‹‹ Back to the General metal forum Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]
Posts: 147  
Users visited: 123  
Search this topic:  


The original post

Posted by deadone on 27.02.2014 at 08:12
I see the term "overrated" a lot on musical forums.

Personally I don't believe there's such a thing as "overrated" albums./songs etc.

Musical preferrence is down to personal tastes, so what we like is not an objective statement of fact about the quality of that music.


There's also a bit of arrogance in such statements.

If 1,000 people like song X and 1 person doesn't, it is arrogant of that person to question the taste's of 1,000 by stating the song is overrated. Overrated implies those 1,000 people are wrong, which is not the case.

I think it's fine not to like popular albums (provided it's on personal taste and no "anti-popular music" dogma).

But that doesn't make that music "overrated." It just means one doesn't like it.



Page 5 of 5

!J.O.O.E.!
Thought Police

Posts: 15717

Age: 30
From: UK

  06.03.2014 at 21:21
Written by Aristarchos on 06.03.2014 at 20:39

Sorry, but what you're saying here is nothing but laughable.

Well then I'm glad I at least gave you a laugh
----
Diverge

Posts: 804
From: Canada
  07.03.2014 at 04:30
Written by Aristarchos on 06.03.2014 at 20:39

Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.03.2014 at 20:17

Not just my opinions, there are other opinions here which tend to hold the premise of this thread to be incorrect if one examines what has been said with logic and an open mind. It's not elitist when something is proven incorrect through observation and example. Not all evidence has to be 100% scientific, objective and factual. As I said there is a whole sphere of "correctness." Naturally you don't have to agree with anything I say. I could tell you that the world is not round and you wouldn't have to accept it.

Sorry, but what you're saying here is nothing but laughable.

How so? He raises some very pertinent points that directly acknowledge the primary arguments that have been made, and these points are things I had not previously considered.

I'd even go so far as to say that I laughed a grand total of zero times while reading his post.
Lit.
The Witchfinder

Posts: 3864

Age: 28
From: USA

  07.03.2014 at 05:41
His points certainly have more merit than deadone's, that's for damn sure.
----
REPUBLICAN CAR!
deadone
Mainstream Poser

Posts: 4578
From: Australia

  07.03.2014 at 05:56
Written by Lit. on 07.03.2014 at 05:41

His points certainly have more merit than deadone's, that's for damn sure.



Of course they do for you as you are convinced you're the only one who knows anything about metal and writes off the 1980s classics as overrated crap whilst harping on about the merits of 21st century clones.
AngelofDeth
Cyborg Raptor

Posts: 1003

Age: 24
From: USA

  07.03.2014 at 06:00
I think you have a point as many people will bash something popular just for the sake of it.

Though, I think in some cases the term does apply. In music, I think it can apply to when a popular/established band releases a few hit records, builds a fan base and then subsequently delivers shit albums to fans who gobble it up simply because the bands logo is on the album cover. Both Metallica and Children of Bodom's later albums quickly come to mind, do you really think Load, ReLoad, Blooddrunk, RRF etc. would have sold half as many albums if they were debuts? That to me is when the term overrated is warranted. Same applies to shitty Movie sequels/franchises.
----
pewpew.. gotcha
Lit.
The Witchfinder

Posts: 3864

Age: 28
From: USA

  07.03.2014 at 06:01
Written by deadone on 07.03.2014 at 05:56

Of course they do for you as you are convinced you're the only one who knows anything about metal


To wit:
Written by Lit. on 21.02.2014 at 21:54

I'm not saying everyone's clueless. Just you.


Written by deadone on 07.03.2014 at 05:56

and writes off the 1980s classics as overrated crap whilst harping on about the merits of 21st century clones.

Your point?

