Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Not again...

ILIL has reinstated the entry for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band after it was previously removed by A Quest For Knowledge last year. This entry has been highly contentious, even more so after it was revealed that the entry was added by a block-evading sockpuppet of The abominable Wiki troll.

I am personally on the WP:DENY side, as I feel that by continuing to allow this entry on the page, we are giving TAWT the kind of attention they crave. However, ILIL said that the burden to demonstrate the verifiability of reliably sourced content has already been fulfilled, and that they are not aware of any rule against including content added by block-evading sockpuppets. It seems like we have this kind of discussion about whether or not Sgt. Pepper should be included on this page every so often: Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 9#RFC for album inclusion, Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 8#Further discussion re: Sgt. Pepper, Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 7, Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 6, Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 5#Does this article pass WP:LISTN?, Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 4, Talk:List of music considered the worst/Archive 2#Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band?; unfortunately, no real headway seems to be made in terms of forming a consensus.

Frankly, it's tiresome that these kinds of discussions continue to happen. Thoughts? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 13:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I just think it's amazing that Pepper's addition is controversial, but no one minds that this article lists a song that was scientifically determined to be the most enjoyable pop song ever written. ili (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Without digging things up again, I’ll just state that technically ILIL is correct in what they said in their edit summary - there was not actually consensus for its removal when it was removed. Someone removed it and I didn’t revert because I wanted to focus on other things. Then things just fizzled out. But there wasn’t consensus for removal, it was just someone who acted out of turn and removed it without consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Just gonna refer Mr swordfish and Wanna Know My Name? Later to this discussion, since they recently made edits pertaining to this. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 06:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

To me, this is a matter of POV. Is it a mainstream view point by respected critics that it's the worst of all time? Or is it a minority or fringe view point? Here's a Rolling Stone article where it's listed as one of the best albums of all time.[1] According to MetaCritic, [2], it has a MetaScore of 100 indicating "universal acclaim". By listing this album in this article, we appear to be promoting a fringe view point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Democracy - Guns 'n' Roses

I find this entry a little weird. I admit I think it's a decent album, and I'm not here trying to "argue" for anything. But the main article for 'Chinese Democracy' is much more nuanced. A few "critics" call the album 'the worst [they've] heard', but I don't think that's the same as "List of music considered the worst." Also Time Out New York, Asbury Park Press, IGN, and WIRED are not primarily music critics. It also got a lot of good/medium press. I don't think the press/critical reception was "bad" or "negative" enough to warrant inclusion in this page. What's the threshold, that 3 or 4 non-music outfits hated it? I think the protracted wait and Axl Rose's behavior is the reason this middle-of-the-road album is here.

It also surprises me that 'Chinese Democracy' is included on this page, considering Corey Feldman's 2016 effort 'Angelic 2 the Core' is not. I will be waiting for comments/suggestions/input on this article, and will be watching with a mind to remove the album from the page. Not because I'm a huge fan of G'n'R or Axl Rose, but because it just seems out of place. Mercster (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I’d totally agree with you if this articles title was something like “songs/albums with the worst Metacritic scores” or something, but that’s not what this article is. This is music deemed the worst. It’s a collection of music that’s largely either won (or lost?) “worst song/album ever” reader/listener polls done by professional reliable sources, or has received commentary about being the worst by professional critics/journalists.

In regards to Corey Feldman’s album, it’s been discussed many times, if you want to look through the talk page archives, but I believe the problem is that it received very little attention from what Wikipedia seems reliable sources. The album was a very minor release and didn’t receive much coverage beyond some hyperbolic amateur blogger reviews. I think. A lot of entries are thrown out on those grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"largely either won (or lost?) “worst song/album ever” reader/listener polls done by professional reliable sources" A few people who were a) angry that it took so long and/or b) consider hard rock irrelevant called it "the worst album". It's easy to understand why that invective exists, but just because some editor at WIRED says something doesn't make it a prevailing opinion. Who do we choose gets to determine something is "the worst ever." That's been said about a lot of music. A traditional rock and roll journalist at rolling stone may call a Travis Scott album "the worst ever" (I bet we could find more than one!)

As far as C. Feldman's album goes, it was covered on The Needledrop, by Anthony Fantano, who is probably 21st century media's most visible and outspoken music critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercster (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The Needle Drop/Anthony Fantano is explicitly listed as an unusable source on Wikipedia per WP:NOTRSMUSIC. As for the rest of your argument, if you’d like to spend the time 1) creating new inclusion criteria, 2) setting up a discussion to get a WP:CONSENSUS towards changing the inclusion criteria and then 3) rewrite the article accordingly, be my guest. Anyone has the option of doing this. But no one ever does - usually they just whine that their song/album is “outrageously” placed on the list, and then disappear when they succeed or fail to persuade people. It’s up to you, though I’d recommend better familiarizing yourself better with what Wikipedia considers a reliable source better to start off, you’ll need to understand that better in order to persuade anyone. See WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC for common examples at least. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Mercster. If Chinese Democracy belongs here, so does Muse's Origin of Symmetry, which the Guardian panned as "unbelievably overblown, self-important and horrible" and gave a 1 star rating. So does Weezer's Pinkerton, which was originally voted as one of the worst albums of 1996 by the readers of Rolling Stone. Radiohead's Kid A was also given strongly negative reviews by the New Yorker, Melody Maker, Mojo and the Guardian on release. All these albums have gone on to become critically acclaimed and successful, and while Chinese Democracy hasn't received the same acclaim as Kid A, by now it's mostly just seen as a curio in the Guns N' Roses discography more than an all-time "terrible" record.

I personally love Chinese Democracy so maybe that's why I'm apt to defend it, but a list of music "considered the worst" should be a list that is currently and universally considered the worst by large margin of people, not just a few writers on release that wanted to use the album as the punching bag that many expected it to be. The album took 10 years to record and 17 years to release after the previous Guns N' Roses studio album of original material, and, on release, it was described by Ian Cohen of Pitchfork that it was going to either have "validate[d] its tortuous birthing process or a Hindenberg so horribly panned it somehow validate[d] its mastermind as a misunderstood genius" (and for fairness, he gave the album a 5.8/10, which is far from being "worst of all time" material).. Understandably, writers on its release, notably ones from non-music related publications such as Wired and IGN, were quick to call Chinese Democracy the worst album they'd ever heard - it was an easy way to validate what many were expecting from an artistic departure that took so long to release by such a popular band.

