Elvis is basically Shakin' Stevens writ large.

December 4, 2004 11:30 AM

Don't believe the hype Debunking the so-called genius of Prince, The Sopranos and 'Blade Runner'. Amusingly harsh yet convincing cases all round. Can I add 'Goodfellas' to the list? Never has so much been written about a film so lacking. I prefered 'Casino'.
posted by feelinglistless (135 comments total)

What a fucking snob. He sounds like this guy, except he's not at all funny.
posted by Evstar at 11:37 AM on December 4, 2004

I'd put 'Pulp Fiction' on my list. Much overrated, often by people with otherwise good taste. High style, nothing to say. All dressed up and no place to go. Amusing dialogue, but unmemorable narrative. Excuse for Tarantino to masturbate with violence. Destined for cultural blip-dom.
posted by Miko at 11:39 AM on December 4, 2004

I feel I should add that I agree with the author on a number of these artists, but his delivery just makes him look like an asshole.
posted by Evstar at 11:41 AM on December 4, 2004

Authors: there's 12 of them.
posted by mcwetboy at 11:43 AM on December 4, 2004

Funny, this post reminded me of how good the PE song (lyrics, especially) is.
posted by funkbrain at 11:43 AM on December 4, 2004

Authors: there's 12 of them.

Fine. 12 unsurmountable pricks.
posted by Evstar at 11:45 AM on December 4, 2004

The choices are obvious enough but the reasoning is all wrong. The problem isn't that these acts weren't what they're claimed to be. It's that they were, and that thing wasn't very interesting. In other words, the things we're told make bands good don't, and the article fails by not mentioning this and the criticism rings hollow.
posted by cillit bang at 11:49 AM on December 4, 2004

The Austin Powers movies. Plenty of otherwise intelligent people seem to love these films, and I couldn't even endure a half hour of it. NTM, when I am emperor, anyone quoting lines from it will be flayed and boiled.
posted by jonmc at 11:53 AM on December 4, 2004

I didn't see anything about either The Sopranos or Blade Runner.
posted by cribcage at 11:54 AM on December 4, 2004

Wow. I certainly agreed with the vast majority of that.

And yeah, what cribcage said. and jonmc.
posted by dobbs at 11:56 AM on December 4, 2004

Faze writes for the Guardian?
posted by muckster at 11:57 AM on December 4, 2004

Just goes to show how much easier it is to tear something down than to build something up.
posted by herc at 11:58 AM on December 4, 2004

the Beatles embody everything wrong with the 60s in general and hippies in particular.

Wow. Just... wow.
posted by ORthey at 11:59 AM on December 4, 2004

I'm confused. Should this link have been in the FPP? Is it in the linked article and I missed it?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:05 PM on December 4, 2004

I didn't see anything about either The Sopranos or Blade Runner.

Oh err. Hang on. (Actually checks linked article) They've only included the music material online, even though everything else was in the print version and it appears from the intro that is should be there. I suck and so do they.

But here at least is a list of everything else ...

Film ...

Blade Runner
Lost In Translation
Star Wars
Manhattan
The Royal Tenenbaums
Withnail & I
The Godfather
Brian De Palma

TV ...

Spike Milligan
Six Feet Under
Monty Python
Sex and the City
The Sopranos
Twin Peaks
The West Wing
Frasier

Writers ...

James Ellroy
Don Delillo
Beat Writers
Dennis Potter
Shakespeare
posted by feelinglistless at 12:06 PM on December 4, 2004

Everyone has their big icon that they just don't see the big deal about. If it had all been the same guy it would have been ridiculous, because the question would have been "What does he like?"

Also, what herc said.

The Tom Waits one was like "It's not rock n' roll." Who the hell called Tom Waits rock n' roll?

I agreed with them on the Strokes and James Brown though. (The Strokes seemed out of place; they don't seem to have the same position of belovedness as the Rolling Stones or Elvis Costello or whoever.)

I also did not see the big deal about Blade Runner.
posted by SoftRain at 12:07 PM on December 4, 2004

"The Strokes are a kind of Top Shop version of the Ramones. With Amanda de Cadenet in tow. So manufactured, they make Busted look like the Sex Pistols;"

I agreed with some, disagreed with others. One might argue that the Sex Pistols were manufactured.
posted by helvetica at 12:08 PM on December 4, 2004

NTM, when I am emperor, anyone quoting lines from it will be flayed and boiled.

Wow, just like Dr. Evil himself.
posted by euphorb at 12:10 PM on December 4, 2004

Shanks: They've split it up across the site. I went for the link which was nearest. My bad.
posted by feelinglistless at 12:10 PM on December 4, 2004

Of course they sound like insurmountable pricks: they're British, and they're attacking (mostly) American cultural institutions. I'm pretty sure they don't expect you to love them for it, unless you only listen to music with an audience of less than 500 worldwide and only watch movies in languages you don't understand. Then, most likely, you love them.

When Marley sang of being "Iron, like a lion, in Zion," one braced for the shout out to his mate Brian, who had a tie on.

And that's damn funny.
posted by medialyte at 12:12 PM on December 4, 2004

If all of these famous rich artists were not so great, the writers' lives would be a little less miserable, I guess.
posted by orange clock at 12:24 PM on December 4, 2004

I think this article destroys any musical cred the entire paper might have. Sure, this one's not by the same writer, but come on...

Does anyone have the link about the Sopranos, or the literature part? Personally, I find the Sopranos to be a brilliant show: it's gorgeously shot most of the time, and, while the psycho-analytic angle runs very thin and cliche at times, I believe that its writing can be superb.

Furthermore, attacking Shakespeare? I love putting icons and cherished beliefs under scrutiny as much as anyone, but when reading Shakespeare and really getting into his language and his structure it's hard to deny his genius. His influence is undeniable (see Bloom's Shakespeare: Invention of the Human), and his popularity hasn't really faded with age. While he might not have "invented the human," there does seem to be something that inclinces generation after generation to read the man. Besides, if TS Eliot sounds somewhat shrill while trying to zing Shakespeare, God knows what the quality of the criticism from the Guardian will be.

