Can you help me to define "or whatever" as used above or whatever?I like pretty much all music. Even the stuff people consider "bad" or whatever.
Identifying the purpose of the music is essential if you wish to be accurate in your assessment of whether it can be called technically good or not on its own terms. If you don't wish to go critically in depth to rate it though, I agree that labeling might be superfluous (overlooking that it simplifies the process of finding new music, an application I personally have found to be quite flawed).I had to agree, but was mostly making a principled argument based on my hate of labels. If the tune is good, I don' t care whether it's jazz, classical, rock, blues, jazz, or whatever. There I go using labels. But good music is good music.
Wouldn't one actually have to be mainstream in order to be considered one of the greats?[...] all the greats are here.
Sure, the "whatever" refers to the notion that the person making the claim about music being "bad" has a self-riotous air about their opinions on music in general. I would say that many of these people like to look like they enjoy more sophisticated music. Than they actually do enjoy what they tote as the be all and end all. The concept of "Mainstream" is pretty funny anyway if you think about it, Radiohead is certainly just as mainstream as Lady Gaga though that's not what the some would have you believe.Can you help me to define "or whatever" as used above or whatever?
Your last sentence makes a lot of sense. Both of those acts sell out arenas and are probably known by an equal amount of listeners...when folks say "mainstream" they probably mean a band or artist that receives copious radio play. Record sales have become a moot point.Sure, the "whatever" refers to the notion that the person making the claim about music being "bad" has a self-riotous air about their opinions on music in general. I would say that many of these people like to look like they enjoy more sophisticated music. Than they actually do enjoy what they tote as the be all and end all. The concept of "Mainstream" is pretty funny anyway if you think about it, Radiohead is certainly just as mainstream as Lady Gaga though that's not what the some would have you believe.
Well I reckon it depends on how aware the artist or group is when they get signed. A lot of them sign the rights to their music away because they don't know enough about music law not to. I know Motley Crue got their masters back from Electra (whom them called 'Neglectra' because they would tour Motley Crue endlessly just for the money) on the condition they never told anyone how they did it but I think they insulted the boss or something.False choice or premise or assumption or something?
Mainstream music is music produced by for-profit companies that handle talent discovery, talent development, music writing, music production, distribution, marketing, and copyright.
Independent music is produced by musicians without benefit of the above. They may very well have their own organization to do the same thing, but it is theirs.
There is no reason mainstream music can't be good, and no reason independent music has to be. All you can say is that mainstream music is produced with a close eye on what people seem to like. Independent music generally is also, but by people 1. unwilling to hand over most of the economic yield from their artistry to corporate suits and/or 2. unwilling to allow the corporate model to make artistic decisions about their music.
Stephen Colbert recently had, if I remember correctly, Radiohead on his show. I believe they broke away from their affiliation with a major label (or an imprint of a major label, a categorization and marketing of music of the same genre or style within a major label.) They reported making less money overall, but keeping a much higher percentage of the money that did come in, and were apparently happy. I didn't find their music particularly noteworthy, others' mileage may vary. It might be fun to compare their music while they were with a label compared to what they are doing now, and see if there's any difference.
In brief, the labels "mainstream" and "indie" seem to me primarily to bear on who gets the money, not on the quality of the music or what genre it might be.
Nor am I persuaded there is any connection between the low numbers of INTP personalities in the general population, the appeal of mainstream music to the greatest numbers of people possible, and any "not for INTPs" quality therefore intrinsic to mainstream music. As noted, those folks have split themselves up into divisions to market to every niche out there. "Thinking" music, lyric wise, certainly includes Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians' "What I am", and that came under Geffen Records label back in the 80s; The Kinks (I'm dating myself) "Lola," has intriguingly ambiguous lyrics that always appealed to me, and they always produced under labels, not independently. However, since much of the appeal of music is emotional, I suspect we are as open or closed to most music as we are to emotions, depending on where we are and how much we trust them.
Just thinking out loud.
Uh.. I don't "love mainstream music" I don't hate it either. I don't dislike music just because it's "mainstream" that's a very ignorant thing to do.Indy music sucks, the record companies know what we like better than we think we like. Thats why they are so rich!
I don't find metal to be very creative it's just a battle to see who can tap fastest. "Dude, this guy plays so fast" - "You don't know what you're talking about, his technique is fucking amazing. Do you have any idea how fast he plays?!" <_<I am confused by OP. If anything I would bet on a correlation of INTP and non-mainstream music, but even that would be a complete guess. At the very least I would argue INTP's are less likely to enjoy mainstream music simply because it is popular.
Most music is uninspired rubbish IMO. Some fields in which there is more creativity include metal and classical, as there is more scope for manipulation of musical elements, but I'd go so far as to say that even these areas are mostly stagnant.