Mainstream Music

[Fun]

@OP:


Honestly, I don't understand why people, in this day in age, make such a big deal about mainstream music. To be completely honest with you, most of the "mainstream" music you see are usually directed towards a younger crowd - a crowd of people who are not (YET) capable of forming a unique taste of music.

You have to think about the technological advancements we've made when considering something like mainstream music. Not too long ago, before the internet was prevalent amongst the general public, usually what you heard on TV was, more or less, all that you really had a choice of listening to. Now with the internet, more musicians have the possibility of being discovered. More musicians are capable of self-promotion without some giant record label assisting them. Before the internet was relevant, you never ran across people ranting about how bad mainstream music is.

I have such a wide variety in terms of taste of music. I listen to, and thoroughly enjoy everything from classical music, to rap, to dubstep, to classical rock, to folk, to jazz, to instrumental music, to culturally themed music (ie. Icelandic music, polish music, African music, japanese music). Some young people I know haven't yet developed a true understanding for what music is. Most people listen to a certain band as a way to ultimately fit a certain image. I don't do that. I listen to what makes me happy. My music taste is so personal and often times people become confused (to say the least) when they take a look-see through my iPod. Usually people who feel the need to boast to others or imply that they have a better sense of music are the ones who contribute to this problem.

The mainstream artists you mentioned: Lil' Wayne, Lady Gaga, Chris Brown, Rhianna, Katy Perry and so on; while these artists produce what most would consider "generic" music, it gives young people a place to start on their journey of music. How many people in their 30's do you know of that exclusively listen to mainstream music? Little to none. Mainstream music is no different than mainstream fashion. Young people are likely to be seen wearing things like Hollister, Abercrombie and Fitch, New Era, North Face, American Eagle etc.

Mainstream things give young people a foundation to begin as they grow older, they develop a more personal and unique sense of music.



In the end, I don't really see what good it does for someone to complain about it. As long as there's media, there will be mainstream music. The fact that you're aware of this is a good thing, I suppose, but arguing about it and pointing out how "bad" it is won't do you any good. The whole argument behind what's "good" and what's "bad" is, needless to say, completely subjective. Different music serves beneficial purposes depending on the situation. I'd gladly listen to one of Lil Wayne, or Lady Gaga's songs at a party - this isn't to say that I'd prefer the same when I'm on a subway ride across the city, in which case I'd prefer to listen to something like Explosions in the Sky, Radiohead, etc. It's all relative.


When it comes to this topic of debate, there's are two extremes and a medium, in my opinion.

On on of the extremes, you have like-minded people who all too often listen to what everyone else is listening to and very rarely have respect for those who have a unique or "deviant" sense of music.

On the other extreme, you have pretentious, elitist, music snobs who are so close-minded when it comes to music. To them, anything mainstream is worthless. They rarely even bother to give it a chance - and oftentimes INTENTIONALLY seek out to find/listen to musicians that very little people are aware of.

In the middle, you have what I would like to consider people who have a fundamental understanding for what music really is. These are people who understand the benefits of submerging themselves into both a mainstream music culture as well as a non-mainstream music culture. These are people who listen to certain music because of how it makes them feel, not how it makes them appear (to everyone else). These people embrace the diversity of everyone's music tastes and don't subject themselves to one or two genres of music exclusively.

Once people realize that there is no definitive answer to what "GREAT MUSIC" constitutes - there is no one genre to what the best music falls under, they will develop a true understanding for what music really is.

[Treia]

Originally Posted by Fun

The whole argument behind what's "good" and what's "bad" is, needless to say, completely subjective.

With all my psychotic esoteric ramblings, that's the one point point I was trying to color without just sticking it out in plain sight. I guess simplicity is indeed the supreme excellence, because that single sentence alone resonates more than I would of imagined. Thanks for adding it!

