Indie Vs. Mainstream

[Guest y2jailbait]

What is the deal with most musical opinions i see today?

 

Some of the opinions i run into day to day deal with "sellouts" and real musical artists who arent of the mainstream. My point of argument is "what makes someone mainstream?" Is it the fact that they were talented enought to make the kind of music that record labels oick up and know that will make money. Is it not the goal of every musician to entertain and get their music out to wide number of people. You tell me one band who wouldnt enjoy or embrace worldwide success. "Selling Out" to some includes being pop and making millions and millions of people around the world happy. Why should we, as music fans of hardcore rock and punk, judge those who listen to say an Avril Lavigne.

 

Now, im not saying shes Bob Dylan, but what she does is make good music for herself. Now, the image, when does someone become what they are to be for the rest of their life? Do you see punks or alternative/indie fans walking around in "Saves The Day" or "At The Drive In" shirts at like age 8? No, they become fans of that music in there teenage years. So if Avril was listening and performing punk at 12, and is more alternative at age 17, whats the problem. "She hasn't been like that, shes a poser!" What.The.Fuck? You dont become what she represents from birth, hell if that were true, Johnny Rotten and Joe Strummer would have been screaming "Death To The Queen" at age 6. I mean come on.

 

One last point and mainstream to indie. Please dont rag on those of whom have an open mind towards bands that have great talent like Sum 41 and Coldplay. Bands like The Vines and The Strokes who are exceptional at what they do, which is give the buying public a reason to pick up a guitar and express themselves the way we see fit. Pick your favorite band or atrtist. Go ahead do it......................

 

Okay, now, at there age, think of way they pick there chosen genre. It had to be influenced from someone in the mainstream or have historcal signifgance. So its the mainstream which perform for the future and the indie and lesser knowns that perform to get to that point. Please dont kill someones artistic expression just because its cool to say that "Coldplay sucks," casue honestly, they dont. Lyrically, there no Radiohead, but there damn good pop musicians.

 

The reason i speak of this is because i want to defend the opinions of mainstream music fans alike, its just wrong to have the opnions so one-sided.

[Guest red_file]

I don't see the point (or the logic) of this argument. What difference does any of it make? And how is it any more important than the rather circular dictum of: people should listen to what they like?

[Guest y2jailbait]

It an argument based on the fact that most opnions shit on those who dont listen to what is apporpriate for there listening ears, get it?

[Guest red_file]

It an argument based on the fact that most opnions shit on those who dont listen to what is apporpriate for there listening ears, get it?

Again, what does it matter? What possible difference does it make if someone does respect the fact that people are allowed to have different tastes in music?

 

Moreover, it's a fool's argument. People are so entrenched in their own stances that it is impossible to sway them. You'll never be convinced that indie bands have more to offer musically than mainstream bands (and let's not even get into the problems with such broad labels). And you'll never be able to convince an indie snob that there's anything redeemable about mainstream bands. At best you'll be able to snipe back and forth, and, I'm sorry to say, you'll probably come away looking foolish.

 

So, if the crux of your argument is "don't shit on[1] other people's musical tastes," I don't see the point. That's not bringing anything new to the table; not that I believe anything new can be brought in this type of argument.

 

 

[1] As I really big aside, where the fuck did this expression come from? I mean, yes, I understand the etymology of "shit on," but it's the type of expression that really make me cringe for some reason. And while it's visually descriptive, it isn't really descriptive in what is meant. Sure, you're talking in some way about disrespect (I think), but there's really no judging about the degree here. It's just not very clear language, imho.

[Guest y2jailbait]

Then whats the point of the constant complaining about such groups like Creed, like coldplay, like any the such bands that "sell out." Sure its not a new argument, but its an unsolved one. If the tastes differ, why "shit on" (As in disrespect or offend based on musical tastes; there's my loose definition) those of whom listen to that type of music. Answer my question of why and it'll be done with. And a vaild one at that, not this "its the form of expression," because that argument doesnt exlplain the blantant hatred that most indie and punk fans have for mainstream rock fans.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Hey, everyone's got opinions, some are just more valid than others.

