Fun Stuff > BAND
Has Alternative Become The New Mainstream?
sandman263:
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 01 Jan 2008, 13:36 ---There's roughly the same amount of "non-mainstream" music now as there has been since, I don't know, the 60s.
--- End quote ---
Interesting - so you're saying that despite the rise of such mass-market platforms as MySpace (366.348 bands currently), the same amount of music exists? Proof please?
FUBAR:
yeah, alternative seems like just another term created by the "industry" to arbitrarily label any band or singer that would not otherwise fit into any of the other cookie cutter categories.
Jackie Blue:
No, I'm saying that the same ratio of "alternative" to "mainstream" music exists.
But I fail to see how Myspace creates bands. Myspace makes it easier to listen to shitty local bands, but before Myspace, those shitty local bands still existed.
sandman263:
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 01 Jan 2008, 13:36 ---I think it's also odd that you seem to imply that if there is more of something, then it logically follows that more of it will be good.
--- End quote ---
Statistics - if I take a sample of 100 bands, assume I like 25 enough to buy albums. Now say you take a further 100 bands - which do you think is more likely: that I like none of the additional bands, or that there are at least some I like? Now factor in that the selections of 100 are not random, but are based on bands I know I already like? Do you think this will then increase or decrease the chance of me finding more bands I like with each additional 100?
While the number I like may tend towards zero over time (as I exhaust the base of bands), we're not talking about "here's 100 bands at random, do you like them?" - the increase in the number of bands, combined with the fact that some of these may be influenced by bands I already like, combined with my own changing tastes, combined with my ability to choose from the larger set of bands (rather than it being randomly assigned) means that in this case, an increase in the number of bands does logically lead me to believe that more of it will be good to me.
My own experiences, where continuous exploration online of new music has led me to many artists I now passionately follow, backs up my perception of this.
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 01 Jan 2008, 13:36 ---But I fail to see how Myspace creates bands. Myspace makes it easier to listen to shitty local bands, but before Myspace, those shitty local bands still existed.
--- End quote ---
I don't remember saying that "MySpace creates bands". I believe that MySpace has influenced a lot of artists/band to put more into their music (and/or marketing thereof), and helped them to expose their music to a wider audience. Alongside this, I do believe that the opportunities offered by MySpace has inspired some bands to come into existence, or to deepen their own involvement in music to become "proper" bands. If you honestly believe that the ratio of mainstream:non-mainstream music is the same as in the 1960's, I'd like to see the numbers to back this up.
Jackie Blue:
--- Quote from: sandman263 on 01 Jan 2008, 15:33 ---If you honestly believe that the ratio of mainstream:non-mainstream music is the same as in the 1960's, I'd like to see the numbers to back this up.
--- End quote ---
Your entire post up until this point was anecdotal evidence. Even if it were possible for me to dig up such a statistic, I see no obligation to because your entire argument in this thread has been based on your personal anecdotal experience.
All I know - from my anecdotal personal experience - is that I can name roughly the same ratio of obscure 60s bands to mainstream 60s bands. If you're not aware of how much quality non-mainstream music existed back then, I suggest you look into it. The vast majority of it is incredibly good.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version