@3lijah:
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Whenever someone asks what I listen to, I am at a loss as to what to say. Do I answer with the general genres I occupy myself with? Do I answer the artists that I (personally) can't live without? I listen to anything and everything, so I just told myself I should answer with, "Music", because I listen to music, and not "whoever" or "so-and-so" because there are too many things for me to note and consider just to pick. But I'll back up your observation, because even I am biased to a certain type. It almost feels like I'm an acclaimed cuisine critic and historian, but have a passion for microwave food. I can't describe my love for Chinese traditional folk music. I can indulge in what makes classical music, or prog-rock/metal, or any artist for that matter, complex and have incredible musicianship. But there's this spiritual connection to Chinese traditional music that captivates me. It's more about culture, I think, because it transports me into a new state, and it's not about listening to "music", but more about "being" and "living" in that moment. I realized this because I can be immensely effected by their music that isn't melodic and/or harmonic. Most of their melodic/harmonic music comes from the instruments the guqin, xun, erhu, pipa, or voice (I love their work songs haha). But their strictly rhythmic music that are just chanting and percussion instruments, even if it's a droning lone cymbal, has the same power as their "beautiful" music. So maybe I can't even relate it to this thread, since it's more about an experience, rather than the conventional act of listening. When I first heard it (with a conscience mind), it felt like I've been hearing these sounds for a lifetime. Perhaps it's an imprint of one of my past lives haha

[midnghtraver]

Jesus. Are these guys alts? If not, you two should post more.

[MopeyJoe]

Originally Posted by Fun

You have to think about the technological advancements we've made when considering something like mainstream music. Not too long ago, before the internet was prevalent amongst the general public, usually what you heard on TV was, more or less, all that you really had a choice of listening to. Now with the internet, more musicians have the possibility of being discovered. More musicians are capable of self-promotion without some giant record label assisting them. Before the internet was relevant, you never ran across people ranting about how bad mainstream music is.

Maybe you need to brush up on your history skills. Back in the 1950's, when the teenagers were starting to stand out, a genre of music was starting to become quite popular amongst the teenagers - it was rock-and-roll. Now, just like today, people were complaining about how bad rock-and-roll was (much like today with rap). But you have to remember, there was no internet back then. And back then, people hardly listen to music on television - hell, not everyone had one back then either. So whatever they heard on the radio is what they had to listen to, yet they still heard this genre of music that was, at the time, controversial.

So what I'm saying is, you're wrong. People have ranted about mainstream music before internet was relevant. It was just a different style of music that was mainstream at the time.

[Litholia]

Originally Posted by midnghtraver

DISCLAIMER: Sorry for repeating myself A LOT. And being A little bias.

Mainstreamism.
And why it’s bad.

Lil’ Wayne, Lady Gaga, Chris Brown, Rhianna, Katy Perry, and Soulja Boy are all perfect examples of what mainstream music is. They all sound the same, and they all have similar lyrics. I’m not talking about a Katy Perry and Lil’ Wayne next to each other of course, but Lil’ Wayne and Soulja Boy could be the same “artist.” Their music sounds the same with that bassy kick landing on the same beats every time, and that annoying snare roll you always hear in their “transitions.” I put the word “artist” in quotations because it is very freely thrown around in the common day. It is very hard for me to call people like Lil’ Wayne and Chris Brown, “artists.” They are not coming up with anything new, and they are not doing anything that is original, they are going with what they know and they are copying (for lack of a better word) what everyone else is doing, making it (their “music”) mainstream. I am not just talking about music here. there is mainstream physical art (i.e. painting, drawing, etc...), mainstream fashion, mainstream television, and a bunch more. Mainstream art forms hinder creativity. When mainstream artists put in your head that what everything their doing is the right way to go, then the generation it pertains to will follow that, thus losing all creativity. The point I am trying to make here that mainstream art forms are in no way, beneficial. And the media is shoving mainstream art forms down peoples throats and its slowly killing creativity and hindering people who wish to stray away from the “norm.”



Artist Statement.
The Ass-Backwards Of Mainstream.