 

Saying that Sum 41 and Coldplay have loads of talent isn't really a matter of opinion though. I haven't heard enough Coldplay to actively despise them as much as some, but what I've heard, I've hated. Unbelievably boring stuff.

 

As for Sum-41, well, I guess they're talented for being the most generic uninspired band of their genre, which is chock-full of bands that are good for a hooded sweatshirt or two, then drop off the map.

 

I'd also hardly call the Vines or the Strokes exceptional. In fact, I'd call them awful. The pseudo-neo-kinks thing is thankfully in its death throes already, and we'll no longer be blighted by two chord songs about some girl no one knows or cares about.

 

Some of the opinions i run into day to day deal with "sellouts" and real musical artists who arent of the mainstream. My point of argument is "what makes someone mainstream?" Is it the fact that they were talented enought to make the kind of music that record labels oick up and know that will make money.

 

Okay, first of all, talent has NOTHING to do with popularity. If a person is marketed properly, the right amount of money is in the right spot, and *poof* a star is born.

 

Now, I can already hear someone say "Well, talent has to account for SOMETHING..doesn't it?"

 

and the answer is very simply, no. Sure, a few bands got big based on it, but countless others made their riches and left the scene because of that very fact. Case in point, pointless hair bands and pointless nu metal bands.

 

No one remembers Kix anymore, other than maybe Metal Ed, and no one buys their cds anymore. They were a shit band in a commerically proven genre that sold a handful of albums and quit. Then there's, say...Neurotica. In five years, they'll be a ghost, but they made a little money.

 

Talented? No. Simplistic stuff in a commercially proven genre.

 

If the look and the timing are right, and there's money behind it, literally anyone could be a star.

 

Is it not the goal of every musician to entertain and get their music out to wide number of people. You tell me one band who wouldnt enjoy or embrace worldwide success.

 

Well, that pretty much contradicted itself. Anyway, I think Slayer's a pretty good example. Sure, they're rich, and sure, they've got fans, but they've also been banging around for twenty years without help from MTV or mainstream radio. They've also never produced an album that totally compromised their sound in order to get a few new fans.

 

"Selling Out" to some includes being pop and making millions and millions of people around the world happy. Why should we, as music fans of hardcore rock and punk, judge those who listen to say an Avril Lavigne.

 

Easy, she isn't any good. I'll always criticize people for listening to crap and accepting it as good. Her lyrics are inane, her voice isn't any good, she can't play guitar, and her entire fanbase is based on her look and attitude, NOT her music. Maybe her fans can relate to it, but if they'd never seen her before, I can guarantee her fanbase would be a fraction what it is.

 

Your bit in there about kids doesn't really make much sense because kids that young can't really go out and buy cds all the time. Not to mention the fact that they're not really old enough to start developing specific tastes in music. They pretty much listen to whatever's on the radio or whatever mom and dad listen to.

 

Pick your favorite band or atrtist. Go ahead do it......................

 

Okay, now, at there age, think of way they pick there chosen genre. It had to be influenced from someone in the mainstream or have historcal signifgance.

 

Black Sabbath-Kids from England, influenced by the Beatles, went on to greatness. Now, the thing is, they don't sound anything like the Beatles. They actually went out and developed a totally different sound, mixing older blues influences, and just making them angry.

 

So its the mainstream which perform for the future and the indie and lesser knowns that perform to get to that point

 

I don't think I know what that "sentence" means.

[Guest y2jailbait]

"Okay, first of all, talent has NOTHING to do with popularity. If a person is marketed properly, the right amount of money is in the right spot, and *poof* a star is born."

 

To a point i agree with this, but with your next statement you summed up my next argument.

 

"Now, I can already hear someone say "Well, talent has to account for SOMETHING..doesn't it?""