Plus, Chinese Democracy also received quite a bit of good press at the time, with AllMusic, the AV Club, and Rolling Stone all giving it positive reviews. In 2018, Merlin Alderslade of Metal Hammer (a music-related publication) described Chinese Democracy in retrospect as "a great album, and occasionally exceptional", as "an explosive, fantastical, multi-multilayered rock ‘n’ roll opera", and "absolutely stacked with great songs". It would be disingenuous to claim that Chinese Democracy received critical acclaim on release, yet it would also be disingenuous to list it here as a Cut the Crap-level disaster, or something on the level of Eminem's Revival, Van Halen III, Emerson, Lake and Palmer's Love Beach or The Beach Boys' Summer in Paradise - all albums that have received far more critical vitriol than Chinese Democracy yet don't happen to be featured on this list. --Someguy432 (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A lot of that violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if you truly believe Radiohead or Muse deserve placement on the list, write or propose an entries with proper sourcing. But either way, it has no bearing on Chinese Democracy, which meets the current inclusion criteria. Please do not conflate commercial success with the inclusion criteria either. Many entries on the list, like Nickelback or Ice Ice Baby were wildly successful commercially, but that doesn’t change that they were attacked by critics and polls as “worst ever”, which is what this article documents. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new addition in Worst Songs section- Puddle of Mudd's cover of About a Girl (2019).

This comes from Puddle of Mudd's Wikipedia page- "In November 2019, the band performed an acoustic session for SiriusXM's Octane channel. The session went largely unnoticed until April 2020, when the Instagram music meme account @catatonicyouths posted edited clips of the band's cover of Nirvana's "About a Girl". The cover was also given a reaction video by YouTuber Jared Dines. The cover has been widely criticised and ridiculed, with most of the focus being placed upon Scantlin's strained, uncomfortable, and off-key vocals. The original video, which has now received over one million views and has since gone unlisted, currently sits at 19,000 dislikes against 2,900 likes." [3]

I think it'd be worth adding due to being widely panned, similarly to other tracks on this page. --H.AFI.17 (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)H.AFI.17 30 November 2020

It was certainly criticized by modern rock websites, yes, but nothing you’ve listed would indicate reliable sources deemed it the worst. You’ve got to actually provide evidence of what reliable sources said. And the fact that Youtubers did reaction videos isn’t relevant. They do reaction video to everything, and aren’t generally considered usable sources by Wikipedia standards. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

New section: Music Videos

In addition to adding new songs, I’m also suggesting that a new section titled “music videos” should be added to this list. I seen plenty of lists on the web regarding this topic. Some examples include NME.com and the Guardian; I’m pretty sure that the two previous examples are what Wikipedia deem as “reliable sources.” If any of you editors think that this suggestion is acceptable, then please look for reliable sources (such as my two example sources) to put into this section. KevinML (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• My guess is that if the song is that bad, so is the video (see Rebecca Black's "Friday" as a ripoff of Justin Bieber's "Baby" to notice) Espngeek (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's hard enough maintaining songs and albums on the same article. Mentioning a music video in their current sections could be okay, if sources comment on that too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sweatshirt by Jacob Sartorius

Would the above song qualified? It’s one of YouTube’s most disliked videos, and reception of Sartorius and his career hasn’t improved since then, so would this qualify? Thanks. Gavin the Otter (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, you would need some reliable sources that literally call it the worst song to some capacity. Sources like those found at WP:RSMUSIC. Every claim at the songs article is unsourced, so no help there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Nookie by Limp bizkit should not be on here

Its literally the opposite of worst and the fact that only ONE single opinion piece "citation" is used to label it as such is outrageous considering its massive feedback its been given saying its good. It should be removed soley based on the fact the source is redundant considering that buzzfeed is a low quality news outlet. If this source is liable then ALL of the songs on the buzzfeed list should be added to this article.

I have a lot of questions about your sentiment that seems to suggest "Nookie" is some sort of critically acclaimed song, but that aside: Feel free to add any song that has literally and directly been called the worst song by Buzzfeed or any other mainstream publication. Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Feel free to add any song that has literally and directly been called the worst song by Buzzfeed or any other mainstream publication." That was the mentality that lead to the whole Sgt. Pepper's debacle. I hate to open up old wounds, but the entry was added by The Abominable Wiki Troll, and we were giving them the kind of attention and recognition they craved by keeping it on the list. I also feel like Sergecross73 abused his power as an administrator in that situation by aiding and abetting a known long-term vandal (who is banned from Wikipedia per consensus at WP:ANI), whether that was his intention or not. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 19:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. Those disputes are years old and were dropped years ago. Leave me out of your weird obsession with that long-term vandal. That has nothing to do with this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

How is it WP:ASPERSIONS if I had, and still have, legitimate concerns about your behavior in that scenario, which reeked of aiding and abetting TAWT. You had brushed aside empirical evidence that the entry was added in bad faith, and through your insistence that the entry stayed, you were giving them the kind of attention and recognition they craved, which flew in the face of WP:DENY. Yes, I can't do anything about it now since it's a stale dispute, but I still have questions. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 15:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I was merely in favor of a single piece of content they added strictly on the grounds that it was reliably sourced. Which is totally valid - you can still support content from banned editors. That's literally all it was. To frame that "aiding and abedding" is objectively wrong on multiple levels. The fact that you're bringing this up (1) years later, (2) on an unrelated topic, (3) after your ANI cases were tossed out for being meritless, says FAR more about you than me. That dispute is literally dead. It's something I stopped supporting and havent attempted to add into the article in years. I don't think I've ever seen such an egregious violation of WP:DEADHORSE from someone who won a dispute that's been dead for years. Why you've decided to waste my time with this in late 2021 is nothing short of baffling, all I know is that it's shameful conduct on your part. Don't interact with me about this again unless, unless you have interest in me taking you to ANI for WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARRASSMENT. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Add some newer songs, maybe?

