Nobody is unanimous, doesn't matter the real genius the the person was, there is always people who call "overrated"

[mat.bez.lima]

Why, in the popular music, do the people dare so much make heavy critics against the most famous and generally acclaimed singers, bands and composers? I can't understand many people in internet that call a spectacular singer "overrated". Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder, Prince, Billie Holiday and many other spectacular singers have many people saying in in internet these things: "This singer is extremely overrated", "It's a bad singer that I can't stand the voice and style", "I can't see what the people see in this mediocre singer", It's a common singer with nothing special". And bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, Radiohead, The Doors, The Velvet Underground and other many spectacular band also have many people saying the same critics that the detractors of the singers mentined before here. And the most surprisingly: we, listening these singers and bands, can at least see the the big quality in their music and voices, we can see that they were geniuses even if some of them aren't our taste and style. We can't understand the reasons to call them "overrated" with the impressive conviction and sureness of some detractors. Another thing: the most famous and unanimously acclaimed singers and bands have also the most cruel detractors, some of them calling them even "mediocre". And the majority of detractors is almost always people being from the same origin countries of the singers and band. Antonio Carlos Jobim said that "Make sucess is almost personal offense" in response to detractors of him here in Brazil.

For example, here in Brazil, Pelé is considered by the big majority the best soccer's player of all time, but there are many people that consider him a fraud, a bad person that they hate (because he don't accepted recognize a son) and an midia invention of an age of amateur soccer and that made many goals in horrible teams. It's really all this true?. No, but try to explain to the detractors. It's impossible convince them. The majority of detractors of Caetano, at least people that hate him and call him a fraud, are brazilians. England is by far the place where Paul McCartney have more detractors. United States is by far the place that have the majority of critics of Elvis Presley. Even Jesus was and is much more criticized in his origin place. I see that people dare much more destroy and call overrated the geniuses of popular music, but classical composers like Mozart and Beethoven are unquestionable by all people, tough many of them and other humanity history geniuses had a personal life much worst than Sinatra (Sinatra is my example, but is far to be the only possible example), a much more suspect sucess and that received also much more criticism than Sinatra and had much more detractors calling them souless, arrogant, desprezible and conceited, tough today they are undisputable geniuses and their personal lifes are little more than details.

What is your opinions about all this that I said here?

[Pierre]

Plain and simple, that everyone have the right of their opinion. I find the post-Kid A Radiohead overrated, and I'm one of the only people here on the forum who does so, but I have my reasons and my opinion is unlikely to change in the near future. Similarly, I've met several people who consider the Beatles overrated, because they usually consider that only jazz or experimental music like progressive rock are worth something. Personally, I've got a far more complicated opinion on these matters, that I recently expressed at lengths in another topic.

I want also to comment the use of the word "genius". There are people who consider that because you're born with a great voice doesn't automatically make you a genius, and who only consider geniuses people who have demonstrated that they were far smarter and more innovative than the average person in their field. This time I tend to fall into the latter category. There's also the question of "soulless" singing: Mariah Carey, Céline Dion, Cassandra Wilson or Dinah Washington are born with great voices, but their singing is soulless to my ears. However, I know they move their audiences, so once again, it's all a matter of personal perception.

[Rob]

Mat.bez.lima, have you never encountered an artist that gets a lot of praise, but doesn't do anything for you; that you perhaps don't even like. If so, you might be the first. We all experience music differently and even if there is something like a common consensus, a historical importance or even an objective quality, there will always be people who disagree. And yes, also in classical music. For example, in the names that you mention I really can't see Michael Jackson as too big of a deal (unless you count sails and iconic status). I can't listen to about 75% of his music without getting annoyed, think he wasn't particularly innovative himself (his producer Quincy Jones was) and think his ballads and lyrics are slight and superficial. Some of his dance tracks are good, but that's it for me. Obviously, many people think otherwise. This just happens and is part of the music/ art world.

Similarly, I've met several people who consider the Beatles overrated, because they usually consider that only jazz or experimental music like progressive rock are worth something.

I don't think it is this simple. I have very mixed feelings about The Beatles' status. Their catalog, made in just a few years is too impressive and varied to ignore and I like a lot of it. At the same time, there is an annoying tendency in rock music criticism (and even on forums like this one) that just makes it seem like The Beatles are the final word on music, as if they invented everything (they barely did anything really new) and as if they also executed it better than anyone else. So I think they are both overrated and very good. I think arguments about these things keeps them vital.