 

As a matter fact, talent has a lot to do with this.

 

"and the answer is very simply, no."

 

Oh damn, then i guess great bands like Radiohead, Nirvana, Pearl Jam and even great hip hop artists like RUN DMC or NWA had no talent to forge there own way into music superstardom. Thats quite a statement youve made there, do you know the signifigance of it?

 

"No one remembers Kix anymore, other than maybe Metal Ed, and no one buys their cds anymore. They were a shit band in a commerically proven genre that sold a handful of albums and quit. Then there's, say...Neurotica. In five years, they'll be a ghost, but they made a little money."

 

Pointless metal bands huh? Ya see, even if they did suck, they still knew how to pick up a guitar and perform well enough to be recognized in such a cluttered genre, so once again, talent, as well knowing the right producers, helped them reach there goals.

 

 

"Talented? No. Simplistic stuff in a commercially proven genre."

 

Pick up a guitar and show me that you can entertain me, show me you can pull in maybe 5-7 thousand on a us tour, please, show me YOUR talent.

 

"If the look and the timing are right, and there's money behind it, literally anyone could be a star."

 

True, but the original argument still persits, which is why do some who do not get this oppurtunity or do not listen to those who do, bitch about those who do have the TALENT to maintain the fans they have recieved?

[Guest y2jailbait]

"Well, that pretty much contradicted itself. Anyway, I think Slayer's a pretty good example. Sure, they're rich, and sure, they've got fans, but they've also been banging around for twenty years without help from MTV or mainstream radio. They've also never produced an album that totally compromised their sound in order to get a few new fans. "

 

Slayer never got mainstream recognition? Hell, i never heard of them until MTV. The fact that the havent made an album that compomised their sound is great, but the metal sound that they produce is for a certain amount of people. You wouldnt like it if i said all metal fans blow and there taste of music sucks right? Well, whats the difference between that and someone saying that "The Vines are awful?"

 

 

"Easy, she isn't any good. I'll always criticize people for listening to crap and accepting it as good. Her lyrics are inane, her voice isn't any good, she can't play guitar, and her entire fanbase is based on her look and attitude, NOT her music. Maybe her fans can relate to it, but if they'd never seen her before, I can guarantee her fanbase would be a fraction what it is."

 

Her lyrics are inane? Well, her lyrics arent masterpiece or hard hitting stuff, but what kind of music are you listening to that deals with such worldy important issues or deep rooted personal strife that makes you want you to declare her lyrics as mediocre?

 

"Your bit in there about kids doesn't really make much sense because kids that young can't really go out and buy cds all the time. Not to mention the fact that they're not really old enough to start developing specific tastes in music. They pretty much listen to whatever's on the radio or whatever mom and dad listen to."

 

Oh, it makes sense and ill explain. Her fans are more than 11 or 12 year old teeny boppers. There the future music consumers of America. The 15-19, the 21-25 year old crowd. Do they still listen to what mommy and daddy listen to? Hell, when i was that age i wasnt listening to Donna Summer and Lynard Skynard.

 

 

"Black Sabbath-Kids from England, influenced by the Beatles, went on to greatness. Now, the thing is, they don't sound anything like the Beatles. They actually went out and developed a totally different sound, mixing older blues influences, and just making them angry."

 

I never said they needed to duplicate them, i said they were influenced by. How did you discover slayer? I bet they didnt come knocking at your door asking you to listen to them. No, it was through the distribution of there music through a mainstream filter.

 

"I don't think I know what that "sentence" means."

 

Oh boy, here we go. It means that band like Coldplay influence the future musicians of the world. It means that pop like Avril is making young people want to listen to music again. It also means that band in the underground, whether they like to admit it or not, would love to be in that position.

[Guest red_file]

Either you don't see the holes in your logic, or you're trolling. I can't decide which is worse.

