OK, I went back and carefully read what you posted in response to my thread and your intent in response is just too methodically obvious to respond to. All you did UHM is subdivide my post to eliminate it's contextual meaning. I don't know why you took the time just to do that, but you did nonetheless. Please forgive me for pointing out the fact that although you put a little thought into your response, it was a basic story book case of "pseudo intellectualism". You claim that for instance that the posted thought containing the word commercial could have been just shorted to just commercial. That's nonsense friend and completely removes the value and justification of the word in the thought's context. Sure it would make sense if I was attempting to put forth a false position, but I am not and know it. Your responsibility in response to any given thought is not to conform said thought to your preferred perception, but rather to respond to my perception. Otherwise your response is just a "sell". A manipulation of my thoughts to best serve a quick anecdotal "that don't make any sense" strategy. You neither refuted anything factually contained within the post nor did you approved it. By intentionally misrepresenting it, you avoided it. Very basic in reality. Did you also actually not understand what I was expressing about appearances and results? Think on this: Why do they call pop music, Pop Music? I will give you a hint. It's not because the artist is handing out free soft drinks at their concerts. I simply made the point that when assessing and calculating a group or artist's stylized musical output, more can be accurately drawn from the social results of it's fans justification and defense of the music than the group's musical appearance. Is that not true?

Now, for my assessment of Kid A. What a load of unoriginal and limp crap. Anyone that makes the claim that this CD is "original" needs to get out more. In fact, Curve's Doppelganger from 1992 is exactly like Kid A is only 10 times better. This CD contains all the stones of a wad of wet toilet paper, and as far as I'm concerned, is no more effective at "doing it's job". That job of said music being to inspire and engagingly enthuse the listener. Now this is not to say that this has always been the case with Radiohead. All though the song was given the flag of corporate radio attention, the song Creep was excellent. Too bad they (corp.) butchered it's impact by over playing it to death. I can sure tell you this. There was a heck of lot better material than Radiohead's Creep not getting a single bit of Radio play in 1992. That's a fact. Anyhow, Kid A sees Radiohead taking on the electronic sequenced flavor of the day and that's about it. The first person that states this is progressive because it contains "electronic" contrivances similar in any way to true electronic exploration or pioneering gets the booby prize for certain. This is about as original with respect to style and production as was any number of pop bands from the period. You can certainly make the case in point that a project/artist like Squarepusher is progressive and "arty", but Radiohead...come on!

I think this conversation has lost all meaning or appreciable value. Jay, would you mind putting the next artist up so we don't have to endure this kid's nonsensical ramblings for the next year?

You're the one being a huge douche just because I think Radiohead are progressive.

Too methodically obvious to respond to ?

All I did was ask you to clarify your definition of what you are talking about.

I didn't refute anything , i didn't misrepresent anything , i didn't manipulate anything and i'm not trying to sell anything.

All I did was ask you to go into a bit more detail about your opinion so I could see where you were coming from.

And you have spent an entire paragraph trying to avoid doing so and insisted on calling me out in some silly faux one-upmanship which is actually what I was trying to avoid. I'm not trying to refute any of your claims because quite honestly I have no idea what any of them are yet.

i second that

Too methodically obvious to respond to ?

All I did was ask you to clarify your definition of what you are talking about.

I didn't refute anything , i didn't misrepresent anything , i didn't manipulate anything and i'm not trying to sell anything.

All I did was ask you to go into a bit more detail about your opinion so I could see where you were coming from.

And you have spent an entire paragraph trying to avoid doing so and insisted on calling me out in some silly faux one-upmanship which is actually what I was trying to avoid. I'm not trying to refute any of your claims because quite honestly I have no idea what any of them are yet.



Oh really...well let's go back and take a look at what we have both written so far.



I would love to debate your definition of art pop , but it's trying so hard to be clever it just ends up being totally meaningless.

I mean let's look at your definition



Quote:
art pop is a term I confabulated out of my proverbial cobwebs on the spot. It's a term that for me describes more so an effect the artist/band has socially that constitutes a resulting clique mentality.



What you are stating above is that you do FULLY understand what I wrote and that it's meaningless. The term meaningless translates literally to an expressed thought that bares out no substance. You then completely contradict your expressed certainty by asking "In what way?" Seems pretty "divisive" to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's you that should more so focus on the concept of brevity.