Personally, I've got a far more complicated opinion on these matters, that I recently expressed at lengths in another topic.

I think I've missed this. Where was that?

I want also to comment the use of the word "genius". There are people who consider that because you're born with a great voice doesn't automatically make you a genius, and who only consider geniuses people who have demonstrated that they were far smarter and more innovative than the average person in their field.

I agree with this. A great voice is talent. Innovation is genius. That's why I could never file Elvis Presley as a genius. His career was controlled too much by other people and nothing he did was really new, even if he was the first to bring it to a massive white audience.

[Pierre]

Personally, I've got a far more complicated opinion on these matters, that I recently expressed at lengths in another topic.

I think I've missed this. Where was that?

Hum, I was mostly talking about what I wrote over the popularity vs. critical acclaim debate, referring to why I believe pop music and, basically what is "non-pop" music (in the aforementioned topic, what I call craftsmen vs. artists, to simplify a lot), should be rated using different criteria. This sentence was basically the second part of what I was saying about the Beatles, that is, someone who uses some criteria to rate progressive rock or jazz should not apply the same to the Beatles, who experimented a lot with their sound but still remained first and foremost a pop band until the end. I wanted to demonstrate that some people tend to consider overrated an approach to music that doesn't fit their own idea of what is quality music; people who really love pop and danceable music might consider more experimental styles to be boring and unentertaining, while the other way round the experimental styles nerds might consider pop music dull and superficial. If you read my post, you will see that I disagree with both.

But as you said, it's always more complicated; I tried to keep my reasoning as simple as possible because I don't really want to start again writing big essays about what "acclaim" is and should be.

[luney6]

Most of what you said mat.bez.lima, is correct. It is generally possible to put aside your biases and listen to music, and to evaluate it solely for its merit, complexity and method (even if, with music this is difficult to do, in comparison to with the other arts, due to the fact that music generally doesn't say anything; it's impact is largely dependant upon the atmosphere that it creates, and the emotional response it thus entices.). Objectivity to humans is like an unattainable holy grail, yet one that we have remained in pursuit of. As we progress, we do get closer to a picture of proper objectivity, however. The like-dislike method of assessing something is generally very unreliable as well, because of how easily manipulable and inconsistent it is. While one can make arguments for Beethoven being the greater musician than say Mozart, it is possible to tell the difference between Beethoven and a Soulja Boy.


However, keep in mind that critical consensus is not a good indicator of such, largely because most critics aren't experts, and they're often not any more aware of what they're doing than the casual rock fan is. People generally tend to look at music from a like/dislike perspective instead, which is fine. For example, I adore the Dandy Warhols' music, but I do recognise that their music has several flaws. Similarly, I dislike Arvo Part, but I cannot deny that he has created some fairly stellar compositions. In the end, time is perhaps best at distilling art . I've argued this in the past on the forum, but no conclusion was really reached.

In short, as Confucius aptly put it: "There are few men under heaven who can love and see the defects, or hate and see the excellence of an object."

[Jonathon]

The more records you sell, and the more hype you get, the more haters you're going to get.

[Jirin]

Nobody is ever going to completely succeed at extracting their own preferences from a technically objective evaluation. But, it's a critic's job to make the attempt.

If you think an artist's reception is influenced by things other than just the music, I think 'Overrated' is reasonable. Though I agree the word is overused.

[BleuPanda]

I've always found 'overrated' a useless term because it's a statement by an individual about other people's tastes; something can only be 'overrated' if people like something more than they should, but no one can actually judge that. I can imagine other uses that would work (it's easily possible for individuals to overrate a work, if, say, they give it credit for starting something that it actually didn't), but its common usage is usually a way of saying "I don't like this popular thing"...but the latter statement is better, because you're emphasizing your tastes instead of emphasizing your negative views of the taste of others.

It, like anything, depends on circumstance. "Overrated" is a fine term in casual conversations, but a legitimate argument about the merits of a work needs something to back it up. In the end, I find most works are properly rated by whichever group is devising the opinion; the more important question is to ask why particular social groups are attracted to certain works, and what it means for you, the opinion holder, to not view the work in that same way.

[mat.bez.lima]

Nobody is ever going to completely succeed at extracting their own preferences from a technically objective evaluation. But, it's a critic's job to make the attempt.

If you think an artist's reception is influenced by things other than just the music, I think 'Overrated' is reasonable. Though I agree the word is overused.

