.....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named after them ;-), etc.
I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
Peach wrote: > .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > after them ;-), etc.
> I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
> Peach
For the absolute antithesis of underrated, see "The Beatles."
-- It doesn't matter if we finesse-ively kick their *****," Saints defensive end Bobby McCray
> .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > after them ;-), etc.
You're too close to the argument and tripping over semantics, IMO.
> > .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> > And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > > after them ;-), etc.
> You're too close to the argument and tripping over semantics, IMO.
> cb
And why is that? By the way--has nothing to do with the Beatles.....
> Peach wrote: > > .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> > And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > > after them ;-), etc.
> > I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
> > Peach
> For the absolute antithesis of underrated, see "The Beatles."
> -- > It doesn't matter if we finesse-ively kick their *****," Saints > defensive end Bobby McCray- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I agree with you there..... (though I do think they deserve most of their recognition.)
> > .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> > And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > > after them ;-), etc.
> You're too close to the argument and tripping over semantics, IMO.
> cb
By the way, you're free to offer your opinion about my views, but not without defining overrated and underrated...to you. Which is really all I am asking. ;-)
> On Nov 20, 1:29 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> Peach wrote, On 11/20/09 2:21 PM:
>>> .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on >>> rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his >>> opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a >>> particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them >>> underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not? >>> And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds >>> of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For >>> example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't >>> in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named >>> after them ;-), etc. >> You're too close to the argument and tripping over semantics, IMO.
>> cb
> And why is that? By the way--has nothing to do with the Beatles.....
Does it really matter what, specifically, is meant by "underrated?" There comes a point where each reader is gonna decide for him/herself anyway, right?
On Nov 20, 3:26 pm, GregoryD <deergrego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the absolute antithesis of underrated, see "The Beatles."
Whether you like them or not (or whatever the topic), a musical group who is enjoyed by multiple generations after they're gone is pretty hard to be considered the antithesis of underrated. Even if they were overrated as musicians, as singers, as musical artists, they would have fallen by the wayside over time.
On Nov 20, 3:21 pm, Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote:
> .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > after them ;-), etc.
> I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
> Peach
definition is usually on the level of "obscure but good" for me. a performer that has a relatively small audience and attention but IMO is great. Examples are The Blues Magoos, Nick drake, John Zorn. You also have bands that have a niche audience but not big time recognition like The Art Enseble of Chicago or Albert Ayler.
tom_sawye...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 20, 3:26 pm, GregoryD <deergrego...@gmail.com> wrote: >> For the absolute antithesis of underrated, see "The Beatles."
> Whether you like them or not (or whatever the topic), a musical group > who is enjoyed by multiple generations after they're gone is pretty > hard to be considered the antithesis of underrated. Even if they were > overrated as musicians, as singers, as musical artists, they would > have fallen by the wayside over time.
Fanboys are fanboys, regardless of age. The Grateful Dead is still popular, and they flat out sucked.
-- It doesn't matter if we finesse-ively kick their *****," Saints defensive end Bobby McCray
On Nov 20, 2:21 pm, Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote:
> .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > after them ;-), etc.
> I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
> Peach
'Underrated' is a term that refers to the common perception and public awareness. How a collection of individuals views a band is not relevant to how they are 'rated'.
> On Nov 20, 2:21 pm, Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote:
> > .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> > And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > > after them ;-), etc.
> > I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
> > Peach
> 'Underrated' is a term that refers to the common perception and public > awareness. How a collection of individuals views a band is not > relevant to how they are 'rated'.
> Carl Lundstedt > UNL
See, I agree with this perspective....and was sort of what I was trying to explain.
> > On Nov 20, 1:29 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > >> Peach wrote, On 11/20/09 2:21 PM:
> >>> .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > >>> rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > >>> opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > >>> particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > >>> underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not? > >>> And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > >>> of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > >>> example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > >>> in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > >>> after them ;-), etc. > >> You're too close to the argument and tripping over semantics, IMO.
> >> cb
> > And why is that? By the way--has nothing to do with the Beatles.....
> Does it really matter what, specifically, is meant by > "underrated?" There comes a point where each reader is > gonna decide for him/herself anyway, right?
