What constitutes a bass player being considered overrated ?

[Deluge Of Sound]

Criticism is a finely honed art. Up until the age of the blog, a critic was not just someone expressing a personal opinion about a subject. A critic's job is to form an opinion, based on the work's relation to the context and the author's canon and public levels of expectation, and then convince everyone else that his/her opinion is representative of society at large. A true critic is therefore a researcher and a careful evaluater with a keen eye for public opinion who is attempting to advance the state of the art for the art's sake. A "blog critic", which describes 99% of TalkBass readers, is someone who simply voices an opinion, and then uses authority to back up his/her claims.

In this context, saying that (for example) "Les Claypool is overrated" really means that "A lot of people like Les Claypool, but I don't," and, implicitly, "Too many people like Les Claypool, who doesn't deserve it." I think this form of criticism really is that shallow. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having taste and a whole array of likes and dislikes. But to assert these tastes as fact using your own superiority as your authority is pretty self-centered. And it's a disservice to professionals to call it criticism.

Quite possibly the best post on this board in context to what we're talking about.

Saying you dislike something is one thing, but trying to gain the moral high ground with your dislike never fails to leave a bad taste in all the mouths involved.

To be honest, though, the phrase "over-rated" is simply an expression of dislike, not necessarily of the player but with the amount of praise a player receives.

As for me (not that anyone's asked ) I think everyone playing the bass the way they want to play it is doing something right. If you're digging it, then who am I to demean it?

 

[Eilif]

I think there are several equasions that people use, either conciously or sub-conciously to judge "overrated". All of them have their flaws and values. If we know what equasion a person is using, it's much easier to see if hidden under the statement "that's overrated" is a root of valid critique, envy or something else.

1) Musical tallent > percieved listenability.
These artists are tauted as being amazing musicians but most folks listen and say "what?".
Flaw: Just because the average Joe doesn't understand the background, theory and techniques involved doesn't make the music/musician without value. Conciously resisting using this equasion can keep from stifling the success of new artists and musical styles.
Value: Not all musical explorations that claim to be groundbreaking and amazing necessarily are. Some are derrivative and indulgent. (but I'm not about to say which ones) Helps to keep artists from making music completely in a vacum and then blaming the public for lack of success

2) Mass appeal > percieved talent
These artists have tons of popular appeal, but don't seem to be acomplished technical musicians.
Faults: Many of these musicians are talented songwriters, and performers, and put on great shows with songs that move people. Raw technical ability is not the sole judge of a musicians value.
Value: Popularity should not be the sole determining value of a musician. It is often usefull to judge an artist musically against his peers rather than by his audience.

3) (Their Success > My success) Where preception is that(Their ability < my ability)
This is the classic envy syndrome.
Faults: Generally has little value in conversation or the furthering of anyone's musical carrer...
Value: ...except where it serves to inspire someone to work harder to make their musical dreams a reality.

4) Critical/popular success < personal skepticism
Even when an artist has been critically and commercially successful this equasion often surfaces as "they can't be that great".
Flaws: Relies too much on raw skepticism. Person using this equasion is often refusing to be impressed purposefully.
Value: All artists can benefit from having some folks saying "I'm not impressed yet". The perspective that "Nothing is perfect, there's always room to improve" can be a positive catalyst for encouraging musical growth.

5) Artist's musical style is not the same as to one of my perferred musical styles.
This is pretty common, and doesn't really have any use in inteligent conversation. However, somtimes those defending an artist will claim that a critique represents this when actually the critique is more accurately represntative of equasions #1, #2, or #4.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

Nothing is perfect,

How can the listener say that what is some one elses creation is not perfect? when what one may be listening to is the artist expressing the truest aspect of they're artistic exploration of self now in the wide open public for all to see/hear.

And how can one be so critical of another's music if they are not an actual extension of the one who is the creator?

there's always room to improve.

Not if the one doing the creating feels and knows for a fact, that their work has evolved exactly as they had envisioned it.

 

[Rickett Customs]

But the end result is that most critics can barely do better, than the bassist their criticizing.

....Which will always be a subjective topic, depending on which way the wind blows up the beholder's skirt and how much their panties are in a bunch
Human beings are strange creatures, thats why i'm glad i'm an alien , a human being's point of view will differ with mood, are they tired? Hungry? Have they had a bad day? A good day?
These can be factors, no question.