I made this one a picture because it would be impossible to send people the same message in words. In this photo you can see a boy standing there in cloths that you would generalise as over-worn, saying, “I’m A Follower.” then you can see a group of people behind him who all look the same saying, “I’m an individual.” What this is saying is that being an individual has become the new mainstream. The media and other people have put the idea in your heads that being an individual is the good thing to do, and so everyone then states that they are individuals, but since everyone is now an “individual,” individualism is no longer the unique thing to do, and thus it becomes mainstream. The “follower” is now the unique one since being a “follower” is not the “good” thing to do so everyone gravitates away from it. This picture is showing the other “use” of mainstream art forms. The definition of original is not what is common. But if there was no common there would be no original, so there must be a common for their to be a unique. What I am saying is that there needs to be mainstream art forms for there to be not mainstream art forms. Mainstream art forms are beneficial when used as a comparison to make not mainstream art forms look good, but mainstream art forms in themselves are not good things.


P.S. I contradict myself in the second article, 10 points if you can find it.

I don't think you have the true understanding of what mainstream really is, and to be really honest, I don't think you have a valid argument at all. You can't call people like Lil Wayne, and Chris Brown artist, because well lets be honest, you obviously don't like rap, or hip/hop. This being proven because you failed to provide an artist of the "mainstream" rock or country community.The word mainstream doesn't gauge the level of the artist ability to provide us as listeners with music, but rather ONLY shows how much the social media intertwines them with our everyday lives. This being proven because you listed all artist that are all currently being overplayed on the radio and MTV/BET. Thus making them mainstream, and not necessarily a bad artist.
Now, you compared Soulja Boy and Lil Wayne being the same "artist" because of their instrumental, instead of their lyrics. Well first off, Soulja Boy and Lil Wayne have far different types of instrumentals used in their albums. Take Soulja Boys recent song "Speakers Going Hammer"(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbGJCT3R154) for instance. This song just by listening to the first 10 seconds I can tell that there's two different types of "snares" in this beat, being and actual snare, and a clap which would be the snap sound. Then you have the hit sound during the hook, and then the "snare" part changes temporarily. This concept, of two snares, a base, and a hit is common in Soulja Boys music. Just listen to "Turn My Swag On" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRme0C2pmI) same concept.. Now if you actually listened to the lyrics of the song you'd notice that it's almost the opposite of what Lil Wayne raps about. Young Jeezy's new song Ballin' with Lil Wayne (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tYMAwN73Lw) is a completely different beat. Using a BOOM BOOM BAP type of beat. Meaning, you get two base hits, and a snare hit per measure, and sometimes you'll get that third 16th note right before a base hit. Then we have the "annoying snare roll" you were talking about. It's actually called a hi-hat. This being lots of 8th and 16th notes using one or more different hi-hats to create the "roll" effect.
This my friend is the difference. The second song i explained, (Ballin') is more of a dirty south beat, were-as soulja boy's speakers going hammer, is more of a west coast style beat. Hardly the same "artist" if you ask me.

Now lets get to probably one of the dumbest things I've read on the internet to date. You say

They are not coming up with anything new, and they are not doing anything that is original, they are going with what they know and they are copying (for lack of a better word) what everyone else is doing, making it (their “music”) mainstream.

. Okay, They are not coming up with anything new. Wiz Khalifa just released an album, being that it just released, it's new. Sure you can argue and say that it's not original, however Wiz Khalifa is one of the most original people in the world. His new album he just released was his FIRST album he ever released that was on a signed label. He has multiple albums. (Flight School, Cabin Fever, Kush and Orange Juice.. Ect.) all of which were done before he became "mainstream". Now because he is now a "mainstream" artist, does this mean he is not "original" anymore? I'll let you answer that. Then you say, they are going with what they know... When your doing what you know, and what you do best, your being original, am i not correct? So your pretty much contradicting your self bud. And then you proceed to make me laugh even more by saying, they're copying everyone else, by making their music mainstream. I said it before, and I'll repeat myself. The media is what makes a artist mainstream, not them.

That's just me defending music, sure i just talked about Hip-hop, but that's what this idiot decided to attack. I think you should learn more about music, and it's community, before you go attacking it on public forums. You might get sued, or worse, trolled. Your a dumbass, and that's sugar coating it for the sake of your virgin eyes.