As of January 29, 2021, the “Songs” section of this article only goes up to 2014. There has to be more songs considered the worst that wear made from the past 7 years. Now, I’m not suggesting to add a specific song to this article, but if any sources that are reliable according to Wikipedia standards, then PLEASE ask for them to be added. (And don’t forget to reference the source!) KevinML (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not like that didn't ever occur to anyone. There's just not anyone who really has been working on writing the article in years. It's mostly people who propose a song of their choice be added or removed, and then they move on. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe not songs, but the “1980s-1990s” section of “Albums” is WAY TOO short. There are plenty of other albums from the 80s and 90s that have been considered terrible. KevinML (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're following. I'm not saying there arent albums to be added. Im saying there aren't editors present to research and write entries. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Would this source work: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/readers-poll-the-10-worst-songs-of-the-1970s-18491/ “Afternoon Delight” by Starland Vocal Band was voted the worst song of the 1970s but it is not included in this list. Mind if I add it? KevinML (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how that source verifies that sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 23:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is should Afternoon Delight be added to the list if it was voted as the worst song of the 70s? KevinML (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable sources that verifies it, yes, probably. That Rolling Stone source you gave doesn't verify it though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

What about Total Xanarchy? that album's considered bad even by soundcloud rap standards. Spliced 21 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion into the article requires a reliable source (mainstream publications like those seen at WP:RSMUSIC to directly call the piece of music "the worst" in some sort of direct fashion. So it really depends on if you or anyone else can find any proof of that happening. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Legitimate Sources

I have an issue with listing the Mars survey as a legitimate source for a survey. This is a company which is best known for making candy bars. The Blender magazine decision to list “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” is legitimate, but a candy company asking people what their opinion is on,worst sings is hardly legitimate. Spiel (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Check the talk page archives. I feel like that's been brought up before, and there were reasons to keep it in. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Billy don't be a hero

Billy don't be a hero was not done by paper lace. It was done by bo Donaldson 2600:2B00:7400:6100:A848:6D8B:D99:BB7D (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It was done by both of them: "Billy Don't Be a Hero" is a 1974 pop song that was first a UK hit for Paper Lace and then, some months later, a US hit for Bo Donaldson and The Heywoods. The song was written and composed by two British songwriters, Mitch Murray and Peter Callander. (source: Billy_Don't_Be_a_Hero) Lothaeus (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete

How could this *possible* be NPOV? I'm baffled that this list exists. Oh, and Atilla slaps. Duckmonster (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

See above. It's survived 6 separate deletion discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't want to delete this, but now I've read the latest delete discussion from 2019. I logged in and looked at the talk page *because* the article actually includes songs that are among my favourites (eg, "What's up?" by Four Non Blondes). I think what this article highlights is that one or two music critics can get a song they personally hate onto this list, because they can write an article in Melody Maker or whatever, and that is then, Wikipedia style, a legitimate source. That guy's article can get reported by other sources, and basically it privileges one person's view on a song. I think "x hated y in 1995 and wrote a hate article on it" is a different level of "worst" song than The Birdie Song, or Agadoo, which were widespread novelty songs that were hated by many people. I came here, incidentally, on the track of looking up Mr Blobby's song, to check which year that was Christmas no 1 in the UK. Songs like Blobby and Agadoo, Millenium Prayer have topped actual surveys of worst songs, which seems more objective than "There's an article in this music magazine". Sergecross, I understand you've been editing this article a lot, what thoughts have you come up with about which criteria should be used to justify a song being included in this article? -- PaulHammond (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, while I've written very little of the article itself, I've been the only consistent editor to watch over and maintain it consistently for the last 5+ years - most others just come and go after they try to get their personal entry added or removed. I'm also the one who first proposed and implemented the inclusion criteria of entries having their own article and at least one source directly calling an entry "the worst". It wasn't meant to be controversial - that's pretty much the most common and basic inclusion criteria on Wikipedia - but people complain all the same. There was no inclusion criteria prior to that, which is definitively worse, and not a single person has been able to propose a functional means of inclusion criteria since then. But again, few have even tried. Most people try more as a means of "How do I create one that helps me add Limp Bizkit or remove Taylor Swift" than actually help manage the list as a whole. Or they're so convoluted that no one would ever enforce it.

To answer the other part of your question - I have no problem with using a poll winner (or loser I guess) to source an entry on the list, but it would have to be a professional poll. Like something conducted by Rolling Stone or New York Times or a company or something, not just a Reddit or Twitter poll or something. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Serge deserves credit for his work on this article over the years, because it's such a magnet for outrage. I don't really have a strong opinion on how best to determine the criteria for inclusion, there does need to be some criteria tied to Wikipedia policy, so hats off to Serge for making the effort where few others have so far. Popcornfud (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Nice to hear when I'm usually seen as the bad guy here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I'll definitely echo that. I used to edit more around here, but I only came back casually. But, you're right, all the inclusions *are* justified by sources that have called those tracks "the worst". So that's why I thought I should check out one or two of the previous discussion on delete the article before saying anything dumb. So, yes, Sergecross certainly deserves credit for putting the work in on a difficult article that causes anger in the casual visitor!

I think people who are angry about Sgt Pepper being in this list may not have noticed that the album quoted in this list is not Sgt Pepper by the Beatles but an album of disco-style cover versions from the 70s. (I certainly didn't notice that until I went back and read it again after leaving my comment.) --PaulHammond (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think, however, that the criteria should be redefined. The only one, as stated, is that one respectable source has to call the song/album "the worst", but I think this is not a sufficient criteria to say that such song/album actually "the worst". "Music considered the worst" sounds as something many people agree upon. So the criteria should be redefined, or maybe change the name of this article to reflect the current criteria if this is not going to change. Both things have been proposed in the past but never implemented. I suggest we do something about it to improve this controversial article. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to make proposals then. Like I've said, my implementation of the basic criteria was meant to be a starting point, not an ending point. But little has been proposed to begin with, and most proposals have not made sense conceptually, or had little likelihood of ever being enforced or maintained realistically speaking. (People have proposed outlandish ideas like each entry have 10 sources or that someone should go out of their way to find as many sources as possible and calculate the ratio of positive to negative sentiment and only include items that hit a threshold of 80% negative or something like that. There's no way in hell anyone's taking the time to do that. They need to be practical and intuitive.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the current criteria is that it is very weak. A song can be called "the worst of all time" by anyone, but the song may have had success and also considered one of the best songs by other people. In fact, most of the songs in this article are very popular songs, such as the aforementioned "What's Up?". The criteria should change, and be something such as:

- It has to be called "the worst" by at least 3 sources

- Must not have been called "the best" by any source

- Should not have been commercially or critically successful

Again, I'm just throwing ideas, but I think that criteria is manageable and somewhat indicative of the article's title. If you don't agree you can feel free to make new proposals as well, so we can stop relying in the original criteria that's still being followed. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I am very much in favour of keeping this page, but at the same time I would like to propose creating an article with the title: List of music considered the best – as a counterpart and balance. In order to face any criticism that might arise: yes, there is the following list: Rolling_Stone's_500_Greatest_Songs_of_All_Time; however, it has been compiled by a single source. Furthermore, on the subject of “film” there are also two opposing Wikipedia pages of the best and worst rated works (List_of_films_considered_the_worst / List_of_films_considered_the_best) and in addition (!) – among others – the compilation of the American Film Institute (AFI) exists which can be found under the wikilink: AFI's_100_Years...100_Movies. What do you think of my suggestion: to keep this article (possibly taking into account your objections with a more balanced set of sources) and create a new page with the best rated songs/albums based on the same standards? Lothaeus (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm honestly pretty surprised an equivalent "best" article doesn't already exist. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Rename/revise to "List of music notable (or "noted") for negative reception"?

