Has there ever been another band with a bigger difference between critical and general audience opinion?

Has there ever been another band with a bigger difference between critical and general audience opinion?

Not even normalfags like U2

Other urls found in this thread:

salon.com/2014/09/18/how_u2_became_the_most_hated_band_in_america_partner/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Old U2 had both, New U2 has neither

In their heyday, ELP got shit from critics but were also pulling in some of the biggest concerts at the time.

Nah, U2 are objectively one of the biggest bands in the world
It'd probably be someone like Captain Beefheart that is revered by critics by to the vast majority of people is unlistenable

Really at this point it's only legacy music publications that are giving U2 good scores (i.e. Rolling Stone). U2 still act like they're the biggest band in the world, even though their heyday ended over 20 years ago.

I dunno, I like alot of the songs on Achtung Baby and Zooropa, like Even Better than the Real Thing and The Fly. Their earlier stuff is mostly good but not really my thing

i think no line on the horizon is their best album. rolling stone gave it a 5/5. my favorite artist is squarepusher.

>not even normalfags like U2
Gen X loves them because they actually got to see them when they were good. Gen Y and after missed that period so they're seen as shit.

seems more like people here are ashamed to like them. the production on the last two albums is incredible, his voice is crisp and lyrics are clever albeit corny (s what, it's music not fashion). i think the general perception is they are traditional and blah so therefore the music is bad but the actual music is good and the production is amazing. try listening with headphones, more than once. it's pretty amazing production, i think they are better than radiohead in this regard even though i think radiohead is 'cooler'

it's just music, man. you fucking guys on this site are so closed-minded and afraid.

ok will check back in 4 years

They were at least somewhat still relevant up to the mid-2000s but as a studio band, Pop was the end.

who fucking CARES if they are relevant. it's music. where do come up with this shit?

That has less to do with them being dadrock than (IMO) the fact that the market for big stadium rawk dwindled after 2005 or so.

I'm old enough to be able to remember the 80s and I never met a single U2 fan when I was in high school. I have no clue where the fuck their fans came from or how they got so big.

Weird, because I was in high school in the 80's and U2 was extremely famous.

Didn't they appeal more to the college crowd? I can't imagine a 14 year old would enjoy War or TUF.

and 90's and 00's, U2 are massive. no one talks about them on this site because they're dumb

Yup, they were a college rock band. That said, teens in late high school also enjoyed them so do with that what you will.

>Has there ever been another band with a bigger difference between critical and general audience opinion?
Sleater-Kinney
their main fanbase is critics

Are people seriously arguing one of the biggest touring acts in the world isn’t popular with the public

^This. They need to accept that they're dadrock now and to quit chasing chart hits.

That was the point where you stopped taking Christgau seriously

>gives all S-K albums an A
>gave Spiderland a C-

fuck off samefag

>Gen X loves them because
Henry Rollins sure doesn't.

salon.com/2014/09/18/how_u2_became_the_most_hated_band_in_america_partner/

Henry Rollins is an autist screecher that nu-males look up to.

This, I was 19 when War came out