Most overrated band?

Metallica. If it was today, i would probably buy only 1-2 albums from them. The songs are so much "the same old" from every release they put out. Kinda sad really. 

aspinosa wrote: Rush and Jethro Tull is a bit overrated in this site.

The Beatles

very good post Reality... Though I don't agree 100% with it (it makes too much of a PAvlov Dog out of any music fan) but it's a very interesting opinion...

The T wrote: BaldFriede wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^^ actually the word "overrated" is a contradiction in terms, since the ratings speak for themselves. Unless there is a flaw in the calculation of the average rating the albums are always neither "underrated" nor "overrated". So what people usually mean by it is that in their not at all humble opinion many of the people which rated the album were wrong. I think it's ok ... we can't all agree on everything. But the more ratings an album has and the longer it has been in the database, the more likely it is that those who claim that it's over/underrated are wrong ... they might simply have unusual tastes/opinions or different criteria for rating music.  An intelligent observation, Mike, but you left something out or overlooked it. It is also important WHO does the rating. Would anyone who is no expert on ice-skating be in an ice-skating jury? Would anyone who is not an expert physicist be let into the jury for the Nobel Prize of physics? Yet the majority of prog rock listeners are no experts on musical theory, including me  (Jean by the way knows a lot about it). So perhaps we do overrate some artists.   I used to think just like this, but now I think differently. Let's remember that music is an art and not an exact science (though it has elements of science, that's why not everybody can create or perform it, and that's why there have been music-erudits and just music-afficionados).... I think an expert in music theory can be conclusive as to how complicated or how revolutionary a piece of music can be, but not how "good" it can be, for even if that person knows everything about music theory, he doesn't hold the absolute truth in regars to how each heart and mind will react to a piece of music. If thta WAS the case, it would be so boring: it would mean that, eventually, if we all study music, we would all end up liking the same music! Not even with the highest authorities in music theory (usually orchestra directors) there is consensus: some like BAch, some like Beethoven, Mozart, some even prefer more "obscure" masters like Ives, Webern, etc....   If a physicist does ONE thing wrong in his studies, his whole theories will fall to the ground and be easily disproved... hence the need of actual masters of physics to judge a SCIENCE.... Only expert jurors may know what the hell a jump is called or how a particular move is done in ice-skating. That sport is performed mostly for two things: the enjoyment of the athlete and for the judging of experts.... There's no "feelings" or "subjective reactions" that can be eliccit by ice-skating.. There are no subjective feeling towards a physics theory...   Let the scientists judge science... let the sport-experts judge sports... let the heart and the mind judge art.... I'm sure most artists would DIE before saying that judges, WHO USUALLY CAN CRITIC EVERYTHING BUT CAN'T CREATE A SINGLE NOTE OR PAINT A SINGLE LINE, hold the absolute truth.

Actually Ice skating like all performance sports is very subjective and relys on so called "expert" opinions from judges who are trained to recognize elements that have been pre-established as good. Music through hundreds of years of experiment (and intense psychological and pre-psychological study) have established rules of how the mind reacts when it relates to sound. These studys are pretty accurate and exact (just ask 20th century composers when they decided not to end on the tonic note - what a disaster!) It is these set of rules which determine what is "good" and what is not so good in music (but do not worry the realm within these rules is so diverse that the well of inspiration is unlikely to run dry). What you like in music though can be from a different source than what the rules dictate your suppose to like.

Your brain is a comparative machine, it can link two seemingly different objects or activitys with one emotional bind. This is why someone in 2007 can still listen to a Flock of Seagulls song, even if it is not their current taste.  The brain links that song with the same emotional response that they had while hanging out with their friends in the eightys. But this linking goes further than just "nostalgia", it is used in are everyday life.

You can convince yourself to like almost anything,  as long as the object is tied to a desired emotional response. That desired response might be the elation that comes with listening to "complex" music that others do not get, or "weird" music that turns the mainstream off. It also may be what is associated  with the  music culture that  creates the emotional link.

Most musical movements are about much more than music. Here are three quik examples.
1 Classical era - had an obsession with formalism and order not only in music but in politics, art, literature, language, economics, education  and every other  value  in society. emotional links could have been started in any one of these venues and applied to music.

2 Romanticism - Highly emotional evocative music with sweeping instability and  change - not only in music but in politics, art, literature, language, economics, education  and every other  value  in society. Have you ever noticed that most national anthems are written in a romantic style? This was because "nationalism" was a huge part of the romantic culture. People were being grouped into ethnic "nationality's" and historys were being written all with an emotional fervor and pride of where one came from, hence emotional music. New political ideas and a drawing away from conservatism to liberal thought, hence sweeping instability and  change in the music.