According to what your last reply expressed, the following response would have articulated your previous response much more efficiently: "I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are attempting to express here. Could you elaborate please?"



You then write:



In what way?

Any band could claim to have what could be considered 'a clique mentality' That's why you buy t shirts and sing along at gigs.

A band's image? it's message? it's politics? it's fashion? all of them? none of them?

You're being far to vague on this.


A follow up that directly contradicts the claim in your last response to me that you merely wished further explanation on the matter. The truth is, you COMPLETELY missed the point I was making. (or did you? seems pretty obvious to me) The point is that the bands themselves claim nothing that in reality determines their PERCEIVED musical identity. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I posted. Is a band categorized within any specific type of music whatsoever because they themselves claim they are? The answer is a resounding NO. That's up to the public. It called artistic interpretation made by the critical public. That's the ONLY thing that constitutes a band or artist's musical affinity, not their image or any of the other appearance oriented relativities the you forwarded in the form of:



"A band's image? it's message? it's politics? it's fashion? all of them? none of them?"


Those things are ALL subject to interpretation and therefore only when various common consensuses are tallied can critics make categoric judgments based on mass opinion. I'm sorry friend, but you dismissed your own understanding of what I wrote by hacking up the context of what I expressed, prematurely. You can't first write that what I wrote is definitively meaningless and then follow up with a direct reference to your own uncertainty. Incidentally, all sarcasm aside, what I wrote was in NO WAY "clever" it consists of an utmost in efficient and basic communications. It just must be read as one thought and not several different posts in one. Very simple actually.


You follow up with these considerations:

Quote:
It's a phenomenon that attaches and best lends itself to a commercial popularity drawn form a pseudo intellectual underground which is in reality neither.

You could have just written 'commercial' and saved yourself some time here , assuming that's what is you meant. If it isn't then perhaps you can clarify this as well.



Quote:
I believe in identifying responsibility rather than the premise. The measure of anything is best taken from result rather than appearance.

Pardon ?

Sorry but in this context this means absolutely nothing unless you are prepared to explain it.




You see, by over simplify and dissecting what I wrote, you most certainly HAVE misrepresented my thoughts. As stated by yourself above, "in this context" it does make little sense. That's because you created a false context by delineating what I succinctly expressed. I apologize for expressing that I believe "you knew what you were doing" but it just seems so basic, it seemed to me as though you must have. I could be wrong and for that and I do therefore apologize.

Try this: Go back and lump together the three separate quotes you did your best to understand in a separate fashion above. You will find the thoughts I express most certainly are exacting, objective and complete in meaning. Although there is some admitted cynical spice contained in the reference to those supporting Radiohead's popularity, you will find a very specific means to an ends. A very real rationale.

You end with the following defensive congenial clique derived summation that could have been simply put as: "That's your musical opinion and whereas I can respect that, I don't hold the same opinions you do and doubt I ever will" That at least would have been true, to the point, and respectful of what I intelligently forwarded on the matter. It also does you no justice to offer defense of emotional impulsiveness as forwarded by your peers on this message board community. Dig?





Quote:
Bottom Line: ANY music that has a reputation that is popular enough to proceed it demands the sincerest of scrutiny from me as a listener and long time musical appreciator.

I think that most people here would consider themselves something of that sort. I don't really see why it needs spelling out though, and it doesn't really tell us anything about what you are trying to define.



Quote:
Might try actually defending your position there boo boo.

Until you define what you are talking about with something more concrete I don't really see what Boo Boo has to defend.

All music and it's interpretations are most assuredly subjective. When I am attacked in response for expressing my opinions, expect retaliation. I simply appreciated the element and tone of your initial response in general. At least it was intelligently succinct and lacked the base line emotional impulsiveness that I encountered in the form of Lucy Sam & Boo Boo 's response to my critique of Radiohead. Which I fully contended to be OVER RATED. After listening to the Kid A CD that remains my opinion.

The only reason I broke things up was to point you in the direction of what I wanted you to clarify more clearly. When I was referring to the context I DID mean the whole thing , not just that one sentence.

Any contradictions that I may have made are due to a lack of understanding of your original post. I'm not trying to argue with you.

You seem to take great delight in trying to second guess my motives when all my original post to you was asking you to expand and to explain your reasoning. I wasn't trying to catch you out I was just trying to see if I was heading in the right direction.

