Most overrated bands ever?

[Thrice]

Originally Posted by Piss Me Off

He has a point though, this entire website is based upon subjective debate. What makes this thread any more pointless than asking what your favourite Beatles album is?



This however is completely uncalled for and ruins these things.

You've got to be kidding, what ruins these things is people writing in huge font an arguementative statement that not only contradicts the entire purpose of the thread, but also gives no valid input and has no purpose other than just being an ass. I tried to handle it well at first, but once the name calling comes out that is basically the response you will get from me everytime.

[jackhammer]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

So basically you're into music statements not music discussion?

What is that supposed to mean? I swear you are actually looking for a rise out of me. It's an opinion. Exactly the same as you saying Smith is better than John Martyn. I don't agree with that at all but it's your opinion and I respect that. Smith is gaining a cult following over here with my local indie even having a section dedicated to him which I find surprising considering the longevity of other artists who are also multi talented who don't get decent coverage.

Maybe I'm envious of the fact that John Martyn doesn't have a section dedicated to him but my love for an artist is just as legitimate as yours is.

If you checked my RYM you would see that I have smiths albums jackhammer_go's music - Rate Your Music and I like them. I didn't even say I didn't like him but the reverence he recieves not just here but what I read and see leads me to believe that he is over rated. It's just an opinion Ethan and we are all entitled to them.

[boo boo]

Ethan, does everytime that someone gives their subjective opinion regarding an artist you like mean they have to back it up with sources? I could count many instances of you making blunt, slanderous remarks regarding many artists.

And you should know why people are reluctant to argue with you, you tend to get harsher at people who actually do bother to explain their opinions to you.

Forums are weird, it seems that the more polite people try to be when criticizing artists, the more angry their fanboys get.

Ethan, you're constantly asking us to prove our subjective opinions. But what about you? You've made many ridiculous remarks about Led Zeppelin, I've spent 30 minutes on ridiculously long posts giving out many details about their so called stolen songs that biased Zep haters just ignore. I may have been acting like an obsessed fanboy, but at least I took the time to explain my opinions. You basically responded with quotes from biased websites and narrow attacks and complete disregard of facts, especially when you made statements like "all of Jimmy Pages riffs are stolen".

Now I know you, and I know that now you want to bring up Modest Mouse, and say that makes me a hypocrite, maybe it does but this is another thing about you that annoys me, you always desperately try to dig up examples of me being hypocritical, often when it's not even relevant to the discussion, because I'm not the one who flips out over people making only a few slight criticisms of an artist I like, I'm not the one who says people shouldn't slander musicians they don't like EVER. Me doing the same things you do is not relevant at all.

When I say something that's true, calling me a hypocrite doesn't undo the fact that it's true.

[sleepy jack]

Boo hoo want a tissue boo boo?

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I don't "keep referring to Pitchfork" I've mentioned them twice now. Once was pointing out that Bon Iver was hyped an incredible amount by Pitchfork (who wield a good deal of influence, particularly in the indie scene) and the other was to point out he isn't unanimously loved by critics. Neither situation was me treating it like they were the "end all be all" I was just using them as an example because of the amount of influence they have in the indie scene. You're overstating the importance I place in them.

That being said I stated Elliott Smith was popular in the indie scene - which Pitchfork is apart of so pointing out that Pitchfork loves most of his albums (something I never denied) doesn't really prove anything and before you say then it's hypocritical to use them as an example of Smith getting trashed that was to prove the point that he isn't even unanimously loved in the indie scene (Figure 8 was a commercial bomb everywhere else and it led DreamWorks to drop him.)

Who the hell ever said all his stuff was unanimously loved by critics? No matter how much praise they get, nobody is unanimously loved like that. All I'm saying is that generally speaking his music is very well regarded and has been for quite some time. In my personal opinion he is more well regarded than his music warrants which makes him overrated.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Yeah and Elliott Smith didn't receive a Lifetime Achievement Award like John Martyn did. I don't really know what you're trying to prove with the Oscar point - the song itself wouldn't have been nominated if Good Will Hunting hadn't been such a popular film with big name actors.

I'm trying to prove the man got recognition for his music. The Oscar nomination is one example. The fact that he makes a lot of "best of the 90s" lists is another.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I never insulted jackhammer. I said his opinion was ignorant and stupid - probably a bit harsh but I feel it was and I think the fact he won't defend it himself says enough in itself.

Looks like this has already been addressed since you made this post but suffice it to say your comments did come off as harsh, too harsh for a subjective conversation about music IMO.

[scottsy]

Wow, this board got kinda heated... Ido tend to agree though, overratedness tends to be a rather subjective thing...

...But I'd wager a good walloping chunk of the entire content of this site is subjective... as are most forums for opinions...

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Who the hell ever said all his stuff was unanimously loved by critics? No matter how much praise they get, nobody is unanimously loved like that. All I'm saying is that generally speaking his music is very well regarded and has been for quite some time. In my personal opinion he is more well regarded than his music warrants which makes him overrated.

I'm trying to prove the man got recognition for his music. The Oscar nomination is one example. The fact that he makes a lot of "best of the 90s" lists is another.

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 critically praised he deserves to be placed along side the Manic Street Preachers and the Arcade Fire and then to go on 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 largely ignored outside the indie circle. He was dropped from DreamWorks 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. 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 - sometimes self-titled, sometimes XO but at least half of his body of work is being ignored at any given time and he never beats out the other indie classics of the 90s. I can't think 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.

[Janszoon]

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.

[sleepy jack]

He never really broke outside that demographic though. Ben Gibbard gave an interview when he talked about Elliott Smith and listening to him while he was at College. In the interview he talked about going to several of his shows and they were all attended by college kids like him - it really hasn't changed much in modern times anyway. Switch college kids with indie fans (and indie's popularity in general has expanded in the past few years) and you have his modern fanbase now. He isn't even that liked in indie circles - it's really only by a certain kind of indie fan but that's a different discussion.

Also how well received he is can be measured. You'd have to take dozens of reviews and figure out the gross amount (which I doubt either of us really wants to do) but it is something that can be objectively quantified.

[Piss Me Off]

Originally Posted by Thrice

You've got to be kidding, what ruins these things is people writing in huge font an arguementative statement that not only contradicts the entire purpose of the thread, but also gives no valid input and has no purpose other than just being an ass. I tried to handle it well at first, but once the name calling comes out that is basically the response you will get from me everytime.

It was an example for both of you, if you namecall i'll call you out for it.