3 Late 60's - early 70's  - rebellion, experimentation, technology, freedom, selfishness, indulgence, hope and hopelessness.   All these things were a wellspring for music to draw on and be tied too. Why does someone salivate (yes a Pavlov's dog allusion - not to be taken literally) when they hear the muddy production of an early Genesis record? The reason is the emotional link: bad production of a Genesis record = emotional satisfaction from the aforementioned list of attributes of said culture. The point is something that could be considered 'undesirable" (bad production) is a likable thing because it linked and even fronted by a desirable emotional response.

Bottom line is we may like music for reasons beyond music theory and even beyond music itself. These external factors is what turns the objective "good or bad" into the subjective "like or dislike". There may be simple or complex reasons why you like or dislike (beyond music theory) ranging from the lead singer was a jerk to you at a concert (or he was really nice to you) to nostalgia (direct or indirect) to cultural or societal inclusion (before you say anything this website and the internet itself is a subset of society at whole, so a cultural or societal inclusion can be a natural acceptance of music to receive acceptance or emotional inclusion through shared experience of peers. This does not apply to all but is pretty common usually in the negative - dislike something - way).

So music theory is the internal linking of how your brain works to certain sounds, it is broad and diverse yet follows specific rules and is discernible and objective to what works (good) and what does not work (bad) - it is kind of like nature. External linking (like nurture and very subjective) can fill in the gaps with music that comparable does not work within music theory's application of what is good, and create positive brain functions (which means you like it) from external sources. What is more satisfying? Well first of all the two are usually always present together although at different levels. It can depend on how open or cluttered your mind is or if you have an emotional agenda to tend to or not and at what level does that threaten objectivity. Internal is usually very deep and can address meaning and basic foundations of your humanity. It can include joy, love, beauty, empathy, altruism and fun or on the other hand it can include loss,  sadness,  hatred,  fear and many other things. It is considered good because it changes you whether you desire it or not. External (for this discussion why we like or dislike music based on outside prejudice ) can be based on a deep imported linking but is usually superficial as it comes from the outside. This again does not come from the music itself but comes from an external emotional link that has been imported into your memory and is opened and served for a purpose other than the music listening experience (it has its own agenda). This is just a correlation job for the brain is not a hardwired perspective changing event, it is actually quick and shallow.
This is what it means when people say music is "universal" rather than the limited "genre music".
Beethoven's 5th  is considered "universal", while your brain can use external linking and probably will, the piece does not need it as it tugs deeply (through the use of music theory) at the human soul and speaks directly to the hardwired center of your brain.

Music theory though is just theory and not law. Who knows how much more we can add from studying music's connection with who we are and how we were made.It is the best judge we have to determine what is good music and bad. If it is good we generally like it unless there is external prejudice, or if it is bad we generally do not like it unless there is external prejudice. It can make an average song into an amazing one, a lame sickly song into something moving, or a dud into a hit. Music theory is the direct connection between music and you, external linking is used for hundreds of different tasks and is not always appropriate, it is also just one explanation why someone would like something musically bad and how outside prejudice can affect our objectivity and rob us from enjoying the purity of music designed directly with the inner workings of are being.

the so called big 7 progbands. There are many smaller bands and artist that deserves yust as much atention and talk as this ones get all the time.

BaldFriede wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^^ actually the word "overrated" is a contradiction in terms, since the ratings speak for themselves. Unless there is a flaw in the calculation of the average rating the albums are always neither "underrated" nor "overrated". So what people usually mean by it is that in their not at all humble opinion many of the people which rated the album were wrong. I think it's ok ... we can't all agree on everything. But the more ratings an album has and the longer it has been in the database, the more likely it is that those who claim that it's over/underrated are wrong ... they might simply have unusual tastes/opinions or different criteria for rating music.  An intelligent observation, Mike, but you left something out or overlooked it. It is also important WHO does the rating. Would anyone who is no expert on ice-skating be in an ice-skating jury? Would anyone who is not an expert physicist be let into the jury for the Nobel Prize of physics? Yet the majority of prog rock listeners are no experts on musical theory, including me  (Jean by the way knows a lot about it). So perhaps we do overrate some artists.

I could list a trillion bands I don't like, does that make their popularity overrated? And if so, what does it matter?  Lame topic.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^^ actually the word "overrated" is a contradiction in terms, since the ratings speak for themselves. Unless there is a flaw in the calculation of the average rating the albums are always neither "underrated" nor "overrated". So what people usually mean by it is that in their not at all humble opinion many of the people which rated the album were wrong. I think it's ok ... we can't all agree on everything. But the more ratings an album has and the longer it has been in the database, the more likely it is that those who claim that it's over/underrated are wrong ... they might simply have unusual tastes/opinions or different criteria for rating music.

An intelligent observation, Mike, but you left something out or overlooked it. It is also important WHO does the rating. Would anyone who is no expert on ice-skating be in an ice-skating jury? Would anyone who is not an expert physicist be let into the jury for the Nobel Prize of physics? Yet the majority of prog rock listeners are no experts on musical theory, including me  (Jean by the way knows a lot about it). So perhaps we do overrate some artists.

KENNY G!!!