[Treia]

For the predictable and similar music structure, they have a purpose. It's what defines a genre, a sound, a mood, which are taken into consideration by the artist that best fits the idea they have for the song. There is nothing wrong with mainstream music doing this, and has been a practice far longer than modern music. We need these things to cling on to, and the more substantial and innovative bits shouldn't be the dominating factor of a song. If it becomes too weird or challenging, no one will want to hear it. We need familiar territory, then be sold the innovative idea once on the ride. Most of the time we don't even need an innovative idea for a great song. The Beatles' early career was based on nothing relatively innovative. Standard Mersey Beat numbers, based on American blues. If I had a dollar for every time they had a 12 Bar blues, or their middle-eight (bridge) in the subdominant key, boy I'd be rich. But even then, they did have novel ideas which made them strong songwriters, aside from being extremely charismatic and their conscious lyrics. Take the song P.S I Love You for example, one of the very first songs they ever written (since most of their songs, even in the Quarrymen days, were covers) had some interesting musical ideas (arguably equals their later years). Among these are the interesting use of the flat-VI and flat-VII chord on a D major progression. You really start to take notice the subliminal effect this subtle motion has on our musical subconscious as we start to become aware of the cadences it presents; they resolve deceptively, yet tenderly, in the verses, and provide a humbling realistic shyness that coyly plays hide-and-seek on your emotions, that otherwise belies the cookie-cutter-Valentine of the lyrical content.

With their success by appealing to such a great amount of audiences, they were able to expand their horizons, taking on the influence of the great Bob Dylan. This affected their music with more introverted and sarcastic songs (innovative elements at the time), and steered them towards more folksy instrumentation. This ultimately gave them more praise. Midway in their career, the psychedelic turn of 1966 can be contributed by two factors: The Beatles' massively influential Revolver (and the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds for the other side of the Pond), and the common practice of drugs, notably weed and the then-experimental LSD. As the Beatles were quickly becoming the most successful band ever, they were given exclusive access to the Abbey Road studio, and continued to progress to distance themselves from the traditional tropes of rock music, as seen in their last two albums, Rubber Soul and Revolver. This lead to what would be consider the greatest recording of all time,
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

In retrospect, one would wonder how would psychedelic music be so critically important in a time when music was more about marketing, and not a medium of fine arts. If it did then, why not now? The truth in this lies in the fact that music is only as important as the people making it. Music has traditional structures that make them successful (even as avant-garde Pepper might seem, it still contains very traditional elements). Artists are people, but they represent a reflection of their society of their generation (validating the Beatles' success post-psychedelic era). This is what makes them appealing. In a sense, they are leaders that liberate all our feelings of love, trepidation, glee, our beauties, and flaws. They are giants among common men, which can be said about anyone who's famous. There are two types of people in this world, common people, and famous people. The line between them is the exposure they have, and their influence on culture they have as a whole (the public eye, basically). So essentially, famous people are common people too, and that's why we're so intrigued by them.

Good music isn't on how one melody moves on to the next, or what instrument they use, but they do indeed help. Ultimately the best kind of music is the kind that comes from real artists that people can believe in, and seek to be relevant and important, social, political, and cultural, for anything else is bound to fade away.

As I was just elaborating, the best music isn't from great musicianship alone. It's about the human consciousness as a whole, and artists like Radiohead and Nirvana do that not by going mainstream, but making the greater mainstream go to them.

There will never be another Beatles, and that's not because they were so good, but because what makes an artist's music important and great is what it says about them and the state of people as a whole. Yeah, there are a lot of not-so great artists out now, and it does appear that mainstream is stagnating.

But going around and saying what makes Radiohead substantial over so-and-so, or Outkast is better than whoever isn't the way to go about it.

We listen to who we want because they speak to us, and make us feel important and relevant like them (not like the least common denominator). So not every artist out there needs to go nuts in India like the Beatles, become paranoid electronica in the spirit of Bjork (who was actually not weird in her early career) like Radiohead, or be all types of bat-sh*t crazy like The Mars Volta (who don't get a lot of critical praise). This is why a hip-hop (say, Beastie Boys?) hit that was meant to get you partying is no less significant than a Daft Punk hit, because they essentially have the same goal. Music is culture. The defining point that gives a song a marginal merit over the next is just how culturally significant it is, and even then its a trivial thing to be aware of.

Whether you like songs because they're mainstream, or the genre, or the sound, is all personal preference. That is entirely different than saying what is good and what is bad, since anything that is getting picked up on any radar makes it mainstream. Some figure this out their own. In my case, I went through Beatlemania. It's really changed my perspective on music, and made me even more open-minded than I already was, which speaks volumes. Now when I listen to something anthemic like Hey Jude, Imagine, or My Iron Lung, I know why it's vital and great. Now when I listen to something that showcases great songwriting like Heart of Glass, Kiss from a Rose, or Born This Way, I know why it's vital and what makes it great. Now when I listen to something that's infectious and real, like Ring of Fire, Now That We Found Love, or Dancing Queen, I know why it's vital and what makes it great. If I want something thought provoking, forward thinking, or unique, I know I can turn to Pink Floyd, Between the Buried and Me, Crystal Castles, or Tool.

Whether I like it, or dislike it, or care for mainstream isn't the issue. What I choose to listen to and why is something no one can take. But to discredit mainstream music is a strange statement that I never understood, because mainstream music covers such broad territories (yes, even "underground") and have done so much for music and people as a whole. I don't particularly like Katy Perry, as most of her contributions do little to stimulate music and culture. Though she does have good things about her too, like creating an identity for herself, and using universal themes in her songs. But do we hold her, or others like her, to fault "mainstream" music? Music must be a very dismal and bleak medium for anyone to feel that way. What do you expect to listen to? 18 minute long, recyclable, guitar solos? Shakespearean poetry for lyrics? With this way of thinking, anything will be a gimmick. Maybe Philip Glass is the only one doing it "right". Music is real, whether or not it's mainstream. Don't like this artist even if they are important for valid reasons? That's good, at least you're honest.

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
(Yes, I am that cheesy)