You made a great point. The biggest problem is as the people banalize the word "overrated". Many people call a singer "overrated" just because they don't love his music. But it's not because you don't like much a singer that he is overrated, maybe it's just your style.

[mat.bez.lima]

Mat.bez.lima, have you never encountered an artist that gets a lot of praise, but doesn't do anything for you; that you perhaps don't even like. If so, you might be the first. We all experience music differently and even if there is something like a common consensus, a historical importance or even an objective quality, there will always be people who disagree. And yes, also in classical music. For example, in the names that you mention I really can't see Michael Jackson as too big of a deal (unless you count sails and iconic status). I can't listen to about 75% of his music without getting annoyed, think he wasn't particularly innovative himself (his producer Quincy Jones was) and think his ballads and lyrics are slight and superficial. Some of his dance tracks are good, but that's it for me. Obviously, many people think otherwise. This just happens and is part of the music/ art world.

Similarly, I've met several people who consider the Beatles overrated, because they usually consider that only jazz or experimental music like progressive rock are worth something.

I don't think it is this simple. I have very mixed feelings about The Beatles' status. Their catalog, made in just a few years is too impressive and varied to ignore and I like a lot of it. At the same time, there is an annoying tendency in rock music criticism (and even on forums like this one) that just makes it seem like The Beatles are the final word on music, as if they invented everything (they barely did anything really new) and as if they also executed it better than anyone else. So I think they are both overrated and very good. I think arguments about these things keeps them vital.

Personally, I've got a far more complicated opinion on these matters, that I recently expressed at lengths in another topic.

I think I've missed this. Where was that?

I want also to comment the use of the word "genius". There are people who consider that because you're born with a great voice doesn't automatically make you a genius, and who only consider geniuses people who have demonstrated that they were far smarter and more innovative than the average person in their field.

I agree with this. A great voice is talent. Innovation is genius. That's why I could never file Elvis Presley as a genius. His career was controlled too much by other people and nothing he did was really new, even if he was the first to bring it to a massive white audience.

I think the big problem is that the people many times mix their personal tastes and styles with the real quality of a singer or band. For example: I don't like much hard rock, but I respect and admire Led Zeppelin, tought I don't like much them, I can see its merits and qualities. Another example: Michael Jackson. I never was a Michael Jackson's fan and never liked much his music, I have some of the same critics against Michael Jackson that you have, but I can see also the immense qualities of Michael Jackson, tough I really prefer much the young Michael Jackson of Jackson's Five. I love songs like "Got To Be There", "Ben", "I'll Be There", "Music & Me" and "Forever Michael". I know that it's an impopular opinion, but I really enjoy much more his phase pre-Off The Wall. But even in his most famous phase, with albums as Off The Wall and Thriller, Michael Jackson recorded some romantic songs and showed that he was much more than an spetacular entertainer and dancer. Another big error commited by many people is call a singer or band "overrated" knowing little about the career of the singer or band. About Elvis, I understand your view point. In fact, what you said about Elvis remember me about certain Sinatra's declarations about Elvis. Sinatra said that Elvis had a great voice and great talent, but that he wasted much of his talent and time recording bad songs imposed by the labels. In fact, Elvis Presley doesn't have so much albums that are masterpieces as whole. This is the biggest and only relevant flaw of an in another way impressive and genial career. Sinatra always defended the total autonomy of the singers to record albums that are innovative and masterpieces. This was the motive because Sinatra left Capitol to found his own label, Reprise. Sinatra wanted total control and creative liberty. Another detail: Sinatra only became Sinatra in the fities. Even himself said that before Capitol he wasn't a true artist, but just a good and carimatic singer with the majority of the fans being adollescentes, the bobby soxers. He became a master of interpretation of songs in Capitol. About The Beatles, theyr were geniuses and the greatest rock band of history, they really created many great and innovative things, but I agree with you that consider The Beatles the supreme word of music is wrong when some fanatics begin to say that The Beatles are only band that made great music and that deserve to be its albums heard. This there isn't. Even the greatest geniuses of any art aren't the only realli genial. Beethoven, fpr example, was genius, but this doesn't made other spetacular composers less impressive and genial. Michelangelo is another example. And all innovations are possible with other influences. The Beatles have important influences as the masterpiece Pet Sounds. The Beatles said that without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper's would not happen. And Pet Sounds was inspired by Rubber Soul. It's much good when singers and bands listen to another singers and bands because this estimulate the creativity, dedication and desire to be the best. Many masterpieces beggined as a tentative of equal an great album of another band or singer, like the examples that I said.

