Colloquially, maybe. But I never THOUGHT you thought they were bad. Merely overrated, like you said. Sorry for my own lack of clarity.
You probably didn't, but I thought you did. Doesn't matter either way. :tongue:
I'm having a hard time responding to this. It's mostly because "good" and "greatest" are not qualities of the object, but of the observer.
A little bit of a response is that many of the fans seem to be great musicians themselves. Surely they are the closest things to experts?
I actually agree with you here, and I didn't actually think about this in my first response. It would be difficult to assess a work of art such as "Kid A" or "OK Computer" on its goodness without just giving one's personal view, although there is certainly "good" music, music that is creative, complex, and thoughtful, among other qualities (or sans these qualities), and "bad" music. This is getting into Aesthetics though, I don't think this is the appropriate place to have this discussion.
And again, that may be true, but most it is subjective.
Let me rephrase myself-- I think it is quality music, but I don't like it as many others seem to do.
Perhaps it is a bad analogy. I don't see the lines you see between the two situations, though. A cover is just a more direct duplication than an original piece is.
I think that if I went further, I'd be defending my interpretation of the album, and not the album itself. I would have had an easier time continuing this discussion BEFORE I'd been exposed to philosophy.
The reason I said it's not a good analogy is because it really isn't directly comparable. It's true that duplicating the Mona Lisa would not diminish the quality of the work, but since we're talking about different bands who don't all write the exact same music with the exact same sound, it doesn't quite work. I hope this a better explanation.