This article has severely plateu'd in content since like 2012 and the qualifier for music needing to be the "worst" feels too limiting.

I feel as though this article would be better suited under the name "List of music notable (or noted) for negative reception" (in the vein of the List of video games notable for negative reception) instead of "the worst" because it is very limiting, plus in recent years negative fan responses to albums have got decent coverage, i.e. the 2017 Suicide Silence album and Machine Head's Catharsis, both of which received mixed/negative reviews from critics and a notably negative response from fans. Obviously both must correlate in this case, but I guess this can go either way.

The video games article includes both critical and player (fan?) response, which would be more neutral POV in the music article. Mixed reviews and negative fan response can go hand in hand. For example, it might be possible that Metallica's St. Anger could be noted for having several negative reviews and a horrid fan response into the production and the infamous snare, and the fact a petition was made against the band collaborating with Bob Rock again, should be enough to give it a "negative reception".

Plus the "worst" qualifier may also limit albums that were negatively received upon release but later became better received.

Also, citing this discussion that opposed a move of said negatively received video games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_video_games_notable_for_negative_reception/Archive_8#Requested_move_February_2013), the current title does not sound very encyclopaedic and feels very loaded.

Thoughts? Chchcheckit (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

also tagging a bunch of albums that deserve a spot on the list:

• (as mentioned prior) Machine Head, Catharsis
• Lil Xan, Total Xanarchy (2018)
• Limp Bizkit, Results May Vary (2003)
• Mariah Carey, Glitter (soundtrack) (2001), though as mentioned above album reception can improve over time!!!

If theres any others ill throw them up Chchcheckit (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hold on. To be a workable solution, we need concrete, objective inclusion criteria. This article will become enormous if we just lost off random poorly received albums, which is the only pattern I'm discerning here so far. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

well, I was slightly hinting at a criteria. But it shouldn't be hard to create. Tbh a lot of it can just be borrowed from the list of negative games, with that being any entry needing to be well/independently sourced and discounting things like controversial artwork or lyrics which should go somewhere else. Im thinkinghhg Chchcheckit (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, well until there's any well functioning inclusion criteria created, I'm squarely against. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's a criteria then;

Because there are a wealth of bad music out there in the world, a set of criteria have been created to make sure we're focusing truly on games that are truly notable for their negative reception. Albums, songs and releases are eligible for inclusion in this list if they have an article on Wikipedia, have established notability, and have demonstrated a strong negative reception described by one or more of the criteria listed below. This demonstration requires providing in-line citations for the entry to several published articles, from sources that are generally considered reliable for the coverage of music, which describe in significant detail (not in passing) how the musical release meets the criterion/criteria; entries that fail to provide these citations will likely be removed without question. A minimum of three such sources is strongly recommended, and preferably at least five such sources should be provided. Note that you may reuse citations from the game's article to support inclusion here.

• Having low review scores; an album with an aggregate review score below 60/100 (per Metacritic), as determined by at least 10 critic reviews is generally considered eligible but not guaranteed a spot on the list.
• Its quality having been acknowledged in relevant retrospectives and columns by reliable sources (i.e. being literally referred to as one of the "worst albums/songs ever" (either of all-time or within a specific category or genre).
• Its negative reception resulting in a long-term impact on the music industry or reputation of the artist; the latter i.e. Metal Machine Music by Lou Reed
• Having a notably negative response from fans/listeners over its quality, especially in situations where negative listener response impacts the reception by professional critics. In order to meet this criteria, at least three reliable citations must discuss such a response in significant detail. This negative reception should be something of discussion some months after an album's release; short-term negativity towards an album or song shortly after release does not qualify for inclusion on this list. A musical release is ineligible for inclusion based on user response if it received an otherwise positive response from critics, as it might be more indicative of a controversy surrounding a portion of the album/song or its background, or one "manufactured" by its community, rather than the quality of the title as a whole.
• Albums that were received negatively upon release that have retrospectively been more positively received (i.e. Pinkerton by Weezer) may not be eligible for the list.
• Albums/songs that are considered the worst solely within a band's discography (i.e. Diabolus in Musica by Slayer) are not be eligible for the list.
• Albums/songs with controversies with their artwork, unrelated to their overall quality, may be eligible for inclusion in the List of controversial album art instead, such as in the case of Virgin Killer by Scorpions.
• Albums that are the subject of "review bombing" due to non-musical related issues are not considered appropriate for this list.

Non-notable albums, songs or musical releases, and independent/self-released albums, are typically excluded from this list, barring exceptional circumstances, since they generally receive little media attention and do not typically have a reasonable expectation of quality (thus they would have negative reception, but not be notable for it). Other common examples include cheap cash-in songs/albums based off of movies, television, or other similar media.

Hopefully this is convincing enough. Chchcheckit (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The criteria are fine, but the proposed title is not. The word "notable" is way over-used on Wikipedia, and its meaning of "worthy of note" is rather vague and weaselly. We don't need that word in titles too. I would change [[List of video games notable for negative reception to some other title rather than change the title of this article to conform to a poor standard. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, how about uhhhhh.. noted? A less aggressive/definitive way of saying it. Still saying its negative reception exists and people know but not necessitate "worth" idk

  List of music noted for negative reception

  idk Chchcheckit (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Alternatively, I object to some of the criteria, both in its arbitrariness (Why is 60% the standard for MC?) and it's plausibility/practicality (It's difficult to muster up interest in writing the article as it is. Who is going to be finding 3 sources per entry about reliable sources documenting listeners complaining about it?) Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  In response/to add explanation to Serge;

  1. https://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores#:~:text=Metascores%20range%20from%200%2D100,red%20scores%20for%20unfavorable%20reviews

  basing my 60/100 aggregate off of this. 60-40 is defined as "Mixed or Average Reviews". Similar way to Video games list, which works on this at 50/100.