[Guest y2jailbait]

Why would it be "trolling." Dont get me pigeonholed into that crowd. Contrary to what you might think, there are fans of mainstream music, and i'm standing up for that. Plus, this is the music discussion forum right? Yeah, so i mean, whats the problem?

[Guest y2jailbait]

Either you don't see the holes in your logic, or you're trolling.  I can't decide which is worse.

Oh yeah, by the way, for someone who has the same amount of posts as you and doesnt have a history of "trolling", i wouldn't imply that kind of allegation. Now please, can we have a civil argument without those loose allegations? Oh yeah, still waiting for the answer Red File.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

It helps to have talent, but it's not necessary. ESPECIALLY when it comes to selling albums.

 

Two artists have ever had three songs in the Billboard top five at any given moment. One is the Beatles, the other is Ashanti. What's that tell you?

 

Two British artists debuted in America at number one. One was the Beatles, the other was Right Said Fred. What's THAT tell you?

 

Pointless metal bands huh? Ya see, even if they did suck, they still knew how to pick up a guitar and perform well enough to be recognized in such a cluttered genre, so once again, talent, as well knowing the right producers, helped them reach there goals.

 

The reason the genre was so overexposed is BECAUSE anyone who could pick up a guitar and do a cheese solo was in a band. The style was making money, and people jumped on it. That doesn't mean they were any good.

 

Pick up a guitar and show me that you can entertain me, show me you can pull in maybe 5-7 thousand on a us tour, please, show me YOUR talent.

 

Hey, if I had those breaks, I guarantee I could. Anyone can write a nu metal riff...but this isn't a pissing contest about whether I'm more talented than some famous musicians. For the most part, I'm not, although I can say without batting an eyelash that I can play any D-D-E-D, D-D-E-D, nu metal crap riff as good as the guy in the black shirt on stage.

 

...bitch about those who do have the TALENT to maintain the fans they have recieved?

 

First off, if they've never heard the band play, they don't know what they're talking about.

 

Second, people are capable of being objective. I don't like listening to the Beatles. However, I definitely think they were a phenomenal band with heaps of talent that influenced pretty much every rock band to follow, be it directly or indirectly.

 

Still, it's really easy to be biased about it. I fuckin' hate Metallica almost more than any other band in the history of music, BUT, they're not the worst band ever. Maybe fourth or fifth, if I had to make a list, but definitely not the worst. They apparently had to do SOMETHING right to last this long and annoy me, but damned if I can find it.

 

The point is, anyone can bitch, but not everyone knows what they're bitching about. Consider your source when reading someone's opinion.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

You wouldnt like it if i said all metal fans blow and there taste of music sucks right? Well, whats the difference between that and someone saying that "The Vines are awful?"

 

Well, one is a generalized insult, the other is a criticism of a band's music. I don't care about them personally, I just find their product to be abhorrent. I've yet to hear one song of theirs that sounds different from the others.

 

I never said they needed to duplicate them, i said they were influenced by. How did you discover slayer? I bet they didnt come knocking at your door asking you to listen to them. No, it was through the distribution of there music through a mainstream filter.

...A cousin's cd collection, actually. I don't doubt they were on MTV at some point, like Headbangers' Ball or something, but I've never seen them on there, nor have I EVER heard them on any mainstream radio station.

[Guest y2jailbait]

The source, and it may not even be you or Red File in particular, its those of whom who are so stubborn that they will not open themselves for at least standing mainstream rock and pop. They are here to stay, there's no point in deemening those of whom listen to those bands and artists.

 

Now, the thing about Ashanti is true, but she still has a great voice and charisma to keep a load of fans in her corner.

 

Well, honestly, theres no winning this argument. Red File said it best when he stated it was a fool's argument. I think its just something that needed to be addressed. Well, im done fighting that war, so this topic, for me at least, is closed.

[Guest red_file]

It's quite like a pissing contest, isn't it.

 

Oh yeah, by the way, for someone who has the same amount of posts as you and doesnt have a history of "trolling", i wouldn't imply that kind of allegation.

