Mainstream Music

[kommisar]

wait till dubstep becomes a sellout

[Shikari]

With Magnetic Man, it already is.

[Aldentron]

I've been attending a d.i.y. punk-rock venue for 5 years now, and am now a volunteer/booking agent there. I get to chose bands to play certain shows, invite touring bands to play, and etc. Nobody at our space (www.1919hemphill.org) gets paid. None of the local bands get paid. The money is split evenly between the space to pay the bills and stay open, and the touring bands to pay for gas so they can get to the next stop on their tour.

We charge $6 at the door. No more, no less, no matter what. We've been open for 8 years and we're still going strong. There are more places like this around the United States, in big cities and small towns alike.

The way I see it, anything that isn't d.i.y. is mainstream. Any band that has had funding from a record label to put out their next release is mainstream. Any band that plays at House of Blues is mainstream. Any band that plays at a concert where actual profit is made is mainstream.

The profit from a band's t-shirt goes to the materials used to make the shirt and any future batches of shirts, gas money, and instrument costs. The profit from a band's album goes to the materials used to make the album and any future albums, gas money, and instrument costs. It's simple. BEING A MUSICIAN DOES NOT PAY THE BILLS.

Now about the mainstream: The state of the music industry is regressing to what it was back in the old days of opera houses and music halls. Artists don't make any money off their recordings. Back then, there was no way to record. New-age musicians have grown accustomed to the fact that they will not make money on their recordings and have adapted, ushering in the indie scene. The indie scene is largely based on live performances. Albums are sold for $5-$10 directly from the artist, which is significantly less than the $12-$18 you would pay at the mall's CD store several years ago.

I've heard the argument before that an artist that allows you to download their music for free will reach more people than an artist that doesn't, making them more successful.

The record industry is losing money and it is becoming more apparent every day that their case is not worth defending.

Edit: As for dubstep, it always has been a sellout genre. When producers noticed that 1/10 cars on the road is blasting enormous amounts of bass, it became obvious that heavy bass lines (found in Drum n Bass and rap) and pop-sensation remixes would bring a great amount of profit.

[midnghtraver]

Originally Posted by kommisar

wait till dubstep becomes a sellout

Theres this one artist that rhymes with plux favilion

Originally Posted by Aldentron

The way I see it, anything that isn't d.i.y. is mainstream. Any band that has had funding from a record label to put out their next release is mainstream. Any band that plays at House of Blues is mainstream. Any band that plays at a concert where actual profit is made is mainstream.

Don't you think thats a bit harsh? I have no other way to fund my music production other than getting money for holidays and little jobs I do here and there. It would do wonders for a record label to fund me to continue making music, but even with that said i'd still only have like 50 fans, and my website would still only get -120 hits on a good day. Would I be considered mainstream?

[who_cares973]

apparently none of you have every partied to lil jon

SHOTS SHOTS SHOTS SHOTS

[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)

[midnghtraver]

O.o welcome to FFR.

I'll respond to this later.

[who_cares973]

awesome first post

[customstuff]

Originally Posted by who_cares973

awesome first post

CT mod in the future.

[boibomb]

Originally Posted by midnghtraver

Theres this one artist that rhymes with plux favilion



Don't you think thats a bit harsh? I have no other way to fund my music production other than getting money for holidays and little jobs I do here and there. It would do wonders for a record label to fund me to continue making music, but even with that said i'd still only have like 50 fans, and my website would still only get -120 hits on a good day. Would I be considered mainstream?

Dont you talk bad about Flux P and Doctor P. I bought starscape tickets just for them and Bassnectar. Mainstream is just peoples way of saying "Its to popular and I dont wanna be the same as everyone else" so they diss on it even though they listened to it. Yes, coming out of the wood work is alot of Not Good Dubstep producers but if your a true fan you will find the good. I like skism,skrillex,UKF,excision,Porter Robinson,Bare and alot of other Dubbers. I like all EDM(Electronic Dance Music,And yes you can dance to Dubstep).

[midnghtraver]

Originally Posted by boibomb

Dont you talk bad about Flux P and Doctor P. I bought starscape tickets just for them and Bassnectar. Mainstream is just peoples way of saying "Its to popular and I dont wanna be the same as everyone else" so they diss on it even though they listened to it. Yes, coming out of the wood work is alot of Not Good Dubstep producers but if your a true fan you will find the good. I like skism,skrillex,UKF,excision,Porter Robinson,Bare and alot of other Dubbers. I like all EDM(Electronic Dance Music,And yes you can dance to Dubstep).