Interesting stuff
posted by NoamChomskyStoleMyFace at 12:28 PM on December 4, 2004

All together now: Anybody Can Write Knocking Copy. It's especially easy if you spend most of your time attacking a straw-man reason why people supposedly like something, than actually attacking the work itself, which is what most of these guys do.

There's a few good ones, though. David Stubbs on What's Going On, Charlie Brooker on The Godfather - they're interesting, persuasive little snippets. For the rest, here's a test - remove the names and any more obvious identifying characteristics from the pieces. Can you still guess who they're writing about, or is it just off-the-peg snarking?

Of course they sound like insurmountable pricks: they're British, and they're attacking (mostly) American cultural institutions.

Huh?
posted by flashboy at 12:29 PM on December 4, 2004

Newsflash!
This just in:
Your favourite [thing] sucks!
posted by C.Batt at 12:29 PM on December 4, 2004

Nothing to see here, move along. Slagging something outrageously (particularly if it's a semi-sacred cow) is apparently what passes for wit in modern British critical circles. (Check out the food critics sometime.)
posted by enrevanche at 12:31 PM on December 4, 2004

Of course they sound like insurmountable pricks: they're British, and they're attacking (mostly) American cultural institutions.

Did you assume I was American?
posted by Evstar at 12:33 PM on December 4, 2004

The other links you want are to the left of the article:
No more heroes: film, No more heroes: writers, and No more heroes: television.
posted by zsazsa at 12:38 PM on December 4, 2004

Haters.
posted by ChasFile at 12:39 PM on December 4, 2004

I absolutely love how some "critic" would die to at least look like a constructive critic, but at best have themselves look like they're not totally blind or unconcerned like 99% of the remaining audience.
posted by elpapacito at 12:41 PM on December 4, 2004

Well, the music list has Neil Young on it, as it should, so it can't be all bad. A songwriter with nothing much to say, and a voice appropriate to the task.

I never got what made Blade Runner so wonderful, either. The book it was supposedly based on was very different, and better.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:42 PM on December 4, 2004

Forever droning on about a mythical, moral America, Young has even-handedly bored three generations equally thoroughly, and unleashed some unspeakable musical atrocities... The apologists who boast that Neil Young has "never sold out" forget the main reason things don't sell out: people don't want to buy them.

excellent!
posted by quonsar at 12:42 PM on December 4, 2004

"...when I am emperor, anyone quoting lines from it will be flayed and boiled."

Oh, be-HAVE.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:43 PM on December 4, 2004

Evidently these are people who hate anything that's popular, regardless if it's good or not.
posted by Agrippina at 12:47 PM on December 4, 2004

And you guys thought I was a troll? This post hasn't got much thought behind it, other than to stir up the pot.

What are supposed to do with this info? Return the 4 billion albums we bought from these groups?

The criticism reminds me of the quote from the Emperor when listening to Mozart in Amadeus, "Too many notes!"

Indeed.
posted by notmtwain at 12:50 PM on December 4, 2004

I never got what made Blade Runner so wonderful, either. The book it was supposedly based on was very different, and better.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:42 PM EST on December 4

The book is "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", by Phillip K. Dick. The book is phenomenal.

The movie is different, but it stands on its own. The tone and ambiance, the general "feel" of it are what I think draws people in. Acid rain and sushi. Noir-ish detective story, great cast.
posted by exlotuseater at 12:52 PM on December 4, 2004

flashboy: Okay, a more detailed explanation --
1. The Guardian's formula for pop culture reporting is "classic dry British wit with a heavy dose of edgier-than-thou cynicism". It is much like the "proud to be a nerdy asshole who thinks poop is the funniest thing ever" formula used by Something Awful columnists.
2. Once a popular band has been processed by the North American press for twenty years, it achieves a new kind of status: it is considered totally inviolable by its fan base, and it is an easy target for anyone who likes to piss people off (see item 1).

I'm not saying I agree with the writers, just that they're awfully successful at what they're trying to do, and it's more funny if you recognize it rather than getting all huffy about it.

On preview: no, Evstar, I don't often see Americans using the term "prick". I was referring to the targets of criticism, not to you.
posted by medialyte at 12:52 PM on December 4, 2004

I thought this would be something amusing to read... but it's just angry ranting. Yes, not everything is meant to be enjoyed by everybody... nobody cares if you hated the beatles. If you're going to do nothing but criticize, at least try to make it funny.

I was sad about what they said about Tom Waits though... he's a hero of mine.

PS. Does anybody remember that list of the "50 Worst Guitar Solos" that was just some guy venting about how much he hates all these famous guitarists? That is what this reminds me of.
posted by buriednexttoyou at 12:53 PM on December 4, 2004

Yet another critic insists The West Wing slanders Republicans. Speaking as a Republican, I thought Sorkin articulated my beliefs better than most conservative pundits.
posted by cribcage at 12:55 PM on December 4, 2004

The few entries that actually made incisive, concrete criticisms I found interesting, whether or not I agreed with them. The others...like everyone else said.

The sparsity of good entries actually feels really familiar--anyone who designs web sites knows the feeling. ("OK, we've got 6 site areas, and each one needs at least 10 entries to look good. Holy crap, that means we've got to get 60 entries written, and our _long_ list is only 35 right now!")
posted by LairBob at 12:59 PM on December 4, 2004

The book it was supposedly based on was very different, and better.

Yes, and no. In that order.

Don't get me wrong, I love PKD, and I know you're not supposed to read him for plots that make sense... but wheeee did they choose the right element to skip in the movie. Like, say, the electric sheep.
posted by ook at 1:03 PM on December 4, 2004

I got the sense this was all a bit tongue-in-cheek. And there were flashes of true comedy:

(on Nirvana) Embarrassed by the knowledge that, yes, he was in the defining band of the early 90s; but that the early 90s was the most rubbish era in pop history. Who were the competition? Ned's Atomic Dustbin?
posted by jalexei at 1:06 PM on December 4, 2004

anytime i read an article like this i have to wonder ... what does the author LIKE?
posted by pyramid termite at 1:15 PM on December 4, 2004

If you recorded Anne from Little Britain over a soundtrack of toddlers blowing saxophones at random, you could sell it as newly discovered Trout Mask Replica out-takes featuring a guest vocalist. Just call it Zoot Talon Cornflake Mama and hey presto! Instant classic!

