Concept of "underrated bands" in rock music

[WildRanger]

In most cases how this concept works?
What do people exactly mean by "underrated" when it comes to certain bands and is that term used in the right way?

I think this term is mainly subjective. If some bands were very good (in subjective sense) but they weren't lucky to make it big and get recognition, does it make them underrated(For example, is Camel underrated, is Budgie underrated, is Blue Oyster Cult underrated, is Hawkwind underrated, etc?)? And if people call those bands underrated, they cannot determine BY WHOM they're underrated?

Is underrated a valid critique of certain bands?
What do you think?

[As I Am]

Basically, ANY band that ANY individual likes and is not a "popular" band is considered "underrated" by that individual. There's millions of "underrated" bands out there over the many years of R&R

[wolfking]

In most cases how this concept works?
What do people exactly mean by "underrated" when it comes to certain bands and is that term used in the right way?

I think this term is mainly subjective. If some bands were very good (in subjective sense) but they weren't lucky to make it big and get recognition, does it make them underrated(For example, is Camel underrated, is Budgie underrated, is Blue Oyster Cult underrated, is Hawkwind underrated, etc?)? And if people call those bands underrated, they cannot determine BY WHOM they're underrated?

Is underrated a valid critique of certain bands?
What do you think?

underrated - underestimate the extent, value, or importance of (someone or something). "a very underrated band."

Of course it's subjective.

[pg1067]

In most cases how this concept works?
What do people exactly mean by "underrated" when it comes to certain bands and is that term used in the right way?

"Overrated" and "underrated" mean that the speaker or writer subjectively believes an artist is deserving of less or more praise/popularity than he/she/it gets.  As long as you understand this meaning (and the rest of your post indicates you do), comments like "Jimmy Joe and the Covered Blow Jobs are SOOOO underrated!" become completely uncontroversial.

[SoundscapeMN]

I think referring to a band or artist as "rated" is odd to say from a semantics standpoint.

"Undermentioned" or "Unknown" sounds and makes more sense.

People don't rate or RANK an artist unless it's making a list of some kind.

But just MENTIONING, or TALKING ABOUT, etc and for reason that they feel more should know and possibly appreciate a certain artist or band.

UNDERPLAYED, UNDER-LISTENED TO, etc.

There are literally dozens if not 100's of albums and songs that I personally find it baffling that they are so UNDERMENTIONED or UNKNOWN given how they sound incredibly ACCESSIBLE to me and I would think to others.

Those songs just fly under the radar, later to be discovered by a generation or a 2nd generation many years or decades from now.

Case in Point: Jeff Buckley. I'd never heard of him until about 15 years ago, yet he was making music 10 years before that. Hallelujah started showing up everywhere in the mid-late 2000's and the guy is nearly a household name. I mean a movie was even made about him, etc.

[Stadler]

I've kind of moved away from the concept of "overrated" and "underrated".  Sure there are bands that I don't understand their popularity (Radiohead, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Radiohead), but that's on me, not the band or the world.   I've sort of come to the conclusion that bands achieve the success they're supposed to have.  If you're an act that can sell enough tickets to fill Madison Square Garden (or Wembley) who am I to say you don't deserve that?  And likewise if you can't sell more than 1,200 tickets to a club?  I saw Slash and Myles in a club that was that big and so what?  It was a great night for me, and nonetheless Slash and Myles both played like it WAS Wembley (where they've both played under other circumstances).

[Zantera]

I don't think it's needed a thread to explain the meaning of a word which you can just google and get the meaning of in 2 seconds. Wolfking already provided the answer and that's the end of the discussion really.

[bosk1]

I don't think it's needed a thread to explain the meaning of a word which you can just google and get the meaning of in 2 seconds. Wolfking already provided the answer and that's the end of the discussion really.

For all the complaining about Wildranger's threads, you guys only have yourselves to blame by posting in them.  Yes, the vast majority of this threads are pointless.  So if you don't want to get dragged down into that pointlessness, the solution is simple:  Don't read them and don't post in them.  Threads with zero replies fall away quickly.  Quit feeding the troll or quit complaining.

[KevShmev]

Wham! is underrated.

[Dream Team]

Wham! is underrated.

Careless Whisper is one my favorite pop songs for sure.

[Stadler]

I think Wildranger is underrated. 

[RoeDent]

I don't think it's needed a thread to explain the meaning of a word which you can just google and get the meaning of in 2 seconds. Wolfking already provided the answer and that's the end of the discussion really.

For all the complaining about Wildranger's threads, you guys only have yourselves to blame by posting in them.  Yes, the vast majority of this threads are pointless.  So if you don't want to get dragged down into that pointlessness, the solution is simple:  Don't read them and don't post in them.  Threads with zero replies fall away quickly.  Quit feeding the troll or quit complaining.

All well and good, but the very fact the threads exist, that they're allowed to run riot like this, is disturbing and triggering. Maybe we should start a "Wildranger's threads" thread, and every time they feel the urge to try and trigger needless debate/controversy, they can just reply in one thread rather than start a new one. It'll be rambling and varied in discussion for sure, but at least it stops GMD being spammed.

[Anguyen92]

^^ The thing is with that, is that these threads are not really running all of that rampant on the first page of this subforum.  I mean do you see nothing but WildRanger threads on the first page?  No.  The guy asked his question, we all make a response.  Some threads may spark big discussions.  Some don't.  Those that don't just fades away until it gets popped up again for whatever odd reasons.  We all can choose whether to participate or not.  No harm, no foul.

[pg1067]

^^ The thing is with that, is that these threads are not really running all of that rampant on the first page of this subforum.  I mean do you see nothing but WildRanger threads on the first page?  No.  The guy asked his question, we all make a response.  Some threads may spark big discussions.  Some don't.  Those that don't just fades away until it gets popped up again for whatever odd reasons.  We all can choose whether to participate or not.  No harm, no foul.

Yup.  Most of the threads get about a page to a page and a half of comments, and then they drift away.  I find WR's style of asking questions a bit odd, but they often trigger some decent discussion.

[bosk1]

I don't think it's needed a thread to explain the meaning of a word which you can just google and get the meaning of in 2 seconds. Wolfking already provided the answer and that's the end of the discussion really.

For all the complaining about Wildranger's threads, you guys only have yourselves to blame by posting in them.  Yes, the vast majority of this threads are pointless.  So if you don't want to get dragged down into that pointlessness, the solution is simple:  Don't read them and don't post in them.  Threads with zero replies fall away quickly.  Quit feeding the troll or quit complaining.

All well and good, but the very fact the threads exist, that they're allowed to run riot like this, is disturbing and triggering. Maybe we should start a "Wildranger's threads" thread, and every time they feel the urge to try and trigger needless debate/controversy, they can just reply in one thread rather than start a new one. It'll be rambling and varied in discussion for sure, but at least it stops GMD being spammed.

Well, more often than not, this threads are total garbage.  But I'm not going to lock them, because they don't technically violate any forum rules.  Again, the fact that they go on for page after page is the fault of those who waste their time replying instead of just ignoring the threads in the first place.