[Moonbeam]

I've always found 'overrated' a useless term because it's a statement by an individual about other people's tastes; something can only be 'overrated' if people like something more than they should, but no one can actually judge that. I can imagine other uses that would work (it's easily possible for individuals to overrate a work, if, say, they give it credit for starting something that it actually didn't), but its common usage is usually a way of saying "I don't like this popular thing"...but the latter statement is better, because you're emphasizing your tastes instead of emphasizing your negative views of the taste of others.

This is how I feel as well. Who am I to say how much someone else should like some piece of music? It's all a matter of personal taste - I don't think I believe in any objective truth when it comes to musical quality, really.

As for the matter at hand, I imagine just about everyone has examples of artists they don't particularly enjoy that others tend to love. I have several such examples (4 of the top 10 artists in our recent poll are artists I would say that I at least somewhat dislike), but it seems pointless to try to convince other people that they shouldn't enjoy what they enjoy. So yeah, I kind of hate The Beatles. But are they overrated? Only if people claim there to be some objective ranking in which The Beatles "must" place first. And while I have encountered unpleasant people like this in the past, they seem to be a dying breed, thankfully.

[Dexter]

The word overrated is itself overrated. It is used today way too much to discredit any band or song or album without having to give a proper explanation as to why they think they are not worthy of praise. For example, Eagles' reputation built by years of popular and critical acclaim really took a dive after the Dude said he hated them in The Big Lebowski and thereafter people think twice before professing their love for the Eagles. I think it's a matter of trends or what's hip at a particular time which changes a lot. Don't believe the hype and flash but believe in the substance. What is static is the artist's body of work and they are rated highly because of such.

[bootsy]

The word overrated is itself overrated. It is used today way too much to discredit any band or song or album without having to give a proper explanation as to why they think they are not worthy of praise. For example, Eagles' reputation built by years of popular and critical acclaim really took a dive after the Dude said he hated them in The Big Lebowski and thereafter people think twice before professing their love for the Eagles. I think it's a matter of trends or what's hip at a particular time which changes a lot. Don't believe the hype and flash but believe in the substance. What is static is the artist's body of work and they are rated highly because of such.

Ah man, me and you so . I can't stand the use of overrated. I wish there was a way to ban it altogether. It just reeks of laziness and not being able to think of anything else more thoughtful and detailed. It's like that is the first word that comes to mind when something that is popular or well received that someone else doesn't like as much. 'Well it's overrated'. it's properly rated by the majority so just say you don't like it as much as others but it's not overrated.

[luney6]

The word overrated is itself overrated. It is used today way too much to discredit any band or song or album without having to give a proper explanation as to why they think they are not worthy of praise. For example, Eagles' reputation built by years of popular and critical acclaim really took a dive after the Dude said he hated them in The Big Lebowski and thereafter people think twice before professing their love for the Eagles. I think it's a matter of trends or what's hip at a particular time which changes a lot. Don't believe the hype and flash but believe in the substance. What is static is the artist's body of work and they are rated highly because of such.

Ah man, me and you so . I can't stand the use of overrated. I wish there was a way to ban it altogether. It just reeks of laziness and not being able to think of anything else more thoughtful and detailed. It's like that is the first word that comes to mind when something that is popular or well received that someone else doesn't like as much. 'Well it's overrated'. it's properly rated by the majority so just say you don't like it as much as others but it's not overrated.

In that case, the usage of words like beautiful, attractive, or disgusting, and (especially) offensive (just because you Choose to get offended by something doesn't mean that everyone else should) should alsi be considered lazy.

When I use the word overrated, I assume that either the other person already sees what I'm pointing out (generally that this or that something gets more popularity than it objectively deserves, often because there are other things in the same field that do a similar thing better). If someone disagrees, they can point it out, after which a fair debate may take place (to find the what's right, not who is wrong). And if someone refuses to logically argue that something is overrated, then the fault is not with the word itself, but with the person; they probably would have done the same thing with any other word.

Also, saying something is overrated doesn't mean it's bad. I can say that Shakespeare is overrated, for many of his comedies are terrible, and so are many of his sonnets. But that doesn't tarnish the likes of Othello, Hamlet, Sonnet 17, and Sonnet 130. It onlymeans those who worship him as the greatest playwright, or as the greatest poet, are wrong; the likes of Henrik Ibsen, Anton Chekhov and Wallace Stevens definitely exceeded him.