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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

also tagging a bunch of albums that deserve a spot on the list:
If theres any others ill throw them up Chchcheckit (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Alright, well until there's any well functioning inclusion criteria created, I'm squarely against. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2022

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)[reply]

Categories