  2. Who's going to find sources? ME. :) I wouldn't suggest things I wouldn't contribute to. Also it's not hard. I know I'm sometimes very stubborn but if something is notable like criteria suggests, it shouldn't be very hard to find sources. Chchcheckit (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  2.1 Also, main reason this article has little contributions/is "difficult to muster up interest in" is because; 1. no criteria = no idea whats applicable and 2. as said prior, declaration of "music considered the worst" is extremely narrow, inflexible and harder to put down than than this proposed name change. Chchcheckit (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would we be adding albums MC describes as "mixed or average" in a list of games documenting negative sentiment? At least the "less than 50" standard used by the game article could rationalize that anything less than half can be seen as negative in a sense... Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Lorde - team

Worst song ever made. Lyrics are soul splitting and creams unoriginality and beige behaviour 2A02:C7F:A6B5:8B00:4C8F:6302:8368:BE00 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but we need we need reliable sources - mainstream and professional publications generally - doing the takedowns, not us as editors. Feel free to present sources that call it the worst though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus apparent that the article can instead be expanded to cover other kinds of music media. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

---

List of music considered the worst → List of albums and songs considered the worst – Just call it what it is. "Music" is a massive and hard to define scope that is clearly not what this lists refers to. Otherwise someone (probably me) is going to spam it with Xenakis. We don't need to surprise readers clicking on this link with a much more narrow definition than the title implies. Aza24 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. The article has had its fair share of problems over the years, but this is not one of them. This concern has not come up a single time in the 5+ years I've been watching over it. Sergecross73 msg me 11:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Conciseness does not inherently trump accuracy. Music is a vast tradition spanning the globe for the past ~40,000 years or so. Defining “music” as solely recorded albums and songs of the past ~100 years is not appropriate, and a huge testament to the contemporary Western bias that Wikipedia is designed to avoid. Under any definition of “music considered the worst”, I could cite songs of ancient Chinese ‘’suyue’’ music, secular Byzantine hymns and examples of Renaissance polyphony as fiercely attacked by commentators. This is clearly not the list’s intention, so just adjust it. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Quite the opposite, I'd love it if you could add those things if you can get them to meet the inclusion criteria. (Attract one reliable source directly calling it the worst in some capacity, and there being articles to link to show the music and/or article is notable in some capacity.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  This also raises the question of what "music" we're talking about anyways, i.e. songs vs genres. Many traditions have been heavily criticized as whole, without specific representatives—this matches the unity of certain traditions, in which specific songs aren't as important. I could suggest something like Beethoven's Wellington's Victory, often considered to be his worst piece, but I'm afraid that expanding it beyond its small scope would make it much more indiscriminate than it should be. Maybe this list ought to be called "List of songs considered the worst" (albums being a natural extension). Aza24 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're overthinking things. The reason none of the examples you're listing off are on the list is little more than the fact that they're not "low-hanging fruit" than was ever added by passerby editors. The current state of the article is a combination of a bunch of random editors throwing stuff together over the years, and me trimming it down to the most bare minimum inclusion criteria that more or less equates to following WP:V. As I've pointed out on the talk page many times in the past, this articles problem is that it never attracts any consistent editors that truly wish to document the concept. It's always just some random editor who is more interested in trashing Limp Bizkit or some vapid pop star and then move on to something else. The articles isn't that big, and could easily incorporate some more unconventional music examples if anyone bothered to do it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose there’s no reason it couldn’t cover all music. The suggested name change is fairly pedantic. Dronebogus (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current title is more WP:CONCISE and, in my opinion, more WP:NATURAL. Similar to Sergecross above, I think material on historically lambasted music would be very appropriate and interesting on this page; I for one would definitely enjoy learning about the controversies surrounding suyue, polyphony, etc. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed box about needing albums post-2013

I combed through different search engine keywords and could only find one other album after 2013 that was cited by two sources as "the worst" (Charlie Puth's "Nine Track Mind"). Maybe albums as a subject of discussion are becoming less relevant as the streaming era? Philosophistry (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the concern that not enough modern entries are present largely traces back to one particular editor, it's not a common complaint. I'm sure there's probably more entries that could be added, but I don't think its something that warrants a tag like that really, so I support its removal. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Only western songs?

This article looks to be lacking basically any non-English song in any section. Can it really be true that no other part of the world has made atrocious music? Not that I have any contributions to add, but I think maybe we could put one of those templates calling for more international attention for this, considering the absence of worldwide coverage; or otherwise rename the article to reflect its coverage only of English-language music. Kiril kovachev (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but as I've pointed out before, this article's main problem is that no one has interest in writing a cohesive article about the subject. People either want to drive-by add a song they personally hate or try to remove entries they personally like. Could definitely use a tag or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The Most Unwanted Song

The song (above) certainly relates to the general topic; and, should be added to the "See also" section. The song was designed to incorporate lyrical and musical elements that were deemed annoying to most people by a poll. 136.54.99.98 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Father of all Motherfuckers, Green Day

I don't feel the source warrants the inclusion. "Loudwire" merely reports on something that was actually done by "Top Rated Casinos"; and the methodology used is questionable at best. Beside this I find the inclusion here oddly specific: Why are the higher entries not included? I mean: It's all "music", right? So why include Green Day (which was in sixth place) but not Drake or Chance the Rapper which were higher and hence could/should be considered "worse"?2003:D4:DF46:310:155E:EE56:1998:9DBF (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's because, as noted above, the article is valueless nonsense. Local Potentate (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Loudwire is a rock music website. It's what they cover. So they focused on the only rock entry. Sergecross73 msg me 10:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't my point (and beside this it isn't true - "Loudwire" mentions correctly that other acts are ranked "worse"). My point is how we got at all to singling out that Green Day album.

The entry currently reads

"In 2022, Loudwire published that Father of All Motherfuckers was the highest ranked rock album on a list of the worst albums of the 21st century, which was based on the Metacritic user score of 4.8 out of 10, and the album's critical scores as well."

