Chuck Klosterman, a rock critic, once wrote a column about bands he felt were very "accurately" rated. Not underrated. Not overrated. These bands were exactly as popular and respected as musicians as their work merited. I'm interested in hearing NSG's opinions on bands in this category.
I'm going to nominate Metallica. Their first three or four albums are considered very solid, influential albums. They are. None of them, however, are in the running for best album of all time. They aren't. Reviews are mixed on the Black Album. There is a clear, obvious reason why. Their next few albums are universally considered shit, or at least not nearly as good as the earlier work. This is true. The band is respected as competent musicians, except for perhaps Lars. They're all very competent, skilled musicians.
Ergo, Metallica is a correctly rated band.
An example from Klosterman's article was My Bloody Valentine. I forget how many copies Loveless has sold, but he said that's about how many people should have an interest in "swirling guitars."
I like the idea of writing descriptions of why bands are rated "Correctly." It's both an absurd endeavor, and it produces descriptions that are in a way lukewarm and uninteresting, but still kind of hilarious.