 

I'm at a loss as to explain what the number of posts either of us has has to do with anything.

 

Why would it be "trolling."

 

You seem to be attacking Agent instead of arguing his points. Attacking him does not seem to be a legitimate way of engendering discussion. It seems more like flamebaiting to me.

 

Contrary to what you might think, there are fans of mainstream music, and i'm standing up for that.

 

(i) Obviously there are many fans of mainstream music; by the very nature of the definition, there must be more fans of mainstream music than any music that would bear the label "indie."

 

(ii) You do not seem to be standing up for mainstream music fans, so much as you're attacking the actions of fanatical indie snobs. Whether these actions can be seen as complimentary is an interesting issue, but one that I don't think it matters if we explore in any depth.

 

Plus, this is the music discussion forum right? Yeah, so i mean, whats the problem?

 

Discussion is good only when it is actual discussion. You don't seem to want that. You seem to be attacking posters looking for discussion. Your response to Agent's addition to the discussion was to attack him; how is that not trolling?

 

Oh yeah, still waiting for the answer Red File.

 

Which answer would that be? The one about why people attack others based on their musical preferences? Some people are snobbish in regards to the things they enjoy. I'd've thought that was fairly obvious.

 

Again, I don't understand what it is you're trying to get out of this discussion. At first it seems like your stance is that anyone should listen to the music that they desire to. Then it seems that you're pro mainstream and are adopting the attitude of the elitest snob in regards to anything that is not mainstream. So which is it? Are you advocating that all music is equal? Or that mainstream is somehow better than indie? Or what?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Who's trolling? Jesus, grow some thicker skin if there's a comment that might, under light of full moon and under scrutiny of a magnifying lens, be construed as an attack.

 

I'm not to clear on the new point (I guess) that was being made, since this whole argument has happened ad nauseum on this board and in thousands of coffee shops nationwide. Just listen to whatever you want. No one cares but your neighbors, and then only marginally, depending on their tastes and the size of your speakers.

[Guest red_file]

Who's trolling? Jesus, grow some thicker skin if there's a comment that might, under light of full moon and under scrutiny of a magnifying lens, be construed as an attack.

Tsk, tsk. Certainly we can afford to be civil.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Case in point...

[Guest Kinetic]

This thread has veered dangerously off course, so allow me to set it straight once and for all. Let's all agree that music made outside of commercial consideration is better, simply because the artist is allowed to actually express what he or she actually wants to express, rather than what they think people would be willing to spend money on or what would fit the narrow parameters of radio playlists. And major record companies in the 60s and portions of the 70s were mindful of that, which is why successful artists were allowed to take their sound where ever they pleased, which in turn helped more bizarre acts get major record deals. But at some point these record companies realized that attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator, for whom there is no alternative to what they're presented on the radio, would be much easier and more profitable than presenting artistically challenging music to an exceedingly stupid American public. The mainstream music being produced now echoes that sentiment loud and clear. That is, in a nutshell, why independent music is inherently better than mainstream music: It hasn't been tampered with by commercial considerations. It's profitable art, rather than soulless product.

[Guest nl5xsk1]

Kinetic, thanks for bringing this back to a conversation thread and not just a battle. I had so much to say when I began reading the thread and by the end didn't want to get into a pissing match.

 

There are really very few bands that can be popular and indy at the same time. One of the few that I can think of is Minor Threat. They are still well known almost 20 years after they broke up, and only released stuff on a label that Ian Mackaye helped form. And one of the reasons that they broke up was they couldn't make up their minds between staying at Dischord or signing with a more major label. (well, that and Ian and Jeff were fighting a lot, but one of their big fights was over staying indy or not.)

 

So then Ian goes on to help form Fugazi, who after a decade and a half of releasing material sell their CDs on Dischord, and charge only cheap money for a show, and sell cheap CDs and vinyl. So, he's been able to be popular, generate revenue, and yet stay Indy throughout his career.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Kylie Minogue: Darwinistic Musician.