It is missing the information that the actual list was done by "Top Rated Casinos" (which is IMO kinda crucial); and it is also missing the information that this list was NOT merely based on the Metacritic scores but instead of a re-interpretation of the actual content of the Metacritic reviews. To quote the Loudwire article:

"The list of negative words was obtained from the most common bad reviews and the tally was derived from the amount of times those words were used in reviews. The proportion of user reviews that were negative were calculated using the formula of (number of negative reviews + 0.5 * number of mixed reviews) / total number of reviews, per Top Rated Casinos methodology."

Here's the actual spreadsheet:

[4]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nBd_7AFnsKks85rUs6b8pvt6j9VJY9fQ/edit#gid=272192358

"negative words per review" - give me a break! What does that even mean? What happens if a "negative word" is part of the review but in relation with a different act? What happens if a review is clearly negative but uses "negative words" that are sorta unique? What happens if a review uses "positive words" but sarcastically? The whole premise is flawed on so many levels.

"Loudwire" itself correctly notes that the album has a 68 "Metascore" which means "Generally favorable reviews" and a 4.8 (now 4.7) user score - both of which are not even in the "bad" territory. To get from there to "worst" is quite something.

Or to bring a different perspective to it: Limp Bizkit's "Results May Vary" from 2003 has a Metascore of 33 and a User Score of 4.2 - and this doesn't even make the list (if I'm reading the linked Excel file correctly).

The whole Loudwire article seems to report on that "Top Rated Casinos" ranking more like a curiosity. I mean, they actually rated music genres from best to worst based on the same methodology as well...

2003:D4:DF12:6721:6512:9AE0:D608:2B55 (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The article documents music being considered "the worst" in some capacity. The capacity here is "worst rock album of the 2020s so far". I didn't write it, and I'm not particularly defending it, just explaining it to people who don't seem to be trying very hard to understand for themselves. It's a weak entry. If there's no substantial opposition, it can be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

What rubs me the wrong way about the inclusion is that it is in fact NOT based on critical reviews but on a brainfart by "Top Rated Casinos": "Let's find a way to re-rate Metacritic's existing reviews by looking for certain words in them". That's a typ of automated second-guessing that is - for me - hard to take serious.

So yes, I would suggest removal.

2003:D4:DF06:9A26:B4EA:BB14:31B6:A5F (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Bad Lyrics = Bad Music?

Should music with the "worst lyrics" be counted as the same thing as "worst song of all time"? "Life" by Des'ree is a perfectly fine song devoid of those lyrics, and the entry makes no mention of the song itself being bad, just the lyrics. If bad lyrics are enough to make a song just as bad, then where's Take the Money and Run? 24.226.109.252 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Entries require reliable sources to directly call a song/album "the worst" in some capacity to make the list, and then any commentary must come from them too, because Wikipedia has to follow WP:V. So if it's not on the list, it probably means no one has found a reliable source that has made such statements yet. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

How does a page like this even qualify to be on Wikipedia?

Just a collection of highly subjective opinions. Vote for immediate deletion. 95.33.127.106 (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's survived six separate deletion discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedians no longer care about the mission of Wikipedia, and they just want to upload garbage fan material. 2607:FB91:DAF:75E:C1BE:C94A:63BE:4BBE (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The article was created in 2005, the same year it survived its first deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 11:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Subjective opinions are in fact very much within the purview of Wikipedia. We document and report the subjective opinions of professional critics, politicians, scientists and all manner of notable people, publications and institutions. Popcornfud (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It is still unclear to me what's the actual purpose of this article.

Are we documenting that critics sometimes say very stupid things? That they write "hit pieces" or that they sometimes just want to stir s*it? That there's always at least one person who utterly dislikes stuff that other people kinda like (or at least not hate)?

In this case the article should probably renamed as such. The current title "... considered the worst" implies to me a more generalized viewpoint. I also find the lead-in somewhat problematic: "This list consists of albums or songs that have been considered the worst music ever made by various combinations of music critics, television broadcasters (such as MTV and VH1), radio stations, composers and public polls." I'm not a native speaker, but "various combinations" suggests to me that each entry should have been rated "the worst" by more than one source - yet many entries rely on one single source (which leads to the problem mentioned above: there's always at least one person...).

The quality of the sources is also problematic in my viewpoint: Some are very well written to point out why something is "musically/artistically bad" while others are completely void of such things (this is of course normal for polls but shouldn't be the case for critics). Compare for example the sources for "Big Yellow Taxi" and "Nookie".

Without a doubt the article contains some useful information (songs and records that have a more general negative reception) but a number of entries feel out of place to me. 2003:D4:DF4B:8F99:412A:B8CE:55B3:5B37 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't over think it - the list documents songs/albums considered the worst in some capacity, by outlets Wikipedia seems reliable. Then there's generally come commentary on why it was so poorly received. That's...it. It's certainly not perfect, but that doesn't mean delete, it means fix it. Feel free to propose constructive suggestions for adding/removing/tweaking entries.

As I've said over the years, one of the main issues with the article is the lack of sustained, neutral interest in the article on a whole by editors. Most people either come in and complain that it's "outrageous" that a loved/hated entry is/isn't on the list, and then move on pretty quickly. No one stays to write the article. Which is why it reads more like a hodgepodge of inconsistent entries than a more cohesive article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely WILL overthink this, being German and all that...

Just for the record, I was the person behind many of the edits done about 5 years ago (May 2018). While I personally see a general problem with this type of article I agree that edits are helpful here. Some of the additions in the last few years are IMO problematic (Green Day, Limp Bizkit) because the sources are quite weak and (as I wrote above) it's just a single source. 2003:D4:DF4B:8F99:640D:8518:EEDA:6B39 (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you'd introduce yourself before I attempt to get you up to speed on things. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I could have introduced myself before (BTW: That Green Day discussion below is also me.); nonetheless I still don't "get" the purpose of the article. Is it primarily about the music or about the critics? If it is about the music: Why focus on "the worst"? What about things that are not even considered to be music anymore? Music criticism (and sadly professional musicians as well) have a long tradition labeling things as "non-music" or "un-music".

As it stands right now the article feels strangely "gossipy" in a number of places while others give at least a reasoning.

The "MacArthur Park" entry is IMO a good example why the article feels so weird to me (and that's not criticism of your role; it's a quite positive example): So a poll by Dave Barry singled it out as the "worst overall song" and "worst lyrics" despite it having been a hit two times and being critically acclaimed. What's the takeaway here? If it really was that bad of a song I would expect it to appear rather high in other polls - but in the cases I checked it doesn't. So again: What can we learn from this? That such polls are essentially meaningless?