I think Trout Mask Replica is a fascinating album which I absolutely love, and I thought that line was hilarious.
posted by turaho at 1:16 PM on December 4, 2004

OT/

I just watched the DVD of Goodfellas and if you haven't seen it yet, there is a highly entertaining "cop and crook" commentary by Henry Hill and the prosecutor who flipped him, both reminiscing about the real life incidents unfolding on the screen.

This has been a public service announcement. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of why the Royal Tenenbaums was a complete bore.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:18 PM on December 4, 2004

I love this list just for not mentioning Radiohead.
posted by abcde at 1:22 PM on December 4, 2004

This just in: somewhere out there, everybody hates everybody else. Including you. That's right, YOU. Somebody hates you. And everyone hates me. So it works out.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:26 PM on December 4, 2004

I love the fact that Patterson blames Shakespeare for the "tragic attempts to 'update' his plays." I mean, really, W.T.F?
posted by MikeKD at 1:27 PM on December 4, 2004

I guess everyone reading a list like this will cheer a few times and boo a few times. But these chaps don't say much about the music, now, do they. If they did, they would have to deal with brilliant voices of musicians like James Brown and Prince.
posted by kozad at 1:29 PM on December 4, 2004

I care some about what other people like, but not a whit about what they don't like.

That said, they are right about Delillo and the beat writers, at least.
posted by rushmc at 1:31 PM on December 4, 2004

Why not a list of artists? Duchamp, Picasso, Miro, Mapplethorpe, Serrano, just about anyone who's won a Turner prize... heavens, but that would appear uncultured, wouldn't it?
posted by fleetmouse at 1:41 PM on December 4, 2004

what rushmc said
posted by kamylyon at 1:42 PM on December 4, 2004

I disagree with them mostly but I loved the writing. Slagging off "geatness" is perhaps my favorite British habit. This line was killer:

the man whose most tiresome fans insist on hailing him Robert Nesta Marley, as if having a middle name is a signifier of gravitas.
posted by cell divide at 1:44 PM on December 4, 2004

Wow. I never realized people had different opinions than mine until I read that article.

/snark
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:46 PM on December 4, 2004

The Guardian's snarklist
"Don't believe the hype" means to burst the bouncing weather balloons that bound the village of contemporary pop culture. But by the time one gets to number six, it's clearly an indulgence, an editorial excercise in blade-whetting, not without charm and flashes of wit. As one contributor notes, the debate rages between cretins, anyway. It's plain to anyone with a modicum of critical expertise (by which I mean anyone who has mastered the skill of reading) that the premise is simply an inversion of the top ten lists that so predictably pollute the mediascape at the end of the year. Writ large, that is. On the whole, however, the thoroughgoing witlessness of the conceit overwhelms the glints of amusement, and both reader and writer will wake in their room, refreshed and ready to meet the new number two yet again.


Actually, I laughed quite a bit. If only they go further and commission this as the required editorial and copy style for all end-of-year top ten lists... And thanks for the link!
posted by mwhybark at 1:51 PM on December 4, 2004

This is gonna come out all wrong but I'm curious if the people whining in this thread (about the whiners in the article) honestly don't think that many (if not all) of the musicians on the list are over rated? (Isn't that what "don't believe the hype" means?)

I don't hate the Beatles--nor do I deny their talent--but for the most part, I cannot stand their fans. This also goes for fans of the Stones, Zeppelin, U2, Neil Young, David Bowie, the Eagles, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, and other bands of their stature. My problem with them (and I projected this problem onto the authors of the article) is that for the most part they don't listen to anything else (yes, I'm exagerating. but only slightly). I mean really, does anyone anywhere ever have to hear I Wanna Hold Your Hand ever again? Truly? What about Stairway to Heaven? What's Goin' On? In the Name of Love? Hotel California? Smells Like Teen Spirit? This Monkey Gone to Heaven? (You Ain't Nothing But A) Houndog? Another Brick in the Wall?... I just want to yell at these people to EVOLVE (musically). Holy fuck, do you eat the same food at every meal, too?
posted by dobbs at 1:52 PM on December 4, 2004

We'll always love the first one even when others do it better later, or sometimes earlier but we weren't paying attention. Beatles, Elvis, Bowie, James Brown. My first girlfriend. Helen, if you're reading this, I haven't forgotten. Call me.
posted by TimeFactor at 1:55 PM on December 4, 2004

Bloody hell. It's just a bit of amusing vitriol, why do you people have to take things so seriously?

Fucking Americans.

(I never did see what was so special about the Beatles though.)
posted by cell at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2004

Dag y'all, it was a humorous attack on some sacred cows that need some deflating.

It's ok, you can relax, the Beatles are still pretty good.
posted by samh23 at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2004

I never got what made Blade Runner so wonderful, either.

blade runner isn't great because of plot or characters or deeper meaning, it's great because it *looks* great.

i will say that one neat thing about the film is that it pulls a sly trick on you by wrapping itself in a detective story; you're led to believe that deckard is the protagonist, but if you think about it, it's really roy's story - who's more sympathetic, the lifespan-restricted replicant who just wants to live or the hired killer out to get him?
posted by juv3nal at 2:10 PM on December 4, 2004

if you think about it, it's really roy's story - who's more sympathetic, the lifespan-restricted replicant who just wants to live or the hired killer out to get him?

Who's more sympathtic is irrelevant. Who's more interesting and who do we (well, I) relate to more? The hired killer because he experiences both internal and external conflict whereas the replicant only has external (well, he has the same philospophical dillemas we all do but they don't complicate his story. If anything they complicate the killer's story because he was operating under the assumption they didn't exist.).
posted by dobbs at 2:16 PM on December 4, 2004

It's just a bit of amusing vitriol, why do you people have to take things so seriously?