[Litholia]

Originally Posted by Treia

I don't want make it sound like I'm a golden rule or exception, but I actually grew up on hip-hop, rap, and reggae. My parents weren't the most positive influence, or best they could be either. I never got the Birds and the Bees talk (I still don't know it, so I have to create my own way to teach my children, if that day comes). They never sat me down to teach me the repercussions of drugs, alcohol, and choices I make. They are heavy drinkers, and smokers (unfortunately). And, well, they never really invested in any of my interests. As you might of guess, I've been severely shorthanded by them, even to this day. I was born in 1990, and urban music was the only music I even considered listening to and liking, up to 2004. In late 2004 was when I actually started to consider other music, and even then, I thought rock and classical was for "pussies". I felt embarrassed when in mid-2005, that's when I started to really like other types of music that I never liked before, and felt like a hypocrite. So you do the math, in all my life, I haven't been listening to other types of music half as long as I have been listening to urban music.

Currently, I'm a fairly open minded, humbled, Hispanic individual. I celebrate all walks of life, and respect everyone, and receive them without bias or prejudice.

Hip-hop and Rap are integral to my music life, and dear to me, because they give me a sense of home (I mean, I grow up with it, how can I not?). But to use music as a scapegoat is sheepish, and pussyfoots from the real issue. You brought up the main issue, which is the community that we live in. I grew up in New Jersey (really close to the Jersey shore haha). I wouldn't doubt that if I lived three hours up, in New York, my upbringing might be totally different, even in a negative direction. As sad is it may seem for me to say, "Hey, living in New York means you're going to be a corrupted," but I'm only speaking about it in the sense that it is more realistically possible for it to occur there than elsewhere. I have a lot of friends and family from New York who don't even have a shred of the "hood" mentality, but we can't dismiss that urban life has its negative effects. It's important to note that there are no absolutes as to what really may or may not make a person "corrupt", like me growing up in New Jersey, should we consider Mark Chapman.

In regards to negative lifestyles, the connotation of bad neighborhoods and upbringing can be attributed to the lifestyles of the people who live there. But again, using music as the culprit is dead wrong. Not everyone is passionate about music. Some people listen to it just because it's there. Realizing this, who are we to say that music has a considerable effect on anybody knowing that not everyone really cares about music?

Music is a form of expression, and urban artists do express their hood lives, but they don't do it to commandeer our minds or body to take action in anything; that's solely our doing. Like Cop Killer, looking over the lyrics, or listening to the song, one might get the impression that cops are bad people, the enemy, and we must do away with them. To people in tuned with music, they would understand that it wasn't a song to say let's kill cops, because it was a response to the unjustified brutalities of the 90's, but the artists' social commentary and metaphysical concept to this issue that's more relevant as a statement then as it is now. But what about the people who are indifferent to music?

If an artist is writing about the hood life, are they to blame for lives people live? What people listen to, how they listen to it, where they hear the music, is totally out of the artists' control. Sure, they have a responsibility for the music that they write, like any action we commit, but that's what makes them an artist. If not, we might as well program robots to write music. The state of a neighborhood is governed more by the people who live there, and not the music that just so happens to be popular in that area. Public Enemy's "Fight the Power" is the only song I can honestly say was relatively created to incite a mental movement and reaction in the listener. I feel that some of the lyrics were a bit abrasive, but these challenging expressions of truth are necessary to grow from.

If we become corrupt individuals, we as people are to blame. People who force on us negative lifestyle choices, like violence, and theft. People who force on us negative and unrewarding ways of thinking. We are a product of what we take in from the world. We might not have a choice of where we live, and some of us have it so hard that there is no easy escape. Yes, music does define a culture, but plays no major role in who we are and what we do. Ultimately, we have full control and final say of who we are, and what we do, as our surroundings is ours to discretion their potency to us. Corruption is us as a person who tries to be like other people, perhaps from fear, or for our ill-perceived notion of "success". People who can help or guide others from growing up corrupted like this, but don't, are more to blame than music, because I've yet to see anyone toting music like the Bible. Blaming, and taking away music isn't the solution, because another art form will be in its place, because art is everywhere and will always be everywhere, regardless the type or demographic. If music's purpose was to really dictate our lives like "Think this way. Live this way. Express yourself this way. This is the truth, and the only truth," wouldn't you think we'd all have the same opinions and beliefs?