/Jason

 

[mothmonsterman]

Think about the video games Halo or grand theft auto,
There is a ton of hype and people buy into that hype

But at the end of the day they aren't very good.

 

[mvw356]

all bassist better than me are overrated. also, the ones who sold more albums than i did.

 

[funkadelickbass]

Personally I feel that the term "overrated" is just inefficient way of saying you don't like something&#8230;

I think it also shows the general publics laziness to effectively communicate. Instead of saying:
&#8220;Man I am just not the biggest fan of Dream Theater because their songs are just to complex for my personal listening enjoyment&#8221;
Or
&#8220;I don&#8217;t find Jaco to be as amazing as you bass players make him out to be. Yeah he played slap on a fretless and he made some cool music with Weather Report, but with practice and dedication I could have too
&#8221;
People can sum up everything with &#8220;overrated&#8221;

More often when someone is trying to tell me something is overrated they simply don&#8217;t like it because it is what&#8217;s &#8220;cool&#8221; at the time and they have to be the different one and snub it off by saying its &#8220;overrated&#8221;. &#8230;but that could be because I&#8217;m in college and us youngsters are a bunch of punk rebels

 

[SC Bassboy]

I started to add something about female bassists.... but I'm not even going to go there.

However, I will say this: Bass players as a whole are typically under appreciated regardless of wether or not we may be over or under rated. So, as a rule of thumb, we should all stick together and support one another regardless of hype. Unless, of course, said bass player is a major a$$hole and doesn't deserve the love of the bass brotherhood. (admittedly, I might fall into that latter category myself, so you know I mean it).

 

[JeremyBender]

This is an interesting thread.

What is overrating? It's overhype? What do we rate? We rate many things.

One thing we consistently rate is one's ability at their respective instrument.

In circles of conversation as we gathered in record stores to converse, there would always be the same names thrown around. Eventually, someone tries to be slick by name dropping some obscure fusion guy and claiming all others are.. "overrated.."

I will say as a fan more then a player people who can't take criticism should give up. Whining about how hard it is? WHo cares? You chose that path. Suck it up or quit.

Now, music is meant to entertain. Entertainment can come from many avenues. Shakin' booties. The wow factor.. Wow look how fast his fingers move.. So many outlets.

Criteria can never be established to determine a basis for such criticism in something as subjective as music. Where one person hears genius the other hears crap. Mature listeners would never dismiss something with a "this sucks" before a "it's not my cup of tea".

It's too bad more people aren't more mature. Some might be jealous that Gene Simmons is more well known then Jaco Pastorious.. but the music industry is more about entertainment then it is about contesting skills and talents.

 

[peter G]

There is no such thing as an overrated Professional Musician.
What they earn is what the market rates them at.

The world is full of Amateur Artists.

 

[Eilif]

How can the listener say that what is some one elses creation is not perfect?

First of all, note that the statement you commented on is not being presented as absolute. Rather, it is a possible value of the #4 equasion. But to unpack it a bit...

At this point, it get's really nitpicky. I'll present the concept of "not perfect" it a couple of ways, though there are probably other ways I am missing.

1) Mechanically: a note a milisecond short, a microtone flat, etc. There will always be something that can be improved.

2) Philosophically/religiously(this stems from a judeo-christian worldveiw, so I will tread lightly, not wanting this to become that kind of thread): Living in an imperfect world, all products of that world no matter how wonderfull will contain some imperfection.

Not if the one doing the creating feels and knows for a fact, that their work has evolved exactly as they had envisioned it.

This implies an ability of the individual to judge solely from their own perspective, the perfection of their own creation. If someone chooses to belive that their work is perfect, that's their own perogative, but that sets no real standards for measuring a work, and makes anything eligible for "perfect". That's a pretty slippery slope that plays out well in one's own head, and even in one's own bedroom but not so well in the world at large.

If I may elaborate humorously. I may "feel and know for a fact" that toasted turd sandwich turned out exactly as I envisioned it. Browned edges, golden crust, deep smoky fecal smell, etc, etc. Doesn't make it good to eat.

Judging this sandwhich by my own criteria is largely useless, you are still going to find it tastes bad. If we choose to say that it's a perfect turd sandwhich, but you don't want to eat it, all we have acomplished is two more words -in this case "perfect" and "sandwhich"- whose meaning is more obscured. We have actually moved away from clarity of what a perfect sandwhich would be rather than progressed towards some understanding of what it means for a sandwhich to be "perfect" or even "good".