This is just one example. I believe an earlier version of this article contained a rather lengthy introduction actually discussing this whole problem (that there is very little agreement what is considered "the worst" and that even the percentage of the winner in polls is often very small since everyone has a different idea what is "the worst"). I actually liked that.

2003:D4:DF19:E632:7804:90F8:10D3:7259 (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

For a moment I thought you were TAWT or another editor caught up in the Sgt. Pepper dispute, but I realized that happened after. Carry on. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2023

Per discussion further above I propose the removal of the "Father of all Motherfuckers, Green Day" entry. 2003:D4:DF19:E636:C914:3596:F413:6484 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done casualdejekyll 15:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Nookie, Limp Bizkit

I propose removal. It's just a single source, and the list is highly controversial (it includes quite a number of songs considered classics). It's not clear to me if this is "s*it stirring" and/or for clickbait purposes. The commentary for each song on the list is either extremely exaggerated or intentionally very tongue-in-cheek.

Right now the quote in the entry reads 'Buzzfeed contributor Ryan Broderick said that "It should be against the law to be Fred Durst."' - and that is all he wrote. Something about the music itself would have been nice/appropriate, I think.

That all this is (for one reason or another) not really to be taken seriously shows the commentary for entry 7 on that list (Styx - Come Sail Away): "Styx's song "Come Sail Away" is so famously horrible that children grow up knowing about it's terribleness before even hearing the actual song. It's historical fact." 2003:D4:DF25:B907:491F:C391:1D17:D47B (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The Adventures of MC Skat Kat and the Stray Mob, Paula Abdul

I propose removal. Just a single source, and calling it the least essential album is a far cry from calling it "the worst".

The inclusion is also insofar almost funny as the source notes that it is "not a list of the decade's worst albums".

2003:D4:DF31:2D60:55A1:4691:ED3:D921 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"You're Beautiful", James Blunt

I'd suggest thinning out the sources. "most irritating song" isn't "worst song"; and the linked source for this is extremely unspecific: "according to a global online poll by a U.K.-based firm."

The Spike source redirects for some odd reason to the Yellowstone channel on Youtube.

The heavy.com source is also no longer accessible.

2003:D4:DF14:3119:60B8:864E:7DED:CD63 (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Opposed. Irritating is clearly a form of "the worst". This is hair splitting. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK "irritating" can have different meanings. A good song can be overplayed which can make it "irritating" without the song becoming "bad" in itself. Why not stick to the sources that call it outright "the worst"?

2003:D4:DF14:3119:AD38:6656:B1AD:D6A1 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Because that's obviously not the intent of the source when you read it. They'd use a term like "earworm" if they meant that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"James Blunt isn't the obvious choice, but any song that is No. 1 for so long does start to get annoying," said pollster John Sewell.

The explanation sounds more "overplayed" to me.

2003:D4:DF14:3119:AD38:6656:B1AD:D6A1 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"Thong song" and a more general question about polls

Currently reads: "Thong Song" placed first in a St. Paul Pioneer Press reader poll to determine the worst song in history.

Not all polls are created equally, though. In this particular case it was a "March Madness" style bracket - meaning that the songs from which to choose were already preselected by the source and it was guaranteed that one of them would be labeled "the worst".

For me this is - in general - problematic. It probably could be argued that the number of entries to choose from is large enough to still make this a meaningful poll - but that's a slippery slope. Where would we draw the line? 5 entries? 10 entries?

I also understand that it is hard to impossible to find out how a certain poll was conducted (whether it was an open poll or one with preselected entries).

Ideas? Suggestions? 2003:D4:DF3B:9E52:31D0:7B51:F2AB:749 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Father of All Motherfuckers, Green Day

Not again. I still don't consider the inclusion as justified, in light of the fact that the "worse" rated entries are not even mentioned here.

But hey, since this whole wiki entry deals with music considered the worst we should perhaps also include the information that this "study" also rates Hip Hop in general as the worst music. Good luck with that. 93.225.123.164 (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The prior discussion had so little participation that it didn't so much come to a consensus as much as it ended with a "it can be removed as long as no one objects to its removal". Looks like someone objected in the end, so it's time for you to hash it out with them to come to a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Here are again my objections against the inclusion:

- Even when taking the whole thing seriously the Green Day album would be an obvious example of cherrypicking since Loudwire correctly reports that other albums were rated "worse" (and those were also mentioned in the Loudwire article). Focussing on the worst rated rock album reeks somewhat.

- Even when taking the whole thing seriously it should at least be mentioned that the "study" was done by an online casino - not by musicologists or music critics.

- If we would include the "Hip Hop is the worst music" finding of the "study" it would make the whole thing look ridiculous - and rightfully so. So why include other findings?

- and lastly "considered the worst" should be reserved for people and not for algorithms.

93.225.123.164 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

I wanna edit this page because dance monkey is a song that considered the worst Shipwreckipedia (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This isn't how edit requests work. You're supposed to submit information (and a reliable source) you want to add to the article, and other editors will review and decide if it's appropriate to add. Sergecross73 msg me 11:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

---

List of music considered the worst → List of popular music considered the worst – Given that the scope of the article has just been changed (thus resolving the issue of recentism), the title should be changed accordingly. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, a single editor added the term "popular music" to the lead. Nothing else changed. I really wish you'd just calm down and hold a regular discussion on what you think this articles scope and name should be. Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I am already calm. I added a {{recentism}} tag to the article. Ringerfan23 removed the tag, later arguing that the scope of the article was clearly (recent) popular music, not music as a whole. That user also amended the lead to clarify this. I realized that this made more sense, and changed the title of the article accordingly. You reverted my move, saying Reverting undiscussed move. Please move to the talk page rather than all this back and forth. Okay, let's discuss it here. This is the correct process for considering the naming of an article, it is unclear what kind of discussion you want, or what kind all this back and forth was. I only moved the article once.