If I was listening to Beethoven on my iPod, and I walked passed you, would you instinctively know all of this about me? Let's say scenario A doesn't happen. Instead, what if I walked passed you one day, and I had the Marshall Mathers LP in my headphones, would you tell me to stop listening to it, and say I'm being corrupted?
(yes, these are rhetorical questions)

I kept myself from reading any other post before i poste to keep my post as un-biased as possible. But good shit, you should be an educator.
I'm sure im telling you something you've probably heard before, but don't let your parents lack of presence change you as a person, though im almost certain you've already acknowledged that, and triumphed.

[Mythix]

Lil' Wayne has some serious UNMAINSTREAM albums, whatever album that pick the world up thing is on is completely against everything.
But it only made like 1/1000 of his other crap, so why care about integrity or however that's spelt/spelled.

[Treia]

Thanks for your words, Litholia!

You're right, I didn't let my parent influence me negatively. Yes, they way the raised me does give a bad taste in my mouth, and usually the mouths of people who I tell the story, but I love my parents more than anything. Instead of taking their influence in the easy (negative) way as a kid, I took the cards I've been dealt and made those influence me positively.

The main message I was trying to get across is that we all have influences, and I wasn't trying to neuter music as influence-less (because that's not possible). However, to say someone is the way they are and why they do what they do ("corrupted") because of music doesn't seem logical. I never made my choices, or geared my personality, to reflect the music I listen to. I just don't see why anyone would say, "I do this because of the music I listen to," or "I am this way for the music I want to listen to," so to say it contributes isn't something I'm entirely comprehending. If we had a life couch or were in therapy, does the therapist ask what music we listen to that might diagnose our personality issues? I don't even think that would be a professional diagnosis. Since there are people who are indifferent to music, it's not a legitimate source of "corruption". Also, when I brought up Mark Chapman, not everyone listens to rap, so how would a therapist suggest the "right" music for someone to correct "corruption"? Will he suggest "good" music? Therapists are the only one who know good music? Is the music you're listening to responsible why you're a good person ( does your music really tell you to be the positive and respectable individual you may be)? If so, should everyone listen to what you're listening to? This is relevant to the topic because it is all about mainstream music, and hip-hop/rap (a very mainstream format) was the leading music form in my life. Discussing the psychological and sociological implications of hip-hop/rap is just as relevant what makes it good/bad since it is a recognized art form and an immediate mainstream genre.

Another thing to notice is that not everyone is the way they are forever. To say that we're identical to the person we were years ago doesn't seem very possible. I believe people can grow and change, such as their interests, type of people they like (as friends, or romantically), and even their music interests. Fractions of ourselves grow and change sometimes on a daily basis, and sometimes more over the long-term.

I'm not saying that everyone will eventually be perfect, respectful, and grateful people. There are criminals, and will always will be criminals. But to say someone is doing it right by being respectful now doesn't mean they're certainly not going to be a criminal or do something that people think is a very negative choice for them in the future (happy people commit suicide). Same thing goes for someone who is "corrupted" in the here and now.

[Cavernio]

"On the other extreme, you have pretentious, elitist, music snobs who are so close-minded when it comes to music. To them, anything mainstream is worthless. They rarely even bother to give it a chance - and oftentimes INTENTIONALLY seek out to find/listen to musicians that very little people are aware of."

Not 'giving mainstream music a chance' isn't necessarily bad. Firstly, even me when I'm being a hermit, I still manage to get bombarded by mainstream music. I hear it, ergo I am forced to give it a chance. Secondly, even if I like it, a lot of music grows old. I'm certain this happens to everyone. To me, the more I hear the song is strongly related to how soon it will get 'old' to my ears. This means that even if I like mainstream music, it has a good chance of growing old without me ever intentionally listening to it. Lastly, if people never sought out non-mainstream music purposefully, well, we'd have no new mainstream music.