Written by AngelofDeth on 07.03.2014 at 06:00

Though, I think in some cases the term does apply. In music, I think it can apply to when a popular/established band releases a few hit records, builds a fan base and then subsequently delivers shit albums to fans who gobble it up simply because the bands logo is on the album cover. Both Metallica and Children of Bodom's later albums quickly come to mind, do you really think Load, ReLoad, Blooddrunk, RRF etc. would have sold half as many albums if they were debuts? That to me is when the term overrated is warranted. Same applies to shitty Movie sequels/franchises.

/endthread.
----
REPUBLICAN CAR!
deadone
Mainstream Poser

Posts: 4578
From: Australia

  07.03.2014 at 06:07
Written by AngelofDeth on 07.03.2014 at 06:00

I think you have a point as many people will bash something popular just for the sake of it.

Though, I think in some cases the term does apply. In music, I think it can apply to when a popular/established band releases a few hit records, builds a fan base and then subsequently delivers shit albums to fans who gobble it up simply because the bands logo is on the album cover. Both Metallica and Children of Bodom's later albums quickly come to mind, do you really think Load, ReLoad, Blooddrunk, RRF etc. would have sold half as many albums if they were debuts? That to me is when the term overrated is warranted. Same applies to shitty Movie sequels/franchises.



Load might've been reasonably successful if it was marketed to the alternative crowd and not the metal crowd.

Dunno about the others cause I don't like them.
Aristarchos

Posts: 764

Age: 30
From: Sweden
  07.03.2014 at 18:13
Although it has nothing to do about the topic, there were two things I reacted against:
Written by IronAngel on 05.03.2014 at 17:03

The classical critic isn't the right person to evaluate Beyonce, but someone who is experienced in popular music, or R&B specifically, would be better qualified to put her in her right context. Someone who had the competence to compare her to, say, Michael Jackson, Marvin Gaye, Erykah Badu and Janelle Monae could probably say that she does not have all that much musical substance.

If "she does not have all that much musical substance", why is she then so loved among the critics? This site may only be for Swedish reviews, I don't know any international corresponding site, but an total average on 4.2/5 from 14 reviews from different Swedish papers is what I would say extremely good: http://www.kritiker.se/skivor/beyonce/beyonce/.

Written by IronAngel on 05.03.2014 at 17:03

That early metal bands were derided by critics probably tells about the fact that they had not acquired a competence to evaluate metal, yet. Their frame of reference wasn't applicable, from our point of view. But in retrospect, we can say that they were probably right about Venom. It can be enjoyable to some, but by no critical standards is it good art.

How could Venom not be considered good art by any critical standard? If you don't considered it as good music by critical standard I can understand, but as art form, isn't it brilliant? They really showed that you don't need to be technically brilliant to created something really innovative. Is the point of art really to be technically perfect, isn't innovation more important?
Aristarchos

Posts: 764

Age: 30
From: Sweden
  07.03.2014 at 18:13
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 06.03.2014 at 21:21

Written by Aristarchos on 06.03.2014 at 20:39

Sorry, but what you're saying here is nothing but laughable.

Well then I'm glad I at least gave you a laugh

I'm glad you took it that way
Aristarchos

Posts: 764

Age: 30
From: Sweden
  07.03.2014 at 18:20
Written by Diverge on 07.03.2014 at 04:30

How so? He raises some very pertinent points that directly acknowledge the primary arguments that have been made, and these points are things I had not previously considered.

I'd even go so far as to say that I laughed a grand total of zero times while reading his post.

Every person has right to his/her opinion, and I respect that other people have different opinions, as long as they respect mine, but I think to call what is only opinions for evidence is to go too far.
!J.O.O.E.!
Thought Police

Posts: 15717

Age: 30
From: UK

  07.03.2014 at 18:31
Written by Aristarchos on 07.03.2014 at 18:13

How could Venom not be considered good art by any critical standard? If you don't considered it as good music by critical standard I can understand, but as art form, isn't it brilliant? They really showed that you don't need to be technically brilliant to created something really innovative. Is the point of art really to be technically perfect, isn't innovation more important?