Because I take the art of writing humourous vitriol very, very seriously, and most of these pieces didn't live up to my standard...
posted by flashboy at 2:17 PM on December 4, 2004

Hey, this anthology of mini-rants is entertaining writing, at least. I would have assumed it went without saying that truly worthless art doesn't make the list — to get on it, you had to be doing something right, just some particular something that drove the critic batty exactly because of the target it was aiming for.

By the way, there can be absolutely no dispute (not to invite claims that I'm overrating something...) about one thing: the best genius-demolishing rant ever set down on paper is Nietzsche's The Wagner Case. This is one of those devour-it-in-one-sitting delights of a book that will instantly answer the question "What's so great about Nietzsche?" for anyone who's been put off by the philosophy professors' version of the man.
posted by Zurishaddai at 2:24 PM on December 4, 2004

You know what's seriously overrated?

Your opinion.
posted by unsupervised at 2:36 PM on December 4, 2004

All right, who left unsupervised by himself?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:40 PM on December 4, 2004

Yeeeeeah. The Beatles' music was "safe" and "insipid."

And this:
James Brown
He's the godfather of soul, which is fine as long as "soul" is defined as funk workouts bereft of tunes.

reminds me of something I heard when I was out drinking the other night.

Pissing in the punchbowl is rarely interesting, if it's done for its own sake. And amusing vitriol is good, but this was rarely funny.

And who is the arbiter of what I find funny? I AM, dammit.
posted by Vidiot at 2:46 PM on December 4, 2004

zsazsa: Thanks for getting me out of a hole.

Everyone else(ish): I think part of the point of the article is that we build some of these things up to a mythic status when in fact sometimes we should acknowledge that to an extent it's because we are continually told how good they are. For example, tonight I watched a Taiwanese film called 'The Last Life In The Universe'. To a degree it has as much right to being called a masterpiece as any of the films debunked in the article. But hardly anyone at all has seen it relatively due to distribution and that it's in a mess of languages and not Western. But we've all seen Lost In Translation because it's readily available and has been since the star-studded premiere and generally in English. So which film turns up on 10 best lists and what not?

[Which isn't to say that I agree with the comments on LIT. I think like a lot of reviewers and writers they've missed the point and overstated the view of the Japanese. We're seeing Tokyo from the character's point of view and so the experience is hardly going to be local. Also I don't think it's supposed to be a comedy which makes you constantly guffaw in the way that he suggests. It quite a melancholy piece really and a medition on how all of us end up being alienated by who we are.]
posted by feelinglistless at 2:51 PM on December 4, 2004

this kind of criticism is nothing more than someone who doesn't get "it" and is pissed because they don't get "it" and is to proud to bother asking what "it" is.

art is bullshit, art is god.
posted by nola at 2:53 PM on December 4, 2004

The criticism reminds me of the quote from the Emperor when listening to Mozart in Amadeus, "Too many notes!" notmtwain

critics are the lowest vermin on the face of the earth.

they create nothing , but that wont stop them from breaking up the party.
posted by nola at 3:06 PM on December 4, 2004

The funniest part about the television shows lamenting banality was the sidebar ad -

Visit inStore by AOL®, the new quick and simple way of...

That made the whole article for me...
posted by Samizdata at 3:12 PM on December 4, 2004

Only if you let them, nola. Critics can be useful as well.
posted by Vidiot at 3:14 PM on December 4, 2004

We admire Blade Runner because its scifi noir prefigured cyberpunk. We admire Blade Runner because it looks fantastic, because of sad Sebastian and his toy friends, because of Priss and that look on Ford's face when Roy breaks his fingers. We admire Blade Runner for "I want more life, fucker" and "I'll tell you about my mother" and Roy's "tears in the rain" speech and the slo mo pigeon. And we're interested in its metaphysical questions: if I knew for a fact that I was artificial, would it make a difference? It 's an excellent adaptation of PKD's self-reflexive paranoia. And it looks good.

Deckard interests me because a) he's a failure and b) he's one of them.
posted by muckster at 3:27 PM on December 4, 2004

Bloody hell. It's just a bit of amusing vitriol, why do you people have to take things so seriously?

Because it wasn't amusing, only vitriolic. Seriously, what a waste of five minutes.

For fuck's sake, Shakespeare? This sounds like a couple of high school kids who get bored and start bitching halfway through the Cliff Notes version of Hamlet.

(I never did see what was so special about the Beatles though.)

That's ok, there are usually some good university classes that cover the subject, and failing that, plenty of books.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:41 PM on December 4, 2004

I found nola's comment derivative, uninspired and fundamentally flawed. While the impulse may be honest and heartfelt enough, the execution was pedestrian and there was insufficient subtlety of tone. It's effective enough as far as it goes, but I can't imagine it finding an audience outside of fans of the genre.
posted by flashboy at 3:55 PM on December 4, 2004

I'm not sure if any of the people/bands named in this list are a tenth as obnoxious, pretentious and full of themselves as those who contributed to said list... which either makes this article brilliantly ironic, or utterly forgettable.
posted by clevershark at 4:01 PM on December 4, 2004

it finding an audience outside of fans of the genre.

Isn't that what MeTa's for?
posted by Vidiot at 4:01 PM on December 4, 2004

I'd put 'Pulp Fiction' on my list. Much overrated, often by people with otherwise good taste. High style, nothing to say.

Most of us remember seeing it when it initially came out, in 1994. Back then it was quite innovative, but if you just see the film now you might find it rather trite because what was new in it has by now been done by everyone else in the business.

So the film has "nothing to say". Not too many films have much of a message that steps outside the domain of the facile and the pedestrian. If you want intelligent discourse Hollywood might just not be the right place to look.
posted by clevershark at 4:09 PM on December 4, 2004

...deep-fried toss on toast.

Great line. And it describes the column, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:22 PM on December 4, 2004

But these chaps don't say much about the music, now, do they.

