Artists whose work you hate seeing analyzed (because it is so often done poorly)

For example, watching the Kate Bush doc that's up on pitchfork now (which for the most part is awesome, besides how much they slag off The Dreaming) and occasionally some commentator will try and interpret the meaning of some song, and always from the perspective that Kate was writing in first person, and that the song is a representation of her personal beliefs or feelings. For many artists especially in the singer/songwriter mode I'm sure that's a fair way to go about discussing the work, but for someone like Kate Bush who is so often writing in character or using a persona or making a literary or cinematic reference or using some sort of distancing technique in the lyrics, it just seems wrong. I know that at some level all the songs go back to her as an author as she made them, but it irks me to no end to see people assume automatically that the voice in her songs is her (as if we could actually know that anyway -- not to get into some college lit criticism shit or anything) is to miss all of the craft and nuance that makes the work great to begin with!

To generalize the question so you can all jump in: What artist/group do you feel is constantly misinterpreted or on a broader scale who do you feel like the entire framework of discussion surrounding an artist is wrong/annoying/limiting/whatever?

This may not be an exact fit, but I'm constantly shocked by how many critics and even people I consider friends don't *get* Iggy & The Stooges. Most recent example by Luke Turner (d-bag from NME, decidedly not my friend), writing about Groening-curated ATP:

By contrast, The Stooges are the most conservative act here, indulging in a sludgy run through their 1973 album 'Raw Power.' Stooges gigs are now predictable affairs, your ticket price including a guarantee of Iggy dropping a saggy arse out of his jeans, getting audience members onstage and uttering a few 'motherfuckers.' Given that Mr Butlins would once have set up an exclusion zone to keep Mr Pop away from this family holiday camp, his descent into one of Groening's caricatures is a sad thing to witness.

there's a whole stream of singer/songwriters who are misinterpreted in the manner you state (eg aimee mann). i suppose it's logical because of the history of these kinds of artists, especially in the late 60s / early 70s. but it's still a little slack to assume that every song is "from the heart".

as for the kate bush special - i got really tired of those commentators very quickly.

Brian Eno — either simple-minded dismissal as "boring tripe" or as equally simple-minded overstatement placing him on a level with (or better than) Erik Satie/other visionaries of the fin de siècle.

The Stooges are the most conservative act here, indulging in a sludgy run through their 1973 album 'Raw Power.' Stooges gigs are now predictable affairs, your ticket price including a guarantee of Iggy dropping a saggy arse out of his jeans, getting audience members onstage and uttering a few 'motherfuckers.'

I don't see anything particularly wrong in either of these two sentences. There's a larger context implied with the "By contrast" I omitted, and the next sentence began with a joke that required more contextualization, but the idea that the Stooges are a nostalgia act catering to longtime fans is pretty inarguable, it seems to me. You could give them the benefit of the doubt to a fairly massive degree, and call The Weirdness a legit attempt to gain new fans, but I wouldn't.