 

[fullrangebass]

Perhaps, but it's a semantic point that misses what I would think is the obvious thrust of what I'm saying:

For a critique to be valid, the critic needs to know what s/he is talking about.

+1000

...Depends on who's doing the validating..

Music critics are people who can't write, doing interviews with people who can't think, in order to prepare articles for people who can't read.
Frank Zappa

I am good at what I'm doing both in theory as well as in the applied part. The broad and deep theoretical understanding of my field (and furthermore my specialty) allows me to understand actions (that I will not perform cause they are not my specialty), if they were performed in the proper manner (thus I judge in an informed way).

Criteria can never be established to determine a basis for such criticism in something as subjective as music. Where one person hears genius the other hears crap. Mature listeners would never dismiss something with a "this sucks" before a "it's not my cup of tea".

It's too bad more people aren't more mature. Some might be jealous that Gene Simmons is more well known then Jaco Pastorious.. but the music industry is more about entertainment then it is about contesting skills and talents.

If it's expression that we are judging, the criticism is highly subjective (almost invalid to any point but to the point if it connects to us or not). If it is other things that we critisize (technical excellency, accuracy of performance etc) that can be monitored and measured, thus judged upon more objective criteria. The highly subjective with the highly objective criticism rarely meet in a productive way IMHO

To judge someone as over-rated I'd place it more to the objective criticism (when what's been attributed is not valid) than the subjective part

 

[Eric Grossman]

I'm sorry for not reading the entire thread, but here's my take.

I think that to be considered "overrated", one would have to be praised ,individually, by a lot of people. A few people singing someone's praises, does not warrant the tag, since it takes a large amount of praise to be considered "over"rated.

Since I think that if enough people really like what a player does, then they must be doing something right. In other words, since beauty is in the "ear" of the beholder, I don't think that calling someone "overrated" is ever really valid. Remember, this is art, and art is expression. It's not like sports, where either you're good or you're not.

In art, if you aren't good, which is totally subjective, then you likely won't receive enough praise to earn such "overrating". You'll probably remain an "underground" hero, to a small group of people, if anything. In that case, you wouldn't be overrated.

I think that many players are underrated, however, due to underexposure.

Just my take.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

First of all, note that the statement you commented on is not being presented as absolute. Rather, it is a possible value of the #4 equasion. But to unpack it a bit...

At this point, it get's really nitpicky. I'll present the concept of "not perfect" it a couple of ways, though there are probably other ways I am missing.

1) Mechanically: a note a milisecond short, a microtone flat, etc. There will always be something that can be improved.

2) Philosophically/religiously(this stems from a judeo-christian worldveiw, so I will tread lightly, not wanting this to become that kind of thread): Living in an imperfect world, all products of that world no matter how wonderfull will contain some imperfection.



This implies an ability of the individual to judge solely from their own perspective, the perfection of their own creation. If someone chooses to belive that their work is perfect, that's their own perogative, but that sets no real standards for measuring a work, and makes anything eligible for "perfect". That's a pretty slippery slope that plays out well in one's own head, and even in one's own bedroom but not so well in the world at large.

If I may elaborate humorously. I may "feel and know for a fact" that toasted turd sandwich turned out exactly as I envisioned it. Browned edges, golden crust, deep smoky fecal smell, etc, etc. Doesn't make it good to eat.

Judging this sandwhich by my own criteria is largely useless, you are still going to find it tastes bad. If we choose to say that it's a perfect turd sandwhich, but you don't want to eat it, all we have acomplished is two more words -in this case "perfect" and "sandwhich"- whose meaning is more obscured. We have actually moved away from clarity of what a perfect sandwhich would be rather than progressed towards some understanding of what it means for a sandwhich to be "perfect" or even "good".

None of this means nothing, if the Creator of the work or the individual who is performing knows and feels that the finished concept or piece of work is indeed perfect.



How can one unperfect anothers perfection?

And as far as the sandwich goes, that depends on whether or not the sandwich was made for you.

 

[sixtwofour]

Overrated depends on what you are rating. Different people have different criteria they use to judge musicians. Depending on your personal preferences, these different criteria receive different weight.