That pretty much cums up the entire UK music press. I imagine NME would have rejected these pieces for being too long and densely written.
posted by fshgrl at 4:46 PM on December 4, 2004

I just don't understand the mindset of someone who would rather get stuck on something they've already experienced than (supply permitting) try something new. Lost In Translation is a great film, and Pet Sounds is indeed a tedious album, but I've only watched/listened to each one the once.

There's just too many tuna in the tank...
posted by runkelfinker at 4:47 PM on December 4, 2004

That pretty much cums up the entire UK music press.

There's an image ...
posted by feelinglistless at 4:59 PM on December 4, 2004

Because it's art, not fish, runkelfinker. Sometimes it's very rewarding to get deeply immersed in one thing, if it's good. Stanley Kubrick thought it was ridiculous for a critic to review a film they'd seen just once. Every new viewing/listening can reveal new layers, additional connections, deepened understanding etc. Some things are worth studying.

That said, as much as I enjoyed Lost in Translation, twice was probably enough.
posted by muckster at 5:15 PM on December 4, 2004

...the anti-communist dirge Rockin' In The Free World remains one of the direst songs ever penned...

Look, I like a lot (but certainly not all) of what Neil Young has done, and I agree he's got a really annoying voice, but Rockin' In The Free World is not an anti-communist dirge.

On the whole, though, I enjoyed the piss-take.
posted by A dead Quaker at 5:31 PM on December 4, 2004

Most of us remember seeing it when it initially came out, in 1994. Back then it was quite innovative, but if you just see the film now you might find it rather trite because what was new in it has by now been done by everyone else in the business.

Yeah, I'm 35. I did see it when it came out. And even then it was shite.
posted by Miko at 5:40 PM on December 4, 2004

They can diss The Clash, and I will grin and bear it. They can diss Neil Young, and I will gracefully accept the amusingly phrased snarkiness.

But hands off the sublime What's Going On, goddammit.

abcde: Yes, I was also relieved that they didn't dump on Radiohead; but it's probably only because they would just be repeating the usual lines about moaning depressives and so on and couldn't come up with anything new.

Oh, yeah, and Prince sucks.
posted by jokeefe at 5:45 PM on December 4, 2004

The Beatles are terribly, terribly, awfully, incredibly overrated. (I don't say this as one who heard a few songs and just didn't "get it." I now suspect it's not so much the actual music people like but rather it's shape.)

That said, making lists of people you don't like is an activity best reserved for third graders.
posted by nixerman at 5:54 PM on December 4, 2004

Zurishaddai, it's also important to note that Nietzsche's rant against Wagner was nothing like this.

As N said himself, "I never attack persons; I merely avail myself of the person as of a string magnifying glass that allows one to make visible a general but creeping and elusive calamity...Thus I attacked Wagnet--more precisely, the falseness, the half-couth instincts of our "culture" which mistakes the subtle for the rich, and the late for the great." (Sec 7, Ecce Homo)

(I've long held that what N did was not art criticism at all.)

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this article is the fact that it's just one guy whining and the like--there's nothing else there--it's not even that funny.
posted by nixerman at 6:05 PM on December 4, 2004

Jesus Christ. How can you complain about a movie entitled Pulp Fiction having nothing to say? Pulp mags were just style-injected fluff, and there's nothing wrong with that.
posted by Evstar at 7:26 PM on December 4, 2004

This Guardian feature was severely overrated.
posted by Reverend Mykeru at 8:16 PM on December 4, 2004

A person with a username like "Kirth Gerson" should know very well that Philip K. Dick's writing is utter shit.
posted by interrobang at 8:16 PM on December 4, 2004

The Beatles are terribly, terribly, awfully, incredibly overrated. (I don't say this as one who heard a few songs and just didn't "get it." I now suspect it's not so much the actual music people like but rather it's shape.)

Not so at all. I could write you essays about it - in fact I will be, one on Revolver due this Friday. Maybe I'll upload it somewhere? But give me a break, why bother making that kind of statement without offering the least bit of support for your opinion (just like the above list-authors)? If you're trying to contradict 30 years of critical, scholarly, and popular opinion, don't come to the table with all snark and no argument.

That said, overrated is an extremely relative and largely useless term. But it's pretty easy to argue that it doesn't apply to The Beatles.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:05 PM on December 4, 2004

I love how in one paragraph, Neil Young is slagged for never changing (which is demonstrably untrue, by the way, regardless of your opinion of his music)...while in the next graf, Elvis Costello is slagged for changing too much.

And nixerman, I'd be interested in hearing your rationale re: the Beatles. Make an argument.
posted by Vidiot at 9:21 PM on December 4, 2004

Sofrain nailed it on Tom Waits.

That said, overrated is an extremely relative and largely useless term. But it's pretty easy to argue that it doesn't apply to The Beatles.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:05 AM EST on December 5

Well sure, you'd think so, ludwig_van. Weren't they the "third B," after all?

And I gotta say one little thing...

ahem...

THE STONE ROSES? WHO THE HELL GIVES A RAT'S ASS ABOUT THE STONE ROSES?
posted by soyjoy at 9:59 PM on December 4, 2004

Picasso

I actually had a nice demonstration of him being really awesome on his own merits recently. I was in London in January and saw the exhibit at the Tate Modern (It was just a survey of 20th century art, I think?). Several times I found a painting that I liked a lot and hadn't seen before, and each time it was Picasso. The guy did good work.
posted by rustcellar at 10:06 PM on December 4, 2004

One of the most convincing Beatle-bashing articles can be found right here:

Also: Why did Kurt Cobain whine and grimace like a man with crippling haemorrhoids?

True 'nuff.
posted by jeremy b at 11:14 PM on December 4, 2004

jeremy b, that article is a collecton of assertions, without any supporting reasoning. How is that convincing?
posted by Vidiot at 12:06 AM on December 5, 2004

(to say nothing of its myriad inaccuracies.)
posted by Vidiot at 12:07 AM on December 5, 2004

Most of us remember seeing it when it initially came out, in 1994. Back then it was quite innovative, but if you just see the film now you might find it rather trite because what was new in it has by now been done by everyone else in the business.

are you serious? what was innovative about pulp fiction? I was a big fan of reservoir dogs, but pulp fiction was just riding coattails - I really can't imagine it'd have been big if tarantino hadn't already got a lot of critical acclaim. It was a fun movie, with some good dialogue, but it was nothing special, nothing innovative. It was, as someone above said, described perfectly by its name.