Maybe because Venom's legacy seems almost accidental. As far as I know it they gained a following from people who took them seriously, but in fact as they admitted, they were just pratting about and were never serious about the whole thing. When you look at it that way a bunch of guys having a laugh and making clumsy music, by basically doing thrash / speed / heavy metal badly, inspired a whole swathe of bands who were technically better, and more creative. Innovation is indeed very important but if you look back it didn't take much for them to be bettered, and were so by bands that are no where near as well known. Their value as a band that coined a term and maybe even a sound can't be disputed, but does that alone mean they're worth all these people still listening to them when there are better bands out there? I say it doesn't. They deserve a footnote in history, but they've never really made a particularly good album, out of God-knows how many they've made.
----
deadone
Mainstream Poser

Posts: 4578
From: Australia

  08.03.2014 at 23:24
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 07.03.2014 at 18:31

Maybe because Venom's legacy seems almost accidental. As far as I know it they gained a following from people who took them seriously, but in fact as they admitted, they were just pratting about and were never serious about the whole thing. When you look at it that way a bunch of guys having a laugh and making clumsy music, by basically doing thrash / speed / heavy metal badly, inspired a whole swathe of bands who were technically better, and more creative. Innovation is indeed very important but if you look back it didn't take much for them to be bettered, and were so by bands that are no where near as well known. Their value as a band that coined a term and maybe even a sound can't be disputed, but does that alone mean they're worth all these people still listening to them when there are better bands out there? I say it doesn't.


Actually most innovations in Heavy Metal are fluke (at least in the early days which is a period I understand).

The main goal for most bands in the 1980s in the early part of their career is to be faster and more extreme than anything else around. Innovation was getting faster and more extreme.

It's how Death Metal and Grindcore came about.


When you read about Carcass, they hate their first album and don't understand why people like it. They state they didn't know what they were doing. But it was an innovator.

And I've read interviews with guys from Sabbath stating how to a degree their early sound was fluke because they didn't have the money nor the knowledge to make something more polished (and as the cash rolled in they did get more polished).



At least Venom invented something new, most Thrash guys did not.

As for more creative, most Thrash bands really weren't much more creative than Venom. They wrote 1 song which was cut and pasted ad nauseum. I don't see the likes of Sodom, Destruction, Vendetta, Flotsam or Jetsam, Testament, or even my beloved Artillery and Sacred Reich doing anything more creative (Sacred Reich turned groove metal to become more creative).



Even early Anthrax albums don't really push any real boundaries - Fistful of Metal is generic Speed Metal and by the time we get to album number 3, Among The Living, they're already writing very standard Thrash in terms of sound (albeit it kicks my arse with lots of awesome songs).




And I love both Thrash and Venom more than anything in metal.



As for no good Venom albums, I like 5. That's more than some Thrash bands I actually prefer over Venom but who only managed a couple of releases I liked.


And by the sounds of it you don't like Venom cause they didn't take it too seriously.

Perhaps you don't like the fact that extremer forms of metal came about as at worst a joke or at best a marketing gimmick.
!J.O.O.E.!
Thought Police

Posts: 15717

Age: 30
From: UK

  08.03.2014 at 23:35
Written by deadone on 08.03.2014 at 23:24


And by the sounds of it you don't like Venom cause they didn't take it too seriously.

Perhaps you don't like the fact that extremer forms of metal came about as at worst a joke or at best a marketing gimmick.

In actual fact if Venom had been serious I would like them even less than I do. The fact they're just a bunch of guys messing around makes it at least slightly appealing and justifies their lower quality. If they'd set out to be artistically revolutionary I would have nothing good to say about them at all.

