The Beatles, Tupac, overrated?

Started by: CriticalDesign | Replies: 22 | Views: 2,022

alive
2

Posts: 1,331
Joined: May 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 19, 2008 1:09 PM #118173
Quote from Überschall
If you don't rate a band as "good" by their success in the charts, what else are you gonna rate them for? The kind of music they make? No, because tastes in music differ, but the chart positions are the same for everyone who looks at them.


Yeah, because the majority is always right.
Überschall
2

Posts: 3,607
Joined: Sep 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 19, 2008 1:15 PM #118179
This is not a right or wrong scenario, but a question about the objective view upon a band, which you can only determine by how it's succeeding. The majority might not be right, but representive.
CriticalDesign
2

Posts: 741
Joined: Oct 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 20, 2008 2:31 AM #118667
Quote from Überschall
If you don't rate a band as "good" by their success in the charts, what else are you gonna rate them for? The kind of music they make? No, because tastes in music differ, but the chart positions are the same for everyone who looks at them.


Can you rate Soulja Boy as good because of his success on the charts?
Bubba Jones
2

Posts: 168
Joined: Jan 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 20, 2008 7:59 AM #118840
i dont think any of us can answer this question.
Überschall
2

Posts: 3,607
Joined: Sep 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 21, 2008 3:51 PM #120145
Quote from adrenalineflash
Can you rate Soulja Boy as good because of his success on the charts?


No. Not "good", but sort of "attractive". He's attracting the masses to buy his shit. So yes, from an objective POV he is, in fact, good. Just because we all think he's shit my argument's not getting invalid.
Stormwalker
2

Posts: 960
Joined: Feb 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 21, 2008 5:13 PM #120186
Quote from adrenalineflash

And popular bands today do tend to be quite bad, but I am sure there are great bands that are never acknowledged.


So true , like Tribal Ink , I'm sure they would have a place in the top , but still very few know of them. Tho this is arguable.
LakE

Posts: 5,459
Joined: Jan 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 21, 2008 8:50 PM #120244
Not sure if anybody else has already said this, as i haven't read any posts other then the 1st.

Today's music is all the same. They were big because they were a breakthrough, a different thing of the time. Everything now is un-original.
I think that's all there is to it. That's how i see it anyway.
Gavel
2

Posts: 6,675
Joined: Oct 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 21, 2008 8:59 PM #120248
Quote from Überschall
No. Not "good", but sort of "attractive". He's attracting the masses to buy his shit. So yes, from an objective POV he is, in fact, good. Just because we all think he's shit my argument's not getting invalid.

Yeah, he's good marketing-wise. But musical skill isn't measured in entrepreneurial skill (or at least it shouldn't be). If we were to judge artists solely on how many albums they've sold or how many times someone has heard their song, then we might as well categorize Nike and Pizza Hut as musical artists, too.