Most of these critiques were reasonable, but then, it's so extraordinarily easy to point out the failures of works of art. Nothing is ever really as good as we want it to be. Here and there you can be blown away the first time, maybe the first four or five times, but at some point you see the man behind the curtain... the fact that some people persist in their love for certain icons is nice. It's much easier to get over it, & roll your eyes cynically.
posted by mdn at 12:16 AM on December 5, 2004

That article is ridiculous and overly reductive from the beginning. Beethoven did not die poor and ignored.

The Beatles were not a "commercial product" any more than any band that sells records. He's acting as though The Beatles were simply ripping off whoever was really doing all of the innovating they're given credit for, but never tells you who... because there's no one.

The Beatles "aryan" music? Wtf? He speaks nothing of the music and says nothing to indicate he knows the first thing about music.

"The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth."

Couldn't be more obviously wrong. This guy seems to think The Beatles called it quits after Please Please Me.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:18 AM on December 5, 2004

While I too prefer "Casino" to "Goodfellas" this FPP is a joke since it fails to make the case for most of what it is talking about. "Goodfellas" is still a great movie. I'm too lazy to go on now, but if you're going to start a thread this way, provide substance for all the subjects you mention. It's easy to say "overrated". Make a real argument. I thought this thread might be good, and I might make have to go all commando about how "Blade Runner" is one of the best films ever made, but now why should I bother?
posted by McBain at 12:26 AM on December 5, 2004

That article got me so pissed off, I was ten minutes into composing a point by point debunking before I realized the futility. That article was waaaay too long for saying so little, with far too many unsupported and blatantly incorrect assertions to waste time arguing with. That's probably how he can feel like he "wins" the argument - brute force tactics. Oh well. I'm over it now.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:38 AM on December 5, 2004

I try to stay open-minded, and often I'll end up liking one or two songs from a particular group, while the rest does nothing for me. My playlist is mostly built upon this foundation.

I can be listening to Johnny Cash one moment, Eminem the next, followed by Morcheeba, Keane or even Anita Mui. Sometimes a band's sound will grab me and I'll love almost everything they do, as with The Tragically Hip.

You may think something sucks, but remember other people like it.

Which reminds me of this:

The Doors? Jim Morrison? He’s a drunken buffoon posing as a poet!

Ah, give me the Guess Who. They got the courage to be drunken buffoons, which makes them poetic.

One person's favourites are another person's garbage.
posted by bwg at 12:48 AM on December 5, 2004

ludwig_van, considering your eponymous relationship to Beethoven, I will take your word for it that LVB didn't die "poor and ignored"... although wasn't he poverty-stricken at the time of his death?

And as far as Scaruffi's quote about "creative content" and "technical depth" that you repudiated (and understandably too), I think he's talking about a specific *aspect* of creativity and technical prowess that the Beatles didn't really tap into... further down the article he explains himself more clearly--e.g., how he contrasts the Beatles's "twenty seconds of trumpet" to the Velvet Underground's 20-minute "suites of chaos". And I do think that the Beatles made sure that even their most "experimental" of songs (barring "Revolution #9") were packaged in digestible morsels--Happy Meal music--which to me suggests that their art was secondary to their audience. Not necessarily a bad thing....but suffice to say I respect Scaruffi's argument. and BTW: i love the beatles.
posted by jeremy b at 1:14 AM on December 5, 2004

It's much easier to get over it, & roll your eyes cynically.

True. Pity it's so unbecoming.
posted by rushmc at 1:31 AM on December 5, 2004

McBain: It's terrible. It's an overblown sea of overblown characterisation, unsubtle acting and poor structure. I finished watching with the impression Scorsese was trying to make his masterpiece, had made a convincing argument without proving the point. It feels massively incomplete.

If I'd included all that in the fpp it would have been seen as a troll and deleted immediately - instead we have a really good discussion.
posted by feelinglistless at 1:32 AM on December 5, 2004

C'mon, guys, I picked up that the entire point of the article was showing how each of these people could slag off on something. I mean, I love the Clash, I love Elvis (both of the bastards!), I love Neil, and yeah, nobody wrote a little blurb that was, The Beatles suck, because (insert footnote here) they missed the tonic minor.... Because it's a humor piece, not serious criticism.
I used to work at a record store, and we'd have a little game of trying to slag every album we got in, regardless of whether or not we liked it, and, as it turned out, people were awesome at slagging their favorite albums/artists, because they loved them so much.
Loosen up, guys. Smile. Admit that, sometimes, your favorite band can suck a little. Hell, I like Morrissey, and he sucks a good 50% of the TIME.
posted by 235w103 at 2:29 AM on December 5, 2004

I sensing a difference in the way the British and Americans see this kind of writing. The British are generally pretty cynical and love puncturing an overdeveloped ego. For the British, the Guardian's article made sense, even if you didn't agree with all the choices.

Americans are much more optimistic in outlook and see see this sort of writing as unnecessarily mean-spirited. I prefer the British way.
posted by salmacis at 2:40 AM on December 5, 2004

jeremy b ... that beatles review only makes sense if one thinks that pop craftmansship and art are mutually exclusive ... if that's your view, it's valid criticism ... if it's not, then what he's saying is irrelevant
posted by pyramid termite at 3:20 AM on December 5, 2004

The Guardian: your favorite band sucks.
coming soon in the Guardian: Leonardo couldn't draw.

so interesting, really.
posted by matteo at 6:48 AM on December 5, 2004

Muckster - you're right of course, that closely studying any piece of art can be deeply rewarding; my point was that all of us have limited time and resources, and by focusing in on one artist, genre or body or work, we are necessarily excluding others.

You can decide that returning to the films of Park Chan-Wook or the writings of Dostoevsky is more rewarding than experiencing the work of a new artist; that's of course your call to make.