On an aside, I think that beyond all the cultural aspect of music, I really think you will rarely have a mainstream piece of music not be catchy. If we could somehow define 'catchiness', I think we would also find that we would find that the catchiest songs also get old the quickest. I did read a psychology study done in the 1920's regarding how much enjoyment people got out of classical versus pop (the study talked about it as pop, but they did refer to it as jazz at some points.) I don't remember the details, but after each listen to either classical or pop song(s), which I'm presuming the participants hadn't heard at all before, they rated how much they liked it. The peak of enjoyment to the jazz song happened after only a few listens, while the very last time the people heard the classical song was the most enoyment they had of it, implying that even further listens would make them like it more.

[Without A Contraceptive]

lil b the based god is the greatest artist of all time

[Treia]

Thank god it wasn't Viagra.

I have enough supplies of that already . . . .

[SocoNhydro420]

Yeah i dont dig any mainstream at all, i stick to my metal and classic rock

[dAnceguy117]

Treia, I just finished reading through your posts. you're an inspiration. *standing ovation*

great post made by Fun as well. this topic sure is interesting. thanks for spurring the discussion, midnightraver. I'll just address a couple points that really caught my attention:

Originally Posted by MopeyJoe

Maybe you need to brush up on your history skills. Back in the 1950's, when the teenagers were starting to stand out, a genre of music was starting to become quite popular amongst the teenagers - it was rock-and-roll. Now, just like today, people were complaining about how bad rock-and-roll was (much like today with rap). But you have to remember, there was no internet back then. And back then, people hardly listen to music on television - hell, not everyone had one back then either. So whatever they heard on the radio is what they had to listen to, yet they still heard this genre of music that was, at the time, controversial.

So what I'm saying is, you're wrong. People have ranted about mainstream music before internet was relevant. It was just a different style of music that was mainstream at the time.

Joe, I think you misunderstood the last bit of the quote from Fun. the type of "bad" you're talking about in the historical example is of the "this heathen music will corrupt our youth!" variety. Fun is referring to when people say things like "everything on the radio is trash." the latter case deals with so-called music quality.

another possible misunderstanding is exactly how people complain about mainstream music. in past decades, some people drew heavy criticism to certain music that was popular at the time. this criticism rarely led to claims that all popular music was horrible compared to other music that was being listened to by far fewer people.

in short, the belief that popular music shouldn't even be given a chance has become far more prominent in recent years.

Originally Posted by Treia

However, to say someone is the way they are and why they do what they do ("corrupted") because of music doesn't seem logical. I never made my choices, or geared my personality, to reflect the music I listen to. I just don't see why anyone would say, "I do this because of the music I listen to," or "I am this way for the music I want to listen to," so to say it contributes isn't something I'm entirely comprehending.

I'll try to explain the way I understand this concept. some hip hop artists have a very, for lack of a better word, thuggish persona. a young, impressionable kid who idealizes one of these artists and soaks in all the lyrics might subconsciously attain certain notions. "sagging my pants will make me look cool" is harmless, but "I should be hard like those guys and carry a glock" is not.

I'm not going to say I truly endorse the idea, but I do think questionable content in media can have a negative impact on young people. I firmly believe that other factors are far more important for development, however. by the way, I happen to enjoy most hip hop myself

now for a different note. it seems to me that more and more "indie" acts have achieved mainstream popularity as of late. among the artists you can vote for on vh1's top 20 are Death Cab for Cutie, Kings of Leon, Mumford & Sons, and Two Door Cinema Club. what are everyone's thoughts on this trend? personally, I'm conflicted. I'm glad that more people will be exposed to different types of music, but I'm not looking forward to hearing some songs I would normally love over and over until they no longer seem special to me.

[Cavernio]

I find that popular indie music has yet to make the 'this will be played in every store you go into, and on half the music radio stations' route. I've noticed it being used more commercially, but I feel like I still have to make a conscious choice to listen to their music.

I agree with Treia in that no adult would do something because their fav music group does something, but kids and impressionable teens I think would.
Another thought that just occurred to me, is that there are some people who I feel won't listen to music from a certain group not because they are popular per se, but because they don't like the image of the group, or feel they are fake, and will not bother to critique the music separately. (Or perhaps its just those people giving themselves a reason beyond 'I don't like that music' to not listen to it, because they feel they have to justify their tastes somehow or something.)