I have nothing against Venom and their legacy, it's just an observation. I'm not even sure I'd call them all that overrated as a lot of people don't like them. I've never been much for the "serious" side of black metal, as in serious Satanic antics, so I'm certainly not bothered than black metal sprung up from such a band. My personal taste are bands with a bit of mystery about them. I don't mind admitting that I like the theatrical side of masks, robes, hidden identities and the like. I'd still take the pratting around of Venom over the theistic Satanism nonsense of Watain and co.
----
deadone
Mainstream Poser

Posts: 4578
From: Australia

  08.03.2014 at 23:39
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 08.03.2014 at 23:35

Written by deadone on 08.03.2014 at 23:24


And by the sounds of it you don't like Venom cause they didn't take it too seriously.

Perhaps you don't like the fact that extremer forms of metal came about as at worst a joke or at best a marketing gimmick.

In actual fact if Venom had been serious I would like them even less than I do. The fact they're just a bunch of guys messing around makes it at least slightly appealing and justifies their lower quality. If they'd set out to be artistically revolutionary I would have nothing good to say about them at all.

I have nothing against Venom and their legacy, it's just an observation. I'm not even sure I'd call them all that overrated as a lot of people don't like them. I've never been much for the "serious" side of black metal, as in serious Satanic antics, so I'm certainly not bothered than black metal sprung up from such a band. My personal taste are bands with a bit of mystery about them. I don't mind admitting that I like the theatrical side of masks, robes, hidden identities and the like. I'd still take the pratting around of Venom over the theistic Satanism nonsense of Watain and co.


Fair enough.

I actually like Venom's sound cause it's punky and raw. It's why I generally like Thrash and Crossover too and love Iron Maiden's first two albums.

I also appreciate the juvenile nature of Venom and most early Thrash/Speed/Death/NWOBHM.

It's as fun as Glam and cheesy Hard Rock even when lyrics are serious.
!J.O.O.E.!
Thought Police

Posts: 15717

Age: 30
From: UK

  08.03.2014 at 23:41
Written by deadone on 08.03.2014 at 23:39


Fair enough.

I actually like Venom's sound cause it's punky and raw. It's why I generally like Thrash and Crossover too and love Iron Maiden's first two albums.

I also appreciate the juvenile nature of Venom and most early Thrash/Speed/Death/NWOBHM.

It's as fan as Glam and cheesy Hard Rock even when lyrics are serious.

I appreciate a lot of DIY music, especially punk. I guess I prefer clumsy black metal in the shape of Darkthrone or Burzum rather than Venom, which as you say is barely black metal to begin with.
----
Aristarchos

Posts: 764

Age: 30
From: Sweden
  13.03.2014 at 12:20
Written by deadone on 08.03.2014 at 23:24

As for no good Venom albums, I like 5. That's more than some Thrash bands I actually prefer over Venom but who only managed a couple of releases I liked.

Which 5 Venom albums do you like?
AngelofDeth
Cyborg Raptor

Posts: 1003

Age: 24
From: USA

  13.03.2014 at 12:56
Written by deadone on 07.03.2014 at 06:07

Written by AngelofDeth on 07.03.2014 at 06:00

I think you have a point as many people will bash something popular just for the sake of it.

Though, I think in some cases the term does apply. In music, I think it can apply to when a popular/established band releases a few hit records, builds a fan base and then subsequently delivers shit albums to fans who gobble it up simply because the bands logo is on the album cover. Both Metallica and Children of Bodom's later albums quickly come to mind, do you really think Load, ReLoad, Blooddrunk, RRF etc. would have sold half as many albums if they were debuts? That to me is when the term overrated is warranted. Same applies to shitty Movie sequels/franchises.



Load might've been reasonably successful if it was marketed to the alternative crowd and not the metal crowd.

Dunno about the others cause I don't like them.

Sure, might have done decent, probly not 5x platinum tho.
----
pewpew.. gotcha
deadone
Mainstream Poser

Posts: 4578
From: Australia

  13.03.2014 at 23:51
Written by Aristarchos on 13.03.2014 at 12:20

Written by deadone on 08.03.2014 at 23:24

As for no good Venom albums, I like 5. That's more than some Thrash bands I actually prefer over Venom but who only managed a couple of releases I liked.