Think about some of the criteria that people may use (no particular order, and I'm sure I'm missing plenty):

type of techniques mastered
ability to apply various techniques
sense of melody and phrasing
sense of rhythm
understanding of theory
ability to transcribe
ability to sight read
stage performance
look
gear
songwriting ability
record sales
whatever


Most people have a different idea of what makes a good musician.

My personal feeling is that someone is overrated when praise is heaped on them by critics and community, but their ability to apply technique is poor.

For instance, if the bass playing community said this guy was incredible, I'd say he is overrated:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7FqYQK8y8Ak

a) playing in the wrong tuning
b) playing the wrong notes
c) poor execution of notes/dead notes
d) poor intonation
e) poor rhythm
f) questionable use of right and left hand

Now you guys could come back and say he's awesome like the comments on youtube, but I'd argue with you. I imagine some people who don't play would probably say he is overrated based on those comments too.

You don't have to be better than the person you're judging to determine if someone is overrated. You just need to have an understanding of what's going on and an opinion.

I think a lot of others are right though, people are often called overrated when jealousy is involved, but sometimes, people truly are overrated.

This guy is overrated too... http://youtube.com/watch?v=ByQ6nSiw5ZE&feature=related

 

[KeithPas]

There are objective standards by which playing can be judged and they have all been talked about. If a player believes that a technically inferior piece of work is perfect because they created it then that certainly is his/her prerogitive but it does'nt make it true. If someone is playing out of tune I'm going to call it. If someone can't keep tempo I'm going to call it. If someones groove sucks I'm going to call it. It has nothing to do with feelings and I could personally care less how the composer/player feels about it. Players like that need to spend more time in the woodshed and spend less time watching Oprah.

 

[guy n. cognito]

None of this means nothing, if the Creator of the work or the individual who is performing knows and feels that the finished concept or piece of work is indeed perfect.



How can one unperfect anothers perfection?

And as far as the sandwich goes, that depends on whether or not the sandwich was made for you.

How can the creator's (maybe misguided) sense of "perfection" in his own work control the listener's perspective on the same work? Rhetorical question.......

When one creates a work of art (music, painting, film, whatever) and puts that work on display for the public, then that person should be prepared for criticism, both positive and negative. Some of that criticism may come from qualified critics, and some may come from complete hacks. The artist may choose to listen to or ignore these criticism, or qualify the critics by their experience and talent. They can do nothing, however, to keep "unqualified" critics from having an opinion.

As an aside, I would add that any artist that professes their work to be "perfect" is lying to themselves. Usually, the best artists are their own worst critics.

The term overrated is nothing more than the expression of an opinion. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, and you have to decide whether you want to listen or not.

 

[worker201]

For instance, if the bass playing community said this guy was incredible, I'd say he is overrated:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7FqYQK8y8Ak

You think you're being funny, but the truth is he is a more consistent player than I am. Although I think I'm a better tuner.

 

[Eilif]

None of this means nothing, if the Creator of the work or the individual who is performing knows and feels that the finished concept or piece of work is indeed perfect.

And again we come to the same juncture, whether we believe:
-as you do, that the artist's judgement is the final authority relating to the perfection of the piece...
-as I tend to that perfection is probably unattainable,
-or as some do that perfection requires outside measurement or comparison to a standard of some sorts.

Most folks in practice probably have bits of more than one of these in the way they judge perfection. In the end it's more of a worldview question than it is a truely provable point. Nevertheless, I'm going to modify my initial statement about perfection to make it less imperative, so it doesn't distract from the topic of "overratedness".

Don't matter who it was made for. A turd sandwhich does no man (or woman) no good.

 

[sixtwofour]

You think you're being funny, but the truth is he is a more consistent player than I am. Although I think I'm a better tuner.

Everyone starts somewhere, and guys just starting out shouldn't really get bagged on. My point wasn't to bag on the guy, my point was to show that the thread was kind of silly to begin with. There are some technical measurables in music - how fast someone can play a particular run, how close you are to being before, on, or after the beat, how well you can replicate a passage, etc., but really it's all subjective and pointless. Different people like different rhythms, phrasing, or whatever, and 3 people can each have a different opinion about the same guy.

Bottom line is that who cares if player x is overrated. I feel kinda bad if player y is underrated and under-appreciated, but that's music.