[Treia]

Well, thank you, dAnceguy117!

Now I'm understanding that whole concept better. See, that's the type of response I was looking for. When MopeyJoe presented the idea, all he said was "I think it's a contributing factor" to bad behaviors or choices. He provides a stance, but nothing for me to change me mind. I'm all for meaningful discussions, and enjoy changing/expanding my mind, as long as the responses are thought-out, engaging, and with the least bit of credibility.

Most of the time, I don't have a clear stance, or make one. My philosophy in debates is that I have to convince myself first before I try to convince others, no matter how compelling the evidence I might have for either side. I do this because I like to see what both sides have to offer, and so I run into less situations where a piece of information or concept I haven't noticed appears, putting me at a disadvantage. I don't try to consider everything so I have a better chance of winning. I try to cover all aspects so that in case of these situations, I still have a shot in the debate, because I'm more about getting to the truth more than I am about winning, so getting pushed out of the debate because of my lack of resourceful thinking makes me feel like I just wasted effort.

I don't think I really had a stance or made one, according to the OP, but I only shared my thoughts because I think there's a large misconception about mainstream music. I see it happen everywhere. When I saw the thread title, I was like, "Oh no, don't tell me this is a thread on mainstream music being bad," and it was. I wouldn't have responded if this was a years ago, or even a few months ago. But it was the straw the broke the camel's back, so I felt I should try to stand up for mainstream music, because I think it's misconceived and gets a bad rap for no reason.

To be honest, I don't even think there is an argument in the OP. What I take from it is that the they try to make music some sort of accessory for themselves. Seeking individuality with something that somebody else made is kinda preposterous. There wasn't anything that provided a stimulating point on their end, but did set up the foundation of a good dialogue. However, since it's their post, I was hoping more participation from them, because the accompanying analogy doesn't qualify as a validating factor that can prove how mainstreamism (the proposed argument) is bad. What I identified from the analogy is it's more concerned about appearances. What we see creates an identity, and the more we see it, the less it is substantial. So, apparently, mainstream music is bad, and liking it is bad because it supports how mainstream music is hindering the real creativity of unheard artists, and creates an identity for ourselves (which it doesn't for either of these). I don't mind getting back on track to the topic expressed in the OP, so feel free (either the the original poster, or anyone else) to guide me through to what I'm not seeing.

I think before anyone can make a claim on mainstream music, they'll either need to have a fair understanding on the advancement of musical expression through the ages, or the economy of commercialism (as far as the topic in the thread is of concern). Before recording, music was an event. You had to make an effort to enjoy music. The experience included dressing up, paying money, then going and staying at a certain area at a certain time. But lo and behold, our technology advances, and music recording was created. Music was no longer transient. It's now this thing with durability, no different than limited edition trading cards. Now the accessibility of music has changed; how we listen to it, how we can listen to it, and it is a never changing performance that can exist far past the time the creator has left us. It shouldn't be a wonder how this greatly affects how it changed our point of view on music as a whole. If you can't understand the concept of how recording changed music and its value, then I can't possibly trust you know enough about commercialism or artistic expression. Sure, you could probably become a music exec to get your foot wet in the principles and effects of commercialism, but you'll ultimately appreciate mainstream music more, and understand its quality as music, and not some fashion trend. To get a better perspective for artistic expression (but on a more immediate scope, ie. here and now) you can become an artist. Writing music isn't hard to do. There a millions of artists out there, so it's safe to say that music isn't exclusive for people who exceed a threshold of intelligence, or other pre-requisites. So yeah, we can make music, but how many of us can make music A LOT of people will like or care to listen to? Music's immediacy and accessibility makes it a whole lot tougher to be something substantial for the greater populace because the average person has a global context of music, whereas before recording, you could only listen to the styling of your neighboring area. Try to be successful and vital before you say someone else's music isn't substantial, because even if it is (not substantial), that doesn't mean ALL of their music is substance-less or unrewarding (1-hit wonders, or coasters [people who "safe" music that plays to what's currently acceptable]).