Which 5 Venom albums do you like?




Welcome To Hell
Black Metal
At War With Satan
Prime Evil (a personal favourite)
Temples of Ice


I also don't mind Resurrection out of the newer lot.
deadone
Mainstream Poser

Posts: 4578
From: Australia

  14.03.2014 at 00:00
Written by AngelofDeth on 13.03.2014 at 12:56

Written by deadone on 07.03.2014 at 06:07

Sure, might have done decent, probly not 5x platinum tho.



Maybe not. But if it had same level of marketing power behind it, it would've done well and we might've seen Alternatalllica's second album being the 5 x Platinum.

Success is music industry is due to marketing.

There are very few bands/musicians who have got to the top of the industry on their own merit.
AngelofDeth
Cyborg Raptor

Posts: 1003

Age: 24
From: USA

  14.03.2014 at 05:46
Written by deadone on 14.03.2014 at 00:00


Success is music industry is due to marketing.

There are very few bands/musicians who have got to the top of the industry on their own merit.

And thus, the term: "overrated"
----
pewpew.. gotcha
deadone
Mainstream Poser

Posts: 4578
From: Australia

  14.03.2014 at 06:14
Written by AngelofDeth on 14.03.2014 at 05:46

Written by deadone on 14.03.2014 at 00:00


Success is music industry is due to marketing.

There are very few bands/musicians who have got to the top of the industry on their own merit.

And thus, the term: "overrated"



No, not at all.

1. Quality is subjective.


As I keep stating, if 999 people like an album and 1 doesn't, that 1 person can't claim the album is overrated.

This is regardless of whether a label flogged the album off or not.


2.Labels try to market a band that they think will sell to the target market.

They think it will sell because it has some sort "intrinsic unique element that will sell."

Road Runner is actually a great example of this.

They seldom lead on genre development, but then quickly rush in as soon as a genre gains any popularity.

They sign any bands that are part of that movement/genre that are reasonably unique and also marketable (aka accessible - even with Death Metal they pick accessible ones ala Illdisposed).



E.g. Nu-metal starts with Korn (released on Immortal and distributed via Epic - owned by Sony)

Roadrunner jumps in with Coal Chamber, Slipknot,Il Nino, Spineshank etc.


We may hate these bands (you might call them overrated), but they appealed to the market at the time. People that are into Nu-Metal would still call some of these the bast of the bunch too.

Hence these bands had some sort of quality that appealed to their target market (young males up to their 20s).


Remember they weren't marketed to "True Metallers." I actually dealt with Road Runner at the time as part of my radio show and while they were happy to support me with stuff such as CDs and interviews with people like Devin Townsend, and they stated that my Metal Show was actually not what they considered their market.


So we cannot say Coal Chamber is overrated when compared to Emperor or Carcass or Blut Aus Nord or whatever. Different market.




-------

By the same token Candlelight used to mainly do Black Metal (no idea what they do now).

Obviously they wouldn't sign any old dirty Darkthrone clone but rather signed bands that had "marketable qualities" for the Black Metal niche market.

And obviously through good marketing (e.g. relationships with mags ala Terrorizer, relevant radio stations etc) they managed to get their bands through into the Black Metal big time (e.g. Emperor).

If Candlelight were useless at their jobs, Emperor might have languished as completely unforgotten.





3. Albums can still flop despite label support


This is a failure in marketing.

An album can be critically acclaimed as brilliant but fail because the label fucked the marketing.


E.g. Promoting a Death Metal band to a the Nu-metal crowd (it reminds me of the Dimmu Borgir tour with Korn that didn't really work well for the Dimmu boys due to wrong audience).

Or failing to take into account changing trends, lack of proper promotion etc etc.