 

1988: Discovered by British and Australian pop hit factories, releases "I Should Be So Lucky," a massive foreign hit during the 80s heyday of pristine pop music.

 

1989: To get noticed in America, makes cover of old hit "Locomotion," but America is growing tired of Pop, so that doesn't last long.

 

1990-1997: Acts in soap operas and movies (most notably in the US as Cammy in Street Fighter: The Movie), releases more albums and greatest hits collections, but the arrival of grunge and rap in the international market as well as the near-death of Pop kills her music career almost dead.

 

1998: Capitalizing on the talk of her career being over and the prevailing trend of darker, more thought-provoking music, releases Impossible Princess, a downer of an album that receives critical acclaim and thrusts her back into the limelight with new energy.

 

2000: Releases Light Years, another different-sounding album, this one riding a fine line between Disco and Pop. The analgam of material unites critics and fans, and she has the most success of her career so far at that point.

 

2001: Finally allowed to go back to what she wanted to do by knowing that she has a solid fanbase again, goes full-on Pop with Fever. Critics love it for what it is, a bubbly pop piece, and fans devour it for its catchiness.

 

2002: The overseas success and frenzy is too much to ignore, and she successfully invades the US, having not the massive sales she had in the UK and OZ, but still very good, the problem being that her album was released the same week that the Grammys were handed out, resulting in a rush on the award-winning albums.

 

Still, the point is that she was allowed to, despite belonging to a major label (Capitol, for those curious), do what she wanted after a certain point, and it paid off. All one needs is the proper support and the most unique sounds can get over with the masses. In this case, Impossible Princess was like her version of Revolver for The Beatles. So different and yet engrossing.

 

Anyways, there's the artist I picked.

[Guest Lethargic]

Good bands make good music. It doesn't matter what size label they are on or how much success they have.

[Guest Incandenza]

I only skimmed through this thread. Did I miss anything?

[Guest goodhelmet]

i can agree with you to some extent kinetic but you forgot one major point... just because it is not designed with a profit in mind does not mean it is actually, you know, good! hey i can piss in a can, throw some red paint on a tarp and call it art but it doesn't mean it is good art. there are thousands of indy bands who may not have a 'soulless product' but goddamm does the music suck! 3/4 of the Motown songs of the 60's and early 70's were designed specifically to turn a profit but they turned out some of the most beautifully crafted songs of the last 100 years. mainstream does not automatically equal bad. it just equals popular.

[Guest goodhelmet]

Good bands make good music. It doesn't matter what size label they are on or how much success they have.

this is true. and the end result is a subjective debate that will sway no one. kind of like 'who is your favorite wrestler?'.

[Guest goodhelmet]

I only skimmed through this thread. Did I miss anything?

nope, not a thing. but i had no idea ashanti had 3 songs in the top 5!

[Guest EL BRUJ0]

What would the Brunching Shuttlecocks do?

[Guest Kinetic]

I recognize the fact that not all independent music is good, nor is all mainstream music bad. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was simply contesting that music made with little mind paid to accessibility has a better chance of being good. And, by all reports, the stifling parameters that major labels put on their acts to try to sell records--despite the splintering of tastes and genres creating enough room under the tent for everyone--are not conducive to creating quality music. Things slip through the cracks and every major label has about 10-15 "artsy" acts that they keep around to help defend themselves when critics attack the banality of the music that they actually promote, but your best bet in finding artistically enriching music is currently with smaller labels. Simple as that.

[Guest Lethargic]

That's if you want to listen to artsy farsty bullshit to begin with.

[Guest J*ingus]

The common misconception that "commercial = bad" ignores the whole history of music. Guys like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven had to actually, y'know, make a living with their compositions. If they didn't please their patrons, the music was never performed. It wasn't until the late 20th century, when modern technology allowed nonprofessional musicians to compose, perform, and distribute their own sounds, that the "indie vs. mainstream" debate ever took place.