For me, I'd rather try something new; if over time I enjoy diminishing returns from experiencing new art and artists (as often happens as people become older and their tastes more conservative), I can always return to the books and films that I appreciated the most.

Re. Kubrick and film reviewers: irrelevant, I'm not a professional consumer/reviewer of film, just a part-time one. Accepted, Kubrick put an incredible amount of research into all his films, and a reviewer wouldn't be doing her job if she only watched one of his films the once. But equally, that reviewer would be failing if she hadn't experienced the rest of his films, the films and filmmakers who influenced Kubrick, other films in the same genre, etc etc. Breadth is as important as depth...
posted by runkelfinker at 6:58 AM on December 5, 2004

Oasis
Peter Gabriel
The Who
Elton John
Radiohead
Radiohead
Radiohead
The Spice Girls
Boy George
Eric Clapton
derivative blues
that one song about a northern town
Def Leopard

The Guardian could have added a disclaimer:"We resent American pop culture for being omni-present. We have no interest in sending up our mates if they haven't already been spoiled being popular with yanks or we're embarrassed to share the island with them. "

Or a disclaimer that says:"We just want to be cranks"

I can't tell if they believe themselves. A little they must. Maybe.

de gustibus non est disputandum
posted by airguitar at 8:25 AM on December 5, 2004

as if having a middle name is a signifier of gravitas

Yeah, what's going on with all the XXXXX Y. ZZZZZZ names in USian newspapers? I read familiar names turned into pseudo Roman patrynomic signifiers and it's so archaic I expect to see Mark Twain's byline above them.

If they were writing about the Beatles, I wouldn't be surprised if John Lennon became Jonathan W O Lennon.

--
Michael S Rogers, III
posted by meehawl at 8:56 AM on December 5, 2004

The very point of these is sort of to make overt what is covert when most people criticize something that another/many people like: it's a criticism of other people, of their taste, of their judgment, of their rightness. It's not so much a criticism of, say, Pulp Fiction. What rankles this sort of critic isn't that Pulp Fiction doesn't seem very good, but that all these other people think that it is. They're wrong, dammit, and by God they need to be told they're wrong!

That's what's really going on.

And what's interesting to me is that such exclamations will very often be accompanied by a supposed assertion of subjectivity: "That's my opinion, anyway." But that's just a formality. Really, this expression of dislike is fascist; it deeply denies the validity of everyone else's opinion.

This is why people are offended by this sort of thing. They're not so much offended that someone doesn't like their favorite band. They're offended because someone is essentially claiming that they're an idiot for liking their favorite band. D'uh.

I've always found this sort of thing repulsive. It's not that I don't dislike many things that are popular: I do. It just seems like a colossal waste time to care very much that all those other folks like something I don't. Not to mention that it's essentially inauthentic.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:19 AM on December 5, 2004

Dear Metafilter,

YHBT YHL HAND

kthxbye

The Guardian
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:29 AM on December 5, 2004

So much people have to say here about little opinions from little men. Who knew that the Guardian was the pinnacle of all critical taste? What next? MeFites getting into a hissy over a single sentence damning Nick Drake?
posted by ed at 9:53 AM on December 5, 2004

ARE YOU HAVING A GO AT NICK DRAKE?!?!/!
posted by flashboy at 10:10 AM on December 5, 2004

I liked the fact that The Doors got a pounding (no pun intended, but I'll leave that in there so you can feel superior to me).

It's not that I hate all of it, just Jim Morrison's singing and lyrics and Ray Manzarek's keyboard solos*. Unfortunately, that accounts for 90% of their recorded output. I think Krieger's an excellent guitarist and Densmore's equally good as a drummer.

I can articulate exactly what I don't like. Jim Morrison's style of singing from way back in the mouth grates on my ears and I think his lyrics explore new depths in terribleness (I have long harbored suspicions he may have been a Vogon). As to most Mansarek keyboard solos, weeeell... they're just wankery in their purest form, aren't they ;)


I'm just glad to see I'm not alone. When I was younger and more combatative I sometimes got into heated arguments about this at parties. Once it turned into a fight. Ah, those were the days.



*with the exception of the Light My Fire solo and a few others that are pure gold. Also, he produced the first two X albums, for which he's ensured a place in heaven
posted by Kattullus at 10:27 AM on December 5, 2004

ludwig_van, considering your eponymous relationship to Beethoven, I will take your word for it that LVB didn't die "poor and ignored"... although wasn't he poverty-stricken at the time of his death?

From http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/beethoven.html:

"Musical taste in Vienna had changed during the first decades of the 19th century; the public were chiefly interested in light Italian opera (especially Rossini) and easygoing chamber music and songs, to suit the prevalent bourgeois taste. Yet the Viennese were conscious of Beethoven's greatness: they applauded the Choral Symphony even though, understandably, they found it difficuit, and though baffled by the late quartets they sensed their extraordinary visionary qualities. His reputation went far beyond Vienna: the late Mass was first heard in St. Petersburg, and the initial commission that produced the Choral Symphony had come from the Philharmonic Society of London. When, early in 1827, he died, 10,000 are said to have attended the funeral. He had become a public figure, as no composer had done before. Unlike composers of the preceding generation, he had never been a purveyor of music to the nobility he had lived into the age - indeed helped create it - of the artist as hero and the property of mankind at large."

As for his financial state when he died, I don't believe he was poverty stricken, but I can't find a specific reference at the moment.

And as far as Scaruffi's quote about "creative content" and "technical depth" that you repudiated (and understandably too), I think he's talking about a specific *aspect* of creativity and technical prowess that the Beatles didn't really tap into... further down the article he explains himself more clearly--e.g., how he contrasts the Beatles's "twenty seconds of trumpet" to the Velvet Underground's 20-minute "suites of chaos". And I do think that the Beatles made sure that even their most "experimental" of songs (barring "Revolution #9") were packaged in digestible morsels--Happy Meal music--which to me suggests that their art was secondary to their audience. Not necessarily a bad thing....but suffice to say I respect Scaruffi's argument. and BTW: i love the beatles.