> Peach wrote: > > .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> > And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > > after them ;-), etc.
> > I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
> > Peach
> For the absolute antithesis of underrated, see "The Rolling Stones."
> -- > It doesn't matter if we finesse-ively kick their *****," Saints > defensive end Bobby McCray
On Nov 20, 2:06 pm, GregoryD <deergrego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tom_sawye...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Nov 20, 3:26 pm, GregoryD <deergrego...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> For the absolute antithesis of underrated, see "The Beatles."
> > Whether you like them or not (or whatever the topic), a musical group > > who is enjoyed by multiple generations after they're gone is pretty > > hard to be considered the antithesis of underrated. Even if they were > > overrated as musicians, as singers, as musical artists, they would > > have fallen by the wayside over time.
> Fanboys are fanboys, regardless of age. The Grateful Dead is still > popular, and they flat out sucked.
On Nov 20, 4:06 pm, GregoryD <deergrego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fanboys are fanboys, regardless of age. The Grateful Dead is still > popular, and they flat out sucked.
Kids who were not born until 20 years after the fact and who like their music are not "fanboys."
I don't care for the Grateful Dead, I don't own any of their music, have never attended a show, and although I've listened a time or two when others have put them on, I have never understood the interest. But they transcend a lot of boundaries that appeal to many people. In spite of my personal interests, they're not overrated.
In article <e7112363-f181-40de-9f8e-81fecdaad...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote: > .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > after them ;-), etc.
> I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
I never use the expression `under rated' because of the dilemma in which you find yourself. All musicians are rated. Somebody comes along and says that Zacharias Zither is under rated. What he is saying is that everybody is wrong, and he is right: Zacharias can play the birds out of the trees. Well, Sluggo, since that is what you mean, just say it.
> In article > <e7112363-f181-40de-9f8e-81fecdaad...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote: > > .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> > And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > > after them ;-), etc.
> > I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
> I never use the expression `under rated' because > of the dilemma in which you find yourself. All > musicians are rated. Somebody comes along and says > that Zacharias Zither is under rated. What he is > saying is that everybody is wrong, and he is right: > Zacharias can play the birds out of the trees. Well, > Sluggo, since that is what you mean, just say it.
> -- > Michael Press
I don't use the term to say that someone is better than others say.....and that others are stupid. I use the term for overlooked performers who most people don't even know about (either they didn't "get their due" or are a bit obscure.) I never think that my opinion is, somehow, more valid in terms of like/dislike.
Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote: > On Nov 23, 12:48 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > In article > > <e7112363-f181-40de-9f8e-81fecdaad...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote: > > > .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > > > rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > > > opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > > > particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > > > underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> > > And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > > > of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > > > example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > > > in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > > > after them ;-), etc.
> > > I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
> > I never use the expression `under rated' because > > of the dilemma in which you find yourself. All > > musicians are rated. Somebody comes along and says > > that Zacharias Zither is under rated. What he is > > saying is that everybody is wrong, and he is right: > > Zacharias can play the birds out of the trees. Well, > > Sluggo, since that is what you mean, just say it.
> I don't use the term to say that someone is better than others > say.....and that others are stupid. I use the term for overlooked > performers who most people don't even know about (either they didn't > "get their due" or are a bit obscure.) I never think that my opinion > is, somehow, more valid in terms of like/dislike.
Carl Lunsdtedt wrote: > On Nov 20, 2:21 pm, Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote: >> .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on >> rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his >> opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a >> particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them >> underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
>> And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds >> of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For >> example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't >> in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named >> after them ;-), etc.
>> I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
>> Peach
> 'Underrated' is a term that refers to the common perception and public > awareness. How a collection of individuals views a band is not > relevant to how they are 'rated'.
> Carl Lundstedt > UNL
To play the pedantic ahole, the "common perception and public awareness" of band x exactly refers to how a "collection of individuals view" band x.
> Carl Lunsdtedt wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2:21 pm, Peach <strawbe...@lpbroadband.net> wrote: > >> .....just curious. I've gotten into a pissing match with a fellow on > >> rec.music.beatles about what it means to be underrated. In his > >> opinion, since you can't ask hundreds of people their opinions about a > >> particular vocalist, for example, it's impossible to call them > >> underrated because, "everyone might rate them highly." True? Or not?