To be honest you seem more hell bent on critiquing my own posts rather than answer any questions I put to you. I'm beginning to wonder if it's really worth asking you anything anymore.

I have to say that the more this goes on the more I start thinking that wolverinewolfweiselpigeon had a point when she said...

Dude/Dudette, whomever, try asking a straight question and you'll get a straight answer. STOP playing games. It's you that has tried to turn my thoughts into some mysterious mumbo jumbo that I need to prove in legal long form. Now ask your SPECIFIC question or STFU in response to me. k?

I would seriously appreciate not being told to shut the fuck up for the heinous crime of trying to take an interest and understand your point of view.

I guess my initial knee jerk reaction of your words being hollow self indulgent tosh wasn't as far off the mark as I thought , but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

If saying to you 'can you explain what you mean by this' is turning something into mysterious mumbo jumbo then I guess there's nothing more that can be said here.

Please ask a question instead of asking me to repeat myself. What is your question/s?

Do you plan on ever post the rest of your selections, JayJamJah?

I believe it was this, many pages ago..

Now get to the point.

So you feel as I pointed out previously that the UHM doesn't really have any real questions to ask??

This thread is supposed to be about the groups we feel are most over rated isn't it?

Eh? What about the bloody quote i just put up where he directly asked you a question which you STILL haven't answered?

ROTFLMAO!!! You didn't paste a question you moron...this is insane, but I'm having too good a time to stop now!

yo whogivesaflux...your taking a lot of **** right now...but im still waiting for you to answer my question...gettin to that soon?

I answered that question or at least one practically identical. better go back have a look.:rofl:

Alright i'm feelin' quite patient so i'll ignore the moron accusation. Last chance.

^ THERE, see it?

Dude, that's NOT a question. Does the statement end with a question mark???<---(That's a question mark in case you're not sure what one looks like.) What you pasted is a summation in case you didn't know. That's a rhetorical statement that contains both a false curiosity and an answer to evaluate it's context in case you didn't know. The problem is that UHM started with what should have been an ending that was built up to. BTW, Radiohead is grossly over rated. Just wanted you to know.

It implies a question, isn't hard to figure out, just look at everyone else who wants you to explain yourself.

You hit me hard there. :crazy:

I find your comments arrogant, insulting and argumentative.
If you wish to continue posting on these boards I suggest you respond to people in the way you would want them to respond to you.

You're a little late. Go back and read the first 4 posts that I made to this forum. If you find those insulting or arrogant, then you ban me justifiably. But don't you dare call me arrogant or anything else unless you FIRST identify those that have INSULTED ME BEFORE my posts became insulting arrogant. Try being fair instead of playing God.

I really cannot believe I am doing this but i'll try one last time.

Let's revist my first post here shall we?

You said
And I replied
LOOK !!! A QUESTION MARK !!! In fact lots of them. I think the question I am asking here is pretty clear. But to simplify it i'll ask again anyway.
In what way do you consider a band to have 'a clique mentality'. What makes one band have them and another not? What are your defining factors in judging if a band has 'a clique mentality' or not.

Then you said

To which I replied

Now it's not a direct question but it clearly states that I am assuming you just mean a commercial band and asked you to state if this was the case or not.

See there's no hidden agenda here that you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out.

And finally you stated

And I replied

Thus meaning that without you explaining what you mean here I have no idea of what you are talking about with the rest of the post I quoted hence my usage of the words 'In this context'. Not the sentence , the entire post. But if you'd like to break it down further I would ask how would you go about 'identifying responsibility rather than the premise' in practice. Give me examples of ways you have indeed 'identified responsibility rather than the premise'.
Explain your criteria of judging responsibility and premise. Hell even a hint would be nice because as I said at the moment it just looks to me like something out of Pseuds Corner.

If you go back a few pages and read this...

...a message to ALL members to tone it down.
You didn't.

I am being fair. That's why you only got a warning.

UHM, I went through ALL this meticulously. I took about 45 minutes of my time to do so and then you followed up with insults directed at me. It seems as though it's perfectly OK for everyone here to be condescending and irritating to me, but when I poke back, I get a warning. However it seems perfectly justified for the posters here to jab away to their heart's content. Incidentally why are you leaving off your basic initial response about what I posted as being meaningless?

