Ca y est j'ai réussi à retrouver l'article auquel tout ce débat me faisait penser!!
(Bon, évidement, on a le droit de pas être d'accord avec Klosterman, mais sur le principe, je trouve ca judicieux...
In a world where music is either overrated or underrated, these ten artists got exactly what they deserved.
By Chuck Klosterman
If
you are the kind of person who talks about music too much, there are
two words that undoubtedly play an integral role in your workaday
lexicon: “overrated” and “underrated.” This is because those two
sentiments pop up in 90 percent of all musical discussions.
What’s
interesting about this phenomenon is that no one uses the same criteria
when applying either of those terms. For example, bands can be
overrated because certain rock critics like them too much (Sonic Youth,
Wilco, Yo La Tengo), or underrated if they sell a lot of records but
aren’t widely regarded as brilliant (Thin Lizzy, Duran Duran), or
underrated because barely anyone seems to know who they are (Tortoise,
Sloan, Lifter Puller). Bands can be overrated because they’re
good-looking (the Lemonheads in 1992), or they can be underrated because
they’re good-looking (the Lemonheads in 1994). Some groups can be
overrated and underrated at the same time (Radiohead). Some groups seem
overrated on purpose (Oasis). Some groups seem eternally underrated
because—no matter how hard they try—they’re just not as interesting as
groups who are overrated on purpose (Blur). It is very easy to be
underrated, because all you need to do is nothing. Everyone wants to be
underrated. It’s harder to become overrated, because that means people
had to think you were awesome before they thought you sucked. Nobody
wants to be overrated, except for people who like to live in big houses.
However, I am not interested in overrated and underrated bands.
It’s
too easy, and all it means is that somebody else was wrong. I’m
obsessed with bands that are rated as accurately as possible—in other
words, nobody thinks they’re better than they are, and nobody thinks
they’re worse. They have the acceptable level of popularity, they have
attained the critical acclaim their artistry merits, and no one is
confused about their cultural significance. They are, in fact...
THE TEN MOST ACCURATELY RATED ARTISTS IN ROCK HISTORY!10. The Black Crowes: Their first album sold more than five million copies, which is
precisely the right number. Stoned people like this band, drunk people
think they’re okay, and sober people hate the overwhelming majority of
their catalog. This all makes perfect sense.
9. Madness: This is one of only two ska bands admired by people who hate ska (the
other being the Specials, who are somewhat overrated). No one disputes
this admiration. “Our House” was a pretty great single, but it’s
nobody’s favorite song. Nobody seems to dispute that assertion, either.
8. Triumph: Always associated with Rush and/or the nation of Canada, but not as good as either.
7. Tone Loc: Nobody really takes Tone Loc seriously, except for frivolous pop
historians who like to credit him for making suburban white kids listen
to rap music that was made by black people (as opposed to the Beastie
Boys, who made white suburban kids listen to rap music that was made by
other white people). This lukewarm historical significance strikes me as
sensible. Neither of Mr. Loc’s hits are timeless, although “Wild Thing”
samples Van Halen’s “Jamie’s Cryin’” (which I like to imagine is about
M*A*S*H star Jamie Farr, had Corporal Klinger pursued
sexual--reassignment surgery in an attempt to get a Section
and
“Funky Cold Medina” samples “Christine Sixteen” (at a time when Kiss
were making records like Hot in the Shade and nobody in America thought
they were cool except for me and Rivers Cuomo). Those two songs were
actually cowritten with Young MC, whose single “Bust a Move” is
con-fusing for the following reason: Its last verse states, “Your best
friend Harry / Has a brother Larry / In five days from now he’s gonna
marry / He’s hopin’ you can make it there if you can / Cuz in the
ceremony you’ll be the best man.” Now, why would anybody possibly be the
best man in a wedding where the groom is their best friend’s brother?
Why isn’t your best friend the best man in this ceremony? And who asks
someone to be their best man a scant five days before they get married?
This song is flawed. And while I realize the incongruities of “Bust a
Move” have absolutely nothing to do with Tone Loc, the song somehow
seems more central to Tone Loc’s iconography than his role in the movie
Posse, which was the best movie about black cowboys I saw during the
grunge era.
6. My Bloody Valentine: On the surface, My
Bloody Valentine should be underrated, but they’re not; everyone who
aggressively cares about alt guitar music considers Loveless to be a
modern classic, and everyone who is wont to mention “swirling guitars”
during casual conversation always references this specific album.
Loveless sold about 200,000 copies. This is the correct number of people
on earth who should be invested in the concept of swirling guitars.
5. Matthew Sweet: Every
Matthew Sweet album has only one good song, and this good song is
inevitably the first single, and this single is always utterly perfect
(“Sick of Myself” off 100% Fun, “Where You Get Love” off Blue Sky on
Mars, “Girlfriend” off Girlfriend, etc.). He sells enough albums to live
comfortably, and that seems reasonable.
4. The Beatles: The
Beatles are generally seen as the single most important rock band of
all time, because they wrote all the best songs. Since both of these
facts are true, the Beatles are rated properly.
3. Blue Öyster Cult:The
BÖC song everyone pays attention to is the suicide anthem “Don’t Fear
the Reaper.” However, that song is stupid and doesn’t use enough
cowbell. The BÖC song almost no one pays attention to is the pro-monster
plod-athon “Godzilla,” and that song is spine- crushingly great. So, in
the final analysis, Blue Öyster Cult is accurately rated—by accident.
This happens on occasion; look at Scottie Pippen.
2. New Radicals: There
are only five facts publicly known about this entity. The first is that
1998’s “You Get What You Give” is an almost flawless Todd Rundgren–like
masterwork that makes any right-thinking American want to run through a
Wal-Mart semi-naked. The second is that nobody can remember the
singer’s name. The third is that the singer often wore a profoundly
idiotic hat. The fourth is that if this anonymous, poorly hatted singer
had made a follow-up album, it would have somehow made his first record
seem worse. The fifth is that his album didn’t quite deserve to go gold,
and it didn’t.
1. Van Halen: This band should have been
the biggest arena act of the early 1980s, and they were. They had the
greatest guitar player of the 1980s, and everyone (except possibly
Yngwie Malmsteen) seems to agree. They switched singers and became
semi-crappy, and nobody aggressively disputes that fact. They also
recorded the most average song in rock history: “And the Cradle Will
Rock.” What this means is that any song better than “And the Cradle Will
Rock” is good, and any song worse than “And the Cradle Will Rock” is
bad. If we were to rank every rock song (in sequential order) from best
to worst, “And the Cradle Will Rock” would be right in the fucking
middle.
And that is exactly what I want.
Accueil 
Mauvaise Foi Records 
bon j'ai repris l'essentiel mais c'est plus décousu que ce que j'avais écrit. Si quelqu'un veut la lire d'ailleurs je peux lui passer.
)
), et oui c'est fun sur quelques chansons (si t'es d'humeur), mais à ce prix là ya des milliers de groupes de L.A. qu'auraient du avoir ce succès...