From: speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Arlen Speights)
Subject: Re: Oh No! It's MAINSTREAM!
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:59:45 GMT

ops@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>>>>I SAID THAT IF A BAND MOVES FROM BEING IN THE UNDERGROUND TO
>>>>BEING POPULAR, THEY LOSE THEIR MEANING AND RESPECTABLITY TO
>>>>THE UNDERGROUND.  YOU CAN ENJOY WHATEVER KIND OF MUSIC YOU
>>>>LIKE
>>                                                  there's a BIG
>> difference between hearing a pretty melody or a snappy tune and
>> enjoying it from identifing with what a band represents or what their
>> message is.

>I think the point Dave is trying to make, and with which I agree entirely, is
>that it is sad if those who declare themselves to be in the "underground" cannot
>respect a band simply because its popularity has grown.

There's a lot sad about the way the entertainment industry calculates the 
effects of popularity on how it can predict and exact profits from
artists, and about the way it depends on the "underground" for its
control of the recorded and broadcast media.

>                                                         Anyhow, how do you
>define popular, and for that matter underground?

IMHO popularity is when an artist's work becomes a social phenomenon,
when listening pleasure is enhanced by the knowledge that someone else
enjoys the sounds as well.  It's in distributors' best interest to
maximize this aspect of an artist's work.  By that description, underground
would be simply popularity independent of or contrary to the commercial
aspect of an artist's work--the attempts to make the artist popular
through pre-release singles for airplay, special MTV rotation, displays
for record stores, etc.  Hence the singling out of obscure artists who
lack or refuse these benefits.  The popularity is still sparked by the
mutual appreciation or respect for the music, or by more social reasons.
But IMHO a major part of the "underground" behavior is the mistrust of
commercialization, of conformity (which is also in distributors' best
interest to foster, for predictability), and of mass media in general.

>                                                 Shouldn't it be possible for
>bands to gain or lose meaning/respectibility independent of their popularity?

Sure.  Current 93, a long-time "underground" act, are wildly inconsistent
in their output, but still maintain their status as subversive to mass
distribution.  Likewise REM or the B52's can make better or worse records
and still be relatively safe in popularity.  It seems to me that in both
of these cases the popularity, underground or not, is fueled by the way
mass media is addressed.  You can be sure to identify with a known group
of people by getting into something that's advertised or shrouded in a
certain way--identify in your enjoyment of the music better or worse than
previous releases.

>Just because I think one of the best albums ever made was by a little known
>Oxford folk-rock band called Raindance, it doesn't preclude U2 from gaining my
>respect for their dramatic metamorphosis in the last year, cynically destroying
>the rock monster that for so long they had been chastized for creating. I think
>that has a huge amount of meaning.

Yet they're never going to be underground again, if they ever were.  Neither
are the Pixies, but their subversion of the mass acceptance they were getting
was much more respectable IMHO--and much less impaired by their record
company's need for a sustained predictability.  

Arlen

-- 
:-(-:-(-:-(-:-(-:-(      speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu      )-:-)-:-)-:-)-:-)-:
"all our dreams come true, baby, up ahead; it's out where your memories lie"
                                 -tom waits
Newsgroups: alt.music.alternative