Scaruffi's argument is a whole heap of erroneous and unsupported assertions buried under mountains of unnecessary prose. His sense of chronology seems muddled; the Velvet Underground were releasing their first record in '66, the year the Beatles put out Revolver. None of the bands he implicity accuses the Beatles of ripping off hit the scene until '66 or '67.

I don't see how you could argue that their music was intentionally dumbed down so as to be easily digestible. What's dumbed down about Tomorrow Never Knows? A Day in the Life? Eleanor Rigby? For No One? In My Life? Within You Without You? These were beautiful compositions with innovative arrangements and utilized cutting-edge studio techniques.

It's easy to criticize Norwegian Wood for the simple and gimmicky sitar playing while conveniently pretending that Love You To and Withing You Without You never existed. That's this guy's modus operandi the whole way through, I'm afraid.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:46 AM on December 5, 2004

I think the problem is not so much that baseless fan baiting is so cheap, but that they've done such an incredibly poor job of it. Scotching Bob Marley for only writing 3 chord songs or James Brown for only doing funk workouts is inflammatory only because its so damn hignornant! Dumb, pointless, irritating, the sort of thing you'd call trolling on t'internet.
posted by criticalbill at 10:54 AM on December 5, 2004

Kubrick put an incredible amount of research into all his films

Wow. What an interesting story. Thanks for posting that, runkelfinker.
posted by Vidiot at 10:56 AM on December 5, 2004

I'm so pleased with that little critique I'm now going to post it on the comments page for that article here although I did already post one yesterday which was more succint, under the name of "Your Mum"
posted by criticalbill at 10:57 AM on December 5, 2004

It's the approach of this article I have a problem with. As if being over-hyped is the artist's fault. They just do what they do best. Perhaps it's the apparently insatiable demand of the consumer that makes the work of these artist feel over-hyped.
posted by ironisokratic at 11:13 AM on December 5, 2004

ludwig_van, are you still defending the Beatles? That`s so sad.
posted by jon_kill at 4:45 PM on December 5, 2004

I get the point of the article, but it is just so poorly done. Yes, it's interesting to poke fun at (or ridicule) those elements in our pop culture that are, for some reason, deemed above par.

That being said, I've always held the opinion that it's much easier to criticize then to create. If you don't agree that something deserves the credit that it receives then prove it.

Shut the fuck up and do something better.
posted by purephase at 5:40 PM on December 5, 2004

ludwig_van, are you still defending the Beatles? That`s so sad.

Then I suppose you can cry me a fucking river about it.
posted by ludwig_van at 6:02 PM on December 5, 2004

it's a criticism of other people, of their taste, of their judgment, of their rightness

I would suggest that instead, this kind of discussion, can be transformative. People often profess to authentically like that which is merely popular, or that which their friends (/family/SOs/bosses) like. So these kinds of discussions provide an opportunity to re-evaluate our initial responses to these cultural elements . . By having a sacred cow challenged, you may rethink your attachment to it, and as a result of the rethinking, your opinion will either become stronger, better developed, and more articulate, or will prove its weakness and allow you to abandon or refine it.
posted by Miko at 6:48 PM on December 5, 2004

This article is ridiculous for many reasons.
First these kind of critical snipes are geared toward the hype rather than toward the work that the artists create. The logic being that if too many people like something then it must be bad.

Conversely, if an artist is obscure and no one has had the ability to over hype them then they are cool. For instance, it would be as if someone told you that, "The Brian Jonestown Massacre were better than the Rolling Stones because [even though they frequently copy the sound of the Stones] few people have ever heard of them."

Second, every work of art [like this one] that has ever been made [or that will ever be made] can be criticized. And often for no good reason. Therefore the value of knee jerk show off criticism (which this Guardian article exemplifies] is worthless because it adds nothing to critical debate.

In short, it's a game. And unfortunately it's too often played by people who themselves do not create art.
posted by Rashomon at 9:40 PM on December 5, 2004

"The Brian Jonestown Massacre were better than the Rolling Stones because [even though they frequently copy the sound of the Stones] few people have ever heard of them."

(Fixed the link).

I just thought I'd point out that their entire catalogue is available for download off that site. I think that puts the awesome in we-are-the-awesome-ist-band-evar.

... and with that I'm off to work.
posted by purephase at 4:46 AM on December 6, 2004

Between my crying and your sputtering we could drown a continent.
posted by jon_kill at 6:12 AM on December 6, 2004

Also, your mp3s make me want to puke.
posted by jon_kill at 6:21 AM on December 6, 2004

Well, someone's got a case of the Mondays!

So these kinds of discussions provide an opportunity to re-evaluate our initial responses to these cultural elements . . By having a sacred cow challenged, you may rethink your attachment to it, and as a result of the rethinking, your opinion will either become stronger, better developed, and more articulate, or will prove its weakness and allow you to abandon or refine it.

This is true. But this approach would seem to require a challenge with reasoned examples and a point to make, not just snarkier-than-thou slagging that's full of errors.
posted by Vidiot at 8:09 AM on December 6, 2004

Wow jon_kill, I'm just bowled over by your maturity. Wherever did you learn to conduct yourself with such dignity?

But this approach would seem to require a challenge with reasoned examples and a point to make, not just snarkier-than-thou slagging that's full of errors.

Exactly.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:14 AM on December 6, 2004

"Maturity" is a connotational disaster propagated by boderline sociopaths. It should come in a Christmas box set with a necktie and a felt-bottomed executive toy.

And dignity, well... some of us know not to get sucked in by Beatle-phile-baiting and some of us don't. I'll leave it at that.
posted by jon_kill at 8:24 AM on December 6, 2004

You're right, muckster: Deckard is one of them.
posted by footballrabi at 11:25 AM on December 6, 2004

Just show me the works of masterpiece that any of the critics of these pieces have created and I'll hop right on board.
posted by nanojath at 12:30 PM on December 6, 2004

Add iPods or anything that plays downloaded or ripped music.

They all sound like shit. Period.

Add ALL TV dramas (US). Self-important, preachy drivel- especially Law & Order and The West Wing.
posted by newswing at 6:31 PM on December 6, 2004