I am NOT writing this out again. If you cannot accept the fact that I HAVE carefully explained this in as basic a stance that I possible could, I can do no better. Did you even read what I wrote? All the questions you asked above are addressed specifically. How about someone helping me out here? Go back and look and tell me I did not answer all these questions and explain myself as best as I could. They are really not pertinent questions anyway because they are based on a gross misunderstanding of what I initially wrote. I have explained all of this already.

Yes I did read what you said.

In fact here's exactly what you said word for word.
I have decided to make a point of changing the parts where you were criticising me rather than answering the question in red type.

As you can see , you didn't actually answer my question. You just basically implied I was either taking you for a fool or I'm too stupid to understand what you meant. Neither actually answers the question put to you , which was a very simple one.

The whole point of me asking you to clarify this was so that I could get YOUR interpretation of the meaning. Something you've again still not answered.

Finally some sort of answer , but still in general terms rather than your own opinion.

No actually , I don't dig. This didn't give me any insight to your thoughts at all. I asked you to explain it. Not reply with 'Oh this is so easy to understand you must be thick' or words to that effect.

You were the one that complained of lack of debate earlier in this thread. I can quite see why people would be reluctant to do so with you after all this.

And I have not insulted you yet ,all I ask is you cut down on the linguistic gymnastics and media speak and actually answer a straight question.

Coldplay and Radiohead. I think they both suck donkey nuts.

"Neither actually answers the question put to you , which was a very simple one."

A question is a question. Where is your question UHM? If you are referring to the belittling of what I wrote that you initially offered up as "so clever it's meaningless", then no, I have not entertained you or danced on your puppeteer's twin. Why should I respond to to a basic curiosity from someone that considers what I say to be meaningless? If your interpretation of all that I have put fourth here is meaningless, how can you ask a sincere question? You wrapped your curiosity in pretentiousness and you even have the stones to play the innocent school kid that was turned away like Oliver asking for food. Ask a question. Get an answer. Simple.

You say: "And I have not insulted you yet (LOL!!<--what a joke!) ,all I ask is you cut down on the linguistic gymnastics and media speak and actually answer a straight question."

Ask a straight question, you'll get a straight answer. You have NOT asked a SINGLE straight question yet. Not one.

Are you finally ready to limit your defense to an actual question pertaining to what I wrote? Or will you insist that I conform to your perceptions of what I have not said to clarify the harvest of what your confusion has sewn.

Ask a straight question please. No quotes needed. You will receive a straight answer. You have yet to debate me, because you have not acknowledged accurately that which I have put forward.

:banghead:

OK, ok...I'm going back now to take a closer look at your question/s. Relax there and give me a few.

Awesome, I'll post the #12 in the next hour right after I go buy some drugs.

BTW: Urban I commend your patience dealing with this guy.

Whogivesa.... I hope you keep posting here, it's hard to get a read on people at first, be patient, everyone you're arguing with has proven (IMO) to be fair and level headed, only thing I'd critique you on is being so abrasive, even if provoked it does you (and everyone else) no good.

BE right back.

art pop is a term I confabulated out of my proverbial cobwebs on the spot. It's a term that for me describes more so an effect the artist/band has socially that constitutes a resulting clique mentality. It's a phenomenon that attaches and best lends itself to a commercial popularity drawn form a pseudo intellectual underground which is in reality neither.