Not a producer.

And Mainstream is NOT just peoples way of saying "its too popular and I don't wanna be the same as everyone else" read the OP (Specifically the artist statement).

[Aldentron]

Originally Posted by midnghtraver

I have no other way to fund my music production other than getting money for holidays and little jobs I do here and there.

Have you tried playing live?

Originally Posted by midnghtraver

It would do wonders for a record label to fund me to continue making music, but even with that said i'd still only have like 50 fans, and my website would still only get -120 hits on a good day. Would I be considered mainstream?

Have you tried making an amateur recording of your music or a live performance?

Yes, you sacrifice sound quality when you do D.I.Y. recordings. But if it's good music, it will shine through the quality.

If you're wondering why you would only get -120 hits on a good day, it's because promotion is hard work. With the powerful tool of the internet, you can promote yourself as well as any record label could, you just have to actually do it.

Make yourself a tumblr, upload your poor-quality mp3s, tag them with their respective genres. People looking at said tags will listen to your music, if they enjoy it, they will reblog, and often add something nice to say. Maybe you'll garner enough of a following to go on a tour. Just keep in mind that not even record labels can make it happen over night.

[ffraxis]

Mainstream music is just there for the sakes of public appeal, commercialism, and its the most general way that people get into music in the first place.

Without mainstream music, what would people listen to, and how would the majority of the populace even get into music (counter-argument would be that bands promote themselves but with too much variety people are never quite satisfied, besides eventually bands would be promoting themselves by shelling out bucks and what not, hence creating a mainstream image, its almost inevitable) Besides debating musical taste is retarded: everyone likes something else.

My dad prefers pop, and that's okey dokey.

If anything mainstream music serves as the foundation where people can come together, then go in deeper.

Many people i grew up with started off with radio/mainstream and eventually split off to whatever they personally liked.

If anything be thankful people listen to the radio, be thankful that there are bands/people who are willing to sell themselves as a product for the sakes of entertainment. If it were not for these people, you wouldn't be here making this statement, this thread, you wouldn't be the same person.

[ddrxero64]

Originally Posted by kommisar

wait till dubstep becomes a sellout

Yea, it's already creeping into the money making side of mainstream. As skrillex does covers for more mainstream artists, and britney spears keeps stealing ideas, it'll reach that point soon enough.

[Cavernio]

Firstly, although there's clearly not another good way to refer to a mainstream artist, many mainstream artists are simply a face to someone else's producing. Those artists that were listed in the OP, I would hardly be surprised if the same producer(s) were being used. Secondly, in regards to indie performances, live performances are great and all, but if you're someone who doesn't even use a live instrument in their music, you can still create something not mainstream, and never really want to play a live show because there's nothing live about the music. Thirdly, by defining mainstream as unoriginal, you're bascially saying nonmainstream is, which means that you haven't thought about the psychology behind what people create as art and why they like it. IMO, mainstream music is just music that's just a little too 'old' sounding to really enjoy it, and it pulls from genres which I may, generally, not like at all. I mean, any music that I'd make right now and what I like now is heavily influenced from what I liked and what I've heard previously.

But overall, all the hate about mainstream is just you being an iconoclast. It really annoys me when someone says that they hate a song because it sounds the same too much, or is just like everything else, because if you actually listen to what they like to listen, someone who dislikes what they like could say the same thing about their own musical taste. But because you like it, it doesn't matter if it all sounds the same, because that sameness is still good to your ear.

[EAGAMES]

I want to make love to Katy Perry, but I hate her music.

[midnghtraver]

Originally Posted by EAGAMES

I want to make love to Katy Perry, but I hate her music.

http://sectramusic.com/2011/04/27/katy-perry-et-remix/

[EAGAMES]

Originally Posted by midnghtraver

http://sectramusic.com/2011/04/27/katy-perry-et-remix/

Pretty cool remix has a dubstep feel...

[midnghtraver]

Originally Posted by EAGAMES

Pretty cool remix has a dubstep feel...

I like the way katy perry sings but the rest of its just bad.

[EAGAMES]

Originally Posted by midnghtraver

I like the way katy perry sings but the rest of its just bad.

She has vocals and ET is an alright song... her only okay song imo. I love how on the radio What's My Name - Rihanna is played after every other sing since it was released. Pretty annoying...

oh f*** lady gaga alright