Red Mosquito

PryTo wrote:What are the most overrated albums of the 1990s and why?

When you think about it, everything is rated 100% properly. The ultimate ''rating'' of any one thing is simply the sum total of a bunch of individual ratings, none of which can be right or wrong. I understand what the terms seek to embody but when you get down to it, it's a stupid concept.

Yup, it's subjective but most of us 'round here seem to have opinions about what they like/dislike when it comes to music. I think there are even some threads here about most overrated wrestlers, a topic I'm in no way qualified to weigh in on. And you have outlets like Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and even Amazon that offer some consensus as to how various media is received by professional and amateur critics. (Three Wolf Moon shirt = overrated; Tuscan Milk? Underrated.) I'd say the early Beatles albums are pretty underrated, while the later stuff is way overrated, a position that wins me no favors but has led to some interesting debates. Someone on here was making a case recently for U2's debut as an unheralded gem, which actually made me go back and listen to it again with new ears. So it's a conversation that's of interest to me, but one that seems to be, well, underrated 'round these parts. Maybe people were just mad that PJ's hilariously bad debut got called out by some hack journalist.

I love the comments.

brunzing wrote:Well this'll definitely piss off some idiots.

There is an actual debate on Puccini, Joseph Kerman and Mozart further down the page, with a user named "Chupacabra" waxing intellectual on the differences between Baroque, Classical and Romantic composers. And then the author chimes in:

Noah Berlatsky wrote:I'm comfortable saying Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven are all better than Pearl Jam.

I love the internet

PryTo wrote:Yup, it's subjective but most of us 'round here seem to have opinions about what they like/dislike when it comes to music.

I guess this is what it comes down to for me. Ultimately these conversations aren't about records that are over- or underrated; they're just about records that people either like or dislike, disguised as a commentary on the error of everyone else's ways. I mean, I agree that Ten is pretty low on PJ's totem pole (I have spoken ill of it to Stip's dismay many times on this board), but some 12 million people bought it and many consider it to be the band's defining work--why would my take on it account for any bigger a fraction of the consensus than anyone else's? A conversation on the relative merits of the record is more interesting to me than a conversation on whether or not it is properly ''rated,'' as if you can pin down something like that anyway. What would have to happen, in your eyes, in order for Ten to be ''properly'' rated?

Well I'm already bored.

BurtReynolds wrote:Well I'm already bored.

You just summed up the entire 90s

PryTo wrote:Someone on here was making a case recently for U2's debut as an unheralded gem

This was probably me, wasn't it?

Man do I love that record.

Lament wrote:

PryTo wrote:Someone on here was making a case recently for U2's debut as an unheralded gem

This was probably me, wasn't it?

Man do I love that record.

Yeah, it was better than I remembered. Underrated, some might say. Would have loved to have seen them live during that era.

Kevin Davis wrote: Ultimately these conversations aren't about records that are over- or underrated; they're just about records that people either like or dislike, disguised as a commentary on the error of everyone else's ways. I mean, I agree that Ten is pretty low on PJ's totem pole (I have spoken ill of it to Stip's dismay many times on this board), but some 12 million people bought it and many consider it to be the band's defining work.

Right, but doesn't it astonish you that only half as many people bought Vitalogy? I'm often baffled by the popularity of certain things and the dearth of popularity of others. Granted, sales don't make something good or bad, but it does -- as you imply -- note some sort of consensus. But whatevs. The under/overrated thing is just way to debate the various merits of something. There have been plenty of debates on this here forum about which PJ albums are over/underrated. To me, it's an interesting conversation because a) I'm often at odds with the "defining" works of many bands -- but often enjoy some of their less "defining" material; b) The popularity/rating/whatever of a cultural object (movie, album, TV show, etc.) says something larger about the culture in which it exists. To me, that all makes it an interesting conversation, one that goes well beyond "everyone is wrong and I'm right."

As for Ten, I don't care so much about how it's "rated," but I'm baffled that it gets so much love (including, and perhaps most importantly, from the band), while records like Binaural and Riot Act are swept into the dustbin of history. The reason I like PJ is not because of Ten; the reason the vast majority of their fans like them is because of Ten. That just seems weird to me. But that does not translate to "everyone is wrong and I'm right" in my head.

PryTo wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote: Ultimately these conversations aren't about records that are over- or underrated; they're just about records that people either like or dislike, disguised as a commentary on the error of everyone else's ways. I mean, I agree that Ten is pretty low on PJ's totem pole (I have spoken ill of it to Stip's dismay many times on this board), but some 12 million people bought it and many consider it to be the band's defining work.