With that above note, that sorta reflects with my thoughts on indie artists getting mainstream exposure. I'm actually glad. Maybe a few years ago, I would of thought it was lame, and wish it wasn't that way. But I would of probably never of heard of Mumford & Sons or Two Door Cinema Club (who actually were getting exposure almost 2 years ago, from World of Jenks) without the exposure they get. I don't care how everyone else gets to it, as long as it has got to me in some form for me to enjoy. I think it's more about us being grateful to listen to an artist more than how we're getting to them, or their exposure (but I sympathize with your statement of worrying us getting tired of it from hearing it too often because of tv/film/radio). If Joanna Newsom or Tom Waits was getting this same exposure, I wouldn't think less of them, and it won't change how I feel when I listen to them.

I've been an artist of several projects, so I can see how being a breakthrough artist and having fans can be overwhelming feeling (no, it's not like Facebook friend whoring), so there is a quality of substance even if the music isn't innovative or game-changing. So, yeah, I'm down with indie artists getting mainstream popularity. But, it's not like there is a whole lot of change. Most of the indie artists don't make very high on the top 20. Radiohead, who can't be mistaken with non-mainstream and bad music, didn't even place this year (though, I'm not offended haha). So it's clear where the consensus is.

We'll always have weird moments of when the music isn't too great, but there are a lot of fans and commercial success (if it's working, I can't complain), and when the music is different and have a lot of fans, but no commercial success. I'm good friends with Ben Cooper (I was introduced by his younger brother, one of my best friends) who is of Electric President and Radical Face "fame". But he's not a great commercial success. Also, I'm good friends with Rob Roy. He's a rapper from Jacksonville, who has based himself in California now. I first met him when he was in the seminal Cue Estey. Cue Estey really had what it took to be huge, but they broke up in the mid 2000's. Rob Roy is a very talented artist, who like Ben, has a lot of fans and people who like his music, but isn't so much a commercial success. Despite this, I think it's more important that people CAN listen to these artists, rather than how they get heard, etc. etc.
Because at the end of the day, we're all just living people dying. (I'm repeating myself now).

I hope I provided some ideas to reflect and expand on.

[Thatskier]

To put this whole debate in simple terms....

People have different likings. Some people will like mainstream some people won't.

If you can't agree all music is ok then : I agree to disagree.

[sakura080789]

Originally Posted by Thatskier

To put this whole debate in simple terms....

People have different likings. Some people will like mainstream some people won't.

If you can't agree all music is ok then : I agree to disagree.

^this

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by Treia

I'm good friends with Ben Cooper (I was introduced by his younger brother, one of my best friends)

O_O

that's so cool, dude. wanna tell Ben I'll buy five copies of the most recent Electric President album if he registers here and says hi? hahaha.

Originally Posted by Thatskier

To put this whole debate in simple terms....

People have different likings. Some people will like mainstream some people won't.

If you can't agree all music is ok then : I agree to disagree.

elegant. I like it! I just think exploring the debate fully is worthwhile. there's a lot out there to talk about.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I find that popular indie music has yet to make the 'this will be played in every store you go into, and on half the music radio stations' route. I've noticed it being used more commercially, but I feel like I still have to make a conscious choice to listen to their music.

definitely true. still, you know the record labels would take all the royalties for constant radio play in a heartbeat were the market ever geared toward it.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Another thought that just occurred to me, is that there are some people who I feel won't listen to music from a certain group not because they are popular per se, but because they don't like the image of the group, or feel they are fake, and will not bother to critique the music separately.

I agree completely. I've been guilty of this myself. back when it was all the rage for everyone and their mothers to diss bands like Fall Out Boy, I dismissed My Chemical Romance completely without even checking out any tracks. I was stunned when I first heard the lead single off their newest album. now I'm just embarrassed by how stubborn I had been.

Originally Posted by Treia

So yeah, we can make music, but how many of us can make music A LOT of people will like or care to listen to?

great point right here. since we're on the topic of mainstream music, what would you say about famous performers who don't write their own material? is that the point where it's finally fair for people to disregard the music entirely, or should a listener be able to look past the disconnect and still appreciate the tunes?