> >> And my opinion being it has nothing to do with asking other "hundreds > >> of people" really.... it has to do with recognition, legacy, etc. For > >> example, whose material is readily available....whose legacy isn't > >> in danger of falling by the wayside...who has a Rock Band game named > >> after them ;-), etc.
> >> I'm suffering from lack of sleep, but hopefully making sense.
> >> Peach
> > 'Underrated' is a term that refers to the common perception and public > > awareness. How a collection of individuals views a band is not > > relevant to how they are 'rated'.
> > Carl Lundstedt > > UNL
> To play the pedantic ahole, the "common perception and public awareness" > of band x exactly refers to how a "collection of individuals view" band x.
> Just a really big collection - all of us.
> Cheers.
You are correct. I guess I wasn't clear then. 'Public' is the key word there. The public awareness has to do with how well I know other peoples views. If everyone loves band X but no one knows EVERYONE loves band X, then I'd say they are underrated.
"tom_sawye...@yahoo.com" <tom_sawye...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:873c7297- d176-4226-b67c-2f6e24ad0...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 20, 4:06 pm, GregoryD <deergrego...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Fanboys are fanboys, regardless of age. The Grateful Dead is still >> popular, and they flat out sucked.
> Kids who were not born until 20 years after the fact and who like > their music are not "fanboys."
> I don't care for the Grateful Dead, I don't own any of their music, > have never attended a show, and although I've listened a time or two > when others have put them on, I have never understood the interest. > But they transcend a lot of boundaries that appeal to many people. In > spite of my personal interests, they're not overrated.
Eh -
I LIKE the Grateful Dead. Own a bunch of live shows. etc.
...but they are overrated.
It's possible to be exceptionally brilliant and highly loved worldwide, and still be overrated.
> "tom_sawye...@yahoo.com" <tom_sawye...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:873c7297- > d176-4226-b67c-2f6e24ad0...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> > On Nov 20, 4:06 pm, GregoryD <deergrego...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Fanboys are fanboys, regardless of age. The Grateful Dead is still > >> popular, and they flat out sucked.
> > Kids who were not born until 20 years after the fact and who like > > their music are not "fanboys."
> > I don't care for the Grateful Dead, I don't own any of their music, > > have never attended a show, and although I've listened a time or two > > when others have put them on, I have never understood the interest. > > But they transcend a lot of boundaries that appeal to many people. In > > spite of my personal interests, they're not overrated.
> Eh -
> I LIKE the Grateful Dead. Own a bunch of live shows. etc.
> ...but they are overrated.
> It's possible to be exceptionally brilliant and highly loved worldwide, > and still be overrated.
Except you're wrong. Grateful Dead are underrated. They may be overrated by some of the hippies who followed them endlessly on tour, but amongst the general population they are underrated.
> On Nov 24, 9:38 am, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> "tom_sawye...@yahoo.com" <tom_sawye...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> news:873c7297- >> d176-4226-b67c-2f6e24ad0...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Nov 20, 4:06 pm, GregoryD <deergrego...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Fanboys are fanboys, regardless of age. The Grateful Dead is >> >> still popular, and they flat out sucked.
>> > Kids who were not born until 20 years after the fact and who like >> > their music are not "fanboys."
>> > I don't care for the Grateful Dead, I don't own any of their music, >> > have never attended a show, and although I've listened a time or >> > two when others have put them on, I have never understood the >> > interest. But they transcend a lot of boundaries that appeal to >> > many people. I > n >> > spite of my personal interests, they're not overrated.
>> Eh -
>> I LIKE the Grateful Dead. Own a bunch of live shows. etc.
>> ...but they are overrated.
>> It's possible to be exceptionally brilliant and highly loved >> worldwide, and still be overrated.
> Except you're wrong. Grateful Dead are underrated. They may be > overrated by some of the hippies who followed them endlessly on tour, > but amongst the general population they are underrated.
I might say "overhated" as opposed to underrated - but I still don't think they were underrated.
|