So let's discuss it here. Do you support, oppose, or have anything to say about the proposed move itself? Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously oppose. What needed to happen was a discussion on the talk page about the appropriateness of the tag, not a renaming of the entire article due to an editor's tweak of the prose. Theres multiple reasons, but Mr. swordfish says below is very true. Your proposed version using the word "popular" has unintended consequences - it makes it sound like popularity is a factor on inclusion criteria, and it's not. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The scope is clearly, de facto, popular (i.e., post-1920s) music. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"Popular" has too many meanings in the world of music. It's absolutely not the answer here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then let's say recent music. Or come to some other compromise. We can discuss this issue. Please do. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"Recent" isn't ideal either - it's too subjective. We've got to get away from words with subjective or multiple meanings. Or just add one of those tags that remind the reader that it's incomplete/work-in-progress/etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Were The Shaggs ever "popular"? Was "Metal Machine Music" ever popular?

There are many other examples, but it seems to me that we have our answer already. And that a snow close is in order. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

[And I could be completely wrong here, please correct me if I am]

it’s my understanding that “popular music” refers to non-classical music released post-1920 or so, generally music that’s in the popular culture. The article doesn’t cover all music, as there’s thousands of years worth of music that isn’t ranked & analyzed by critics. The intro could be expanded to mention something about the role of music critics in history , perhaps a more direct line about classical pieces with unruly crowd reception (linked in see also) & mentioning the internet w/ sites like metacritic factoring into public discussion. I don’t know if an article that covers events starting 60 years ago could be considered a victim of “recentism”. ~~ RF23 (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That's perhaps one definition of "popular music", but not the only one.

Agree that the entries in this article do not reflect the long history of music criticism or music history, or even music outside of western "popular culture", and none of them are about "classical" music. But if we could find reliable sources of earlier examples, or ones from "classical" music, or whatever, they would be ripe candidates for inclusion. IOW, the criteria for inclusion is not limited to "non-classical music released post-1920" it's just that we don't have examples that would violate that artificial limit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

There's the very entertaining "Lexicon of musical invective" by Nicolas Slonimsky which collects very harsh critical opinions from the 20th century back to Beethoven (I think, I'm not at home right now), including stuff like "non-music", "can't be called music" and so on. Without a doubt this could be mined for the purpose of this entry.

However this (once again) poses - for me - the question what this entry is really about: music or critics. That critics sometimes write outrageous stuff is pretty much a given (and let me not even get started on public polls).

80.153.156.221 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with RF23's definition of popular music ("non-classical music released post-1920 or so, generally music that's in the popular culture"). That generally fits with the definitions given by:

• Grove Music Online – "A term used widely in everyday discourse, generally to refer to types of music that are considered to be of lower value and complexity than art music, and to be readily accessible to large numbers of musically uneducated listeners rather than to an élite. It is, however, one of the most difficult terms to define precisely." (See doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.43179.)
• Encyclopedia Britannica – ("any commercially oriented music principally intended to be received and appreciated by a wide audience, generally in literate, technologically advanced societies dominated by urban culture. Unlike traditional folk music, popular music is written by known individuals, usually professionals, and does not evolve through the process of oral transmission." Link).
• and the currently existing popular music Wikipedia article. You get the idea

For the purpose of this article's scope, I think it'd be useful to specify "popular music" in the title. As it stands, the article only touches in passing on art music (which includes all of what is generally referred to as "classical" music in Western and non-Western traditions) and traditional folk music. Note also that what gets called "popular music" ≠ what gets called "pop music"; the latter is still a big tent, but it's one that describes a more recent (post-1950s) subset of popular music (which in the modern sense of the word is often traced to the commercial advent of Tin Pan Alley in the late 19th century). Popular music doesn't have to have popular or commercial appeal per se to be popular music. Expanding the article to include comprehensive examples of critically definitive examples of "the worst" from the realms of classical music and/or various folk traditions (and/or whatever else exists under the sun) would take some nontrivial research and writing, assuming that's even a feasible/worthwhile endeavor in the first place.

At the end of the day, genre definitions and demarcations are inherently squishy and imprecise. There's lots of overlap and gray area and disagreement, and no genre bounding is "perfect" or definitive for all time and all purposes. Grove also tells us: "Another common approach is to link popularity with means of dissemination, and particularly with the development and role of mass media. It is true that the history of popular music is intimately connected with the technologies of mass distribution (print, recording, radio, film, etc.); yet a piece that could be described as ‘popular music’ does not cease to be so when it is performed live in public, or even strummed in the amateur’s home, and conversely it is clear that all sorts of music, from folk to avant garde, are subject to mass mediation." But even if we stretch the inherent vagueness of genre as far as it'll go—"what even is music, anyway?"—this "worst" article is still mostly rooted in sources written as "rock journalism", broadly speaking. Adding "popular" to the title limits he context and scope so that this doesn't seem like an overly confident declaration that it is now, or could ever be, comprehensive for all forms of music.

In the "Others" section of this article, it says: "Classical music media has run fewer 'worst-ever' lists than have been produced for pop music, either for composers or individual pieces. There have been articles on the worst recorded versions (including those of Florence Foster Jenkins)^[180] and the worst classical album covers.^[181]" Out of curiosity, does anyone think there's realistic potential for a "list of classical music considered the worst" anytime soon? Nicolas Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective (1953), as mentioned above by 80.153.156.221, might be a fun and probably worthwhile subject for an article in its own right.

Lastly just wanna say that as far as I'm concerned, the current revision of the actual article text itself is good and doesn't suffer from any glaring, tag-worthy problems. It's got a definite internal scope, follows a neutral POV rooted in reliable sources, and overall it's about as reasonably "complete" as one would hope. Imo, the exact phrasing of the title is mostly an issue of semantics. Worthwhile semantics, but semantics nonetheless. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 10:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

i don't agree, all this type of articles have just 1 structure

List of films considered the best

List of video games considered the best

List of films considered the worst

music must be plural (musics)

and content of articles must be improve to just considered worst musics of all time, rather than be popular or not, because poupular is subjective and causing Wikipedia

Edit warring

Hakimehsasani (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand, I'm also against adding "popular", but the plural "Musics" is not typically used in the English language. That's definitely not the answer here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

why typically dont used? what you mean? Hakimehsasani (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The plural form of "music" is still just "music". Some words are like that in the English language. Sergecross73 msg me 11:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

but Wiktionary says this:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/musics

however thank you Hakimehsasani (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, that wiktionary entry has no quotations and cannot be verified. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that...but I don't think it's correct. The term "musics" would generally be seen as awkward to native English speakers. Even if it's not outright wrong by some chance, it's still not common usage, and certainly not the issue here, or something that would require fixing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I imagine it is incorrect because the noun "music" is uncountable, like "water". Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. Conceptually, the term "mass noun" seems to explain the concept in a general sense. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.