Ok, we'll start here. In this particular situation, to confabulate is to attempt to retrieved and assemble a composite whole from fragments of thoughts or memories. Within this context I am referring to a popular music classification. This is NOT genre debate. This is not genre bending. The term "Art Pop" has been used MANY times over the years to describe various bands/artists that feign a supposed uniqueness that sets them apart. Most often in the form of glamor (Bowie/T-Rex) or trend (Radiohead/Beck). These same AP wielders are much more radio marketable via the corporate media's (labels) push. This being as opposed to their esoteric and more so true to personal stringent musically convicted brethren, their peers. The first thing that a marketable quantity must do to survive is to find a market. Labels/Radio work together to create those. Can anyone possibly be gullible enough to think that the song "Creep" received air play based solely in and of it's own merit? I don't think so. That's called the corporate push. So in order for a group to prosper in a truly popular sense, they MUST be marketed by an organization that is potentially capable of insuring their health in a vastly fluctuating market. Radiohead has that behind them. People can blab on till their blue in the face about their Indie status, and how they have been true to themselves, but the truth is, that stopped just as soon as their song got significant air play. They receive incredible amounts of direction and production aid. That's a fact. EVERYONE, save the absolute cheese whiz, gets their start in the Indie music community. It's up to the Corp. scouts to recognize and forward in momentum that individual group's potential as a bread earner for themselves. The rest is just critical wind in sales for which Radiohead has done an awesome job of maintaining a high level of controversial interest. You can thank the marketers for that. This being both from fans (the Radiohead defense clique fanboy base of operations ;-) and from professional critics alike. Meanwhile, a long ways off in dusty dirty basements and halls you have their musical counter parts, the true progressive musicians and artists. Progressive music means specifically to be taken beyond an accepted boundary with respect to musicianship, cultural influence and composite musical make up. Radiohead is none of these whatsoever. They are a pop band. Specifically an Art Pop band. The musical Genre they belong to is Rock. The family of Rock is Alternative. The reason why the species or exact animal is Art Pop is because of their moderate electronic and experimental leanings. No more so mind you, than that which is deemed acceptable by their market. They are therefore centric to their market as opposed to those that are eccentric. The eccentrics are much more so your true Art Rock/Prog Rock classifications. You don't find them touted highly on popular music message boards or the radio, but they are hundreds of times in most cases more talented and UNDER RATED than their brethren from the other side of the tracks. So to speak.

Now, I probably missed the mark of your exacting question, but at least you know that I am sincere.

12. The Eminem

Most Overrated Album: The Slim Shady LP
Most Overrated song: Stan

His meteoric rise to the top of the popular music industry began in 1998 as MTV at first tentatively began it's transition into a hip-hop lead style over substance outpost. It all began with the hyper-annoying and (self admitted) gimmick of a sensation "My name is" which was an introduction into the scatter brained at times creative but often angry world of Marshall Mathers. The song mad him a superstar and along with the credibility that comes from being pared with producer Dr. Dre allowed Em to catapult almost instantly to the top of the mainstream hip-hop mountain. The album "The Slim Shady" Lp was hailed as inspired and unique but when revisited already sounds dated and stale.

Following up the success of the album however, the great white homophobe released his seminal number, the undeniably enjoyable and lyrically sensational (for creativity not content) Marshall Mathers LP. Still as his popularity continued to climb, as an artist and performer Eminem left fringe fans cold, with lackluster performances and lyrics that grow old very quickly. The third major release album 2002's Eminem Show, while a major step down was still a well received album and remains a fan favorite of many. And Encore from 2004 despite being garbage was well reviewed also.

So Eminem has a partially deserved impressive resume, so why is he over rated? Because it's undeserved, the lyrics are meaningless and the bombastic nature of his twisted nursery rhyme prose wears on a thoughtful listener very quickly as does his wet noodle personality and narrow minded cynicism. Not to mention for such a phenom and a rising star, he is anything but prolific. As Jay-Z put it when talking about Nas "Four albums in 10 years, I can divide...that's a one hot album every ten year average" Eminem is unquestionable a creation of an MTV culture that has dumbed down popular music especially hip-hop\rap music. For all of these reasons he is the 12th most over rated artist of all-time.

Ah, well spoken, JayJamJah! I find Eminem ridiculous. His lyrics are base and disgusting, not thought provoking at all. And there's absolutely nothing to the music itself, just simple beats repeated over and over. You're definately right about MTV's culture dumbing down popular music.

i agree woth you to an extent but emiem has had so songs with meaning...but youve probly just heard "my name is" and the one about his "pee-pee" right?

Well, perhaps I was being a little unfair. But after listening to those two songs you just mentioned, I didn't have the patience to explore his musical catalogue any longer.

hahaha i dont really blame you but he does have a couple good ones "cleanin' out my closet" and "stan" are pretty good "guilty conscience" is almost there...but the end of it debases the entire meaning of the song "like toy soldiers" isnt to bad either

I've never understood the Coldplay hype. They seem to me like a more pop/radio friendly Radiohead/U2.

Eminem has made an absolutely brilliant slice of music in 'Lose Yourself' which lyrically and musically is a perfect example of how damn good the genre can be and also be a pointer as to how and why the genre took formation. Unfortunately 99% of his output was infantile commercial pap.

I guess I'll take your word for it, but to be honest I'm not into the whole hip-hop/rap scene.