And obviously the band can come out with something has little or no appeal (aka a shit album) or even an album that would a good album in one market but that's actually marketed to the incorrect market (Metallica Load is a good example of this).

In fact Load is a great example of the confused marketing.

It's clear at the time of release, it was being marketed at a general mainstream rock audience This included interviews on mainstream television and press change in appaearance, a cover that was alternative and not metal etc etc.

However because Metallica had a heavy metal brand, the album was less well received because the market expected a heavy metal album.
AngelofDeth
Cyborg Raptor

Posts: 1003

Age: 24
From: USA

  14.03.2014 at 09:35
^^* is this for real??? lol...

Would've been much easier to simply applaud me for backing you into a corner, laugh it off and then agree to disagree.
----
pewpew.. gotcha
no one

Posts: 2495

Age: 31
From: New Zealand

  14.03.2014 at 09:44
Written by AngelofDeth on 14.03.2014 at 09:35

^^* is this for real??? lol...

Would've been much easier to simply applaud me for backing you into a corner, laugh it off and then agree to disagree.


this ain't no fucking joke for deadone!!
----
hipster fag
AngelofDeth
Cyborg Raptor

Posts: 1003

Age: 24
From: USA

  14.03.2014 at 10:18
Written by no one on 14.03.2014 at 09:44

Written by AngelofDeth on 14.03.2014 at 09:35

^^* is this for real??? lol...

Would've been much easier to simply applaud me for backing you into a corner, laugh it off and then agree to disagree.


this ain't no fucking joke for deadone!!

Lol apparently!
----
pewpew.. gotcha
!J.O.O.E.!
Thought Police

Posts: 15717

Age: 30
From: UK

  14.03.2014 at 13:47
Written by AngelofDeth on 14.03.2014 at 05:46

And thus, the term: "overrated"

Case in point indeed.
----
deadone
Mainstream Poser

Posts: 4578
From: Australia

  17.03.2014 at 00:30
Written by AngelofDeth on 14.03.2014 at 09:35

^^* is this for real??? lol...

Would've been much easier to simply applaud me for backing you into a corner, laugh it off and then agree to disagree.


Nah, it's called marketing and it underpins most social and all commercial endeavours.


Music is a commercial endeavour for most people involved in it - even the bands for the most part who still need to earn a living.


And the best marketing goes unnoticed by the consumers whilst they continue to lap up the product. In a good marketing campaign, the consumer doesn't notice he/she is being swayed by the marketing.

In fact the consumer thinks they came up with it all by themselves.



The music industry has always been very capable at that - great rock n roll swindle indeed.
Rasputin

Posts: 235
From: USA
  19.03.2014 at 05:32
In the US, most bands are overrated. Slayer, Metallica, AC/DC, Korn, Black Sabbath, Slipknot and let's not forget Pantera. I noticed in most magazines that they keep bringing up Pantera like they invented hot water or something. Is it because of the time when they came out, or because of Dimebag getting shot, or because the merit of their music?

I keep remembering how few years ago, the albums from Coalesce, Enslaved, Nachtmystium, Earth and few others, kept getting hyped up, and there was nothing to them.

I guess we have to divide the "overrated" aspect, to the fan base, and to the magazines, because they are different things.

Advertise on Metal Storm
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]


Login or register to post here.



Similar topics

Forum Topic Similarity Started
General forum Is there such a thing as heavy metal subculture 3.5 06.02.2014 by deadone
Musicians corner -Little- thing I came up with on guitar - interested in feedback 3 17.11.2010 by ApolloFC
General metal forum Metal and music quality! 3 05.12.2009 by advent
Extreme metal forum Black Metal bands that uses violin in their music . 2 10.12.2011 by BestMetalstormer
Articles Clandestine Cuts Vol. 2 #5 - Hear music from Miroist, Fever Sea, Kalodin, Black Oak Decline, Fhoi My 1.5 10.07.2012 by Mr. Doctor