can also be terrible with people who can't really write their own songs very well. A good singer/artist can be creative and make something their own even if they didn't write it, this was frequently the case with performers before the rock era. The main thing is that the song is good, whoever wrote it doesn't have to matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Back then singers were more likely to sing standards but even during the Rock and Roll era there were still singer-performers and vocal groups that didn't write their own material, that wasn't something that totally went away with Rock. Well again, in your opinion "...whoever wrote it doesn't have to matter." but it can matter for some music fans. And anyway artists that can write, sing and perform their own instruments show they are more versatile musically than pop stars who are handed lyrics to sing by song writers "what's his name?" and "who really cares?"

i think there's room enough for everybody - be it the DIY'ers and the manufactured pop stuff, and i take it in my stride to enjoy whatever i want to, without either having to pre-judge the listeners or the music

after the wake of me being a total music nerd, i keep feeling less and less need to actually cast a value judgment on anything, basically, once you heard enough music and your ears are attuned enough to a degree, you'll find something of redemption in almost everything, unless it's something really annoying and repetitive for no other reason than just being repetitive

i doubt people who write their own stuff can be said to be more "versatile" - Dylan has been writing the same stuff he did for years, only the quality dips or the production values change, but the style of the music stays the same

pop stars who are "handed" material can get a variety of stuff, because most professional songwriters often can delve into different genres with each song - take Max Martin, f. ex, his stuff for the Backstreet Boys is certainly way different from Adam Lambert - what Max wrote for the BBs "fit" their image