Right, but doesn't it astonish you that only half as many people bought Vitalogy? I'm often baffled by the popularity of certain things and the dearth of popularity of others. Granted, sales don't make something good or bad, but it does -- as you imply -- note some sort of consensus. But whatevs. The under/overrated thing is just way to debate the various merits of something. There have been plenty of debates on this here forum about which PJ albums are over/underrated. To me, it's an interesting conversation because a) I'm often at odds with the "defining" works of many bands -- but often enjoy some of their less "defining" material; b) The popularity/rating/whatever of a cultural object (movie, album, TV show, etc.) says something larger about the culture in which it exists. To me, that all makes it an interesting conversation, one that goes well beyond "everyone is wrong and I'm right."

You're right about that, but once you acknowledged that and realized that you're often at odds with what's hugely popular because your taste is simply different from the majority, I'm not sure what else there is to say.

Kevin Davis wrote:I guess this is what it comes down to for me. Ultimately these conversations aren't about records that are over- or underrated; they're just about records that people either like or dislike, disguised as a commentary on the error of everyone else's ways. I mean, I agree that Ten is pretty low on PJ's totem pole (I have spoken ill of it to Stip's dismay many times on this board), but some 12 million people bought it and many consider it to be the band's defining work--why would my take on it account for any bigger a fraction of the consensus than anyone else's? A conversation on the relative merits of the record is more interesting to me than a conversation on whether or not it is properly ''rated,'' as if you can pin down something like that anyway.

Guys, I Kevin Davis so much it's sickening.

I think the reason something like Ten is embraced by a larger community than something like Vitalogy is twofold:

1) Ten is a product of time and place. People who were listening when that album dropped were jarred by how different it sounded to just about everything else on the radio at the time. The connection was instant and visceral. Now, it has stood the test of time because it turns out, more than just being an secret handshake, a "you-had-to-be-there" record, it's also a good collection of well made songs. But the trick is, it's obvious from the get-go.

Which leads us to:

2) Ten is much more accessible than Vitalogy. Outside of Better Man, you have to work at those songs, or let them work at you. There's such a large portion of the listening public that isn't interested in difficult -- or even slightly challenging -- music. Obviously, this is where subjectivity and taste come more into play. Difficult doesn't equal better. But sometimes if a song is difficult, you won't give a chance to find out if it's better or not. Plus, Vitalogy has the weight of two previous records and four years of expectations to live up to. Ten could be whatever it wanted. No one knew what a Pearl Jam was yet, so there was no pressure.

Ten's cultural impact was much greater than Vitalogy.

Heathen wrote:You're right about that, but once you acknowledged that and realized that you're often at odds with what's hugely popular because your taste is simply different from the majority, I'm not sure what else there is to say.

Agreed. My questions were 1) What do you think were the most overrated albums of the 1990s? 2) What is an album from a popular/well-regarded group that doesn't get the attention it deserves? If folks don't think these are interesting questions, or have no opinions about these matters, I imagine it would not be a violation of the norms around here to simply ignore this post.

PryTo wrote:

Heathen wrote:You're right about that, but once you acknowledged that and realized that you're often at odds with what's hugely popular because your taste is simply different from the majority, I'm not sure what else there is to say.

Agreed. My questions were 1) What do you think were the most overrated albums of the 1990s? 2) What is an album from a popular/well-regarded group that doesn't get the attention it deserves? If folks don't think these are interesting questions, or have no opinions about these matters, I imagine it would not be a violation of the norms around here to simply ignore this post.

I'm pretty sure that would actually be a violation of RM's norms.

theplatypus wrote:There is an actual debate on Puccini, Joseph Kerman and Mozart further down the page, with a user named "Chupacabra" waxing intellectual on the differences between Baroque, Classical and Romantic composers. And then the author chimes in:

Noah Berlatsky wrote:I'm comfortable saying Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven are all better than Pearl Jam.

I love the internet

I still think about this sometimes

durdencommatyler wrote:Ten is much more accessible than Vitalogy. Outside of Better Man, you have to work at those songs, or let them work at you. There's such a large portion of the listening public that isn't interested in difficult -- or even slightly challenging -- music.

I was astonished by the intensely negative reaction that "Evacuation" got, and continues to get from typical boneheads.

It's like, how DARE Pearl Jam record a song with time signature changes in it!