If something's not popular, objectively speaking, it's not good. Please prove me wrong.
Death Grips are popular as far as most bands go. I'm not sure if you're trying to call them shit or not
>>66111016
yeah youre wrong. say for instance some udiscovered band makes a really good song/album or whatever, and it doesnt get any widespread attention because they dont have much of an audience to begin with doesnt make it bad
>>66111111
SEXTS
>>66111111
WHAT A DIGIT
>>66111126
holy fuck im a genius
>>66111111
THEYRE READY TO GO GUYS
>>66111016
What constitutes as popular? Popular in the mainstream or popular here?
If it's the former then Laughing Stock
>>66111111
>>66111070
That means nothing, especially in the internet age. Why aren't they being played on the radio if they're so good? Why aren't they on award shows if they're so popular? Why aren't their songs featured in more commercials (I know about the Nike one, there's obviously a few exceptions). I don't just mean Death Grips; I mean EVERY indie act, or just any act who doesn't recieve media coverage from a major outlet. Kanye West breathes, TMZ writes about. Rihanna takes a shit, Rolling Stone takes a picture. Why not anyone else? Especially the ones who have bigger connections or have a wider abilit for public output?
>>66111111
You're numero uno uno uno uno uno uno
>>66111016
The Money Store is a fucking synthpop
>>66111111
sexxtuples confirm
>>66111111
holy dubs then sexts
congratualationsualationscongratgratsfagcongrats
>>66111111
sexts are double truth
The notion that any good release will get popular is ridiculous, popularity has a lot to do with circumstance
>>66111111
Innit to winnit
>>66111176
>i don't know anything about the music industry or marketing in general
>>66111175
Popular as in mainstream.
Also, I'm not trying to imply that I don't think this music is good, but objectively, if it never relieves higher recognition than a shitty indie publication and a music board on a Hawaiian Basketweaving web site, why does it matter in the greater scheme, and don't try to talk about influence. If a band like Nirvana never got popular, the Pixies and the Melvins would matter even less than they do now.
>>66111111
Nice digi's lad
>>66111219
If people demanded something enough, it would have more exposure. Tyler, The Creator was not signed to a major label, not backed by anyone, but still manage to win awards, appear on shows, received media coverage, get a TV show, despite being largely inaccessible to a majority of the population. It's not impossible, so what excuse does an act like Death Grips, with connections to people like Bjork, Beyonce, and Robert Patinson have, for not being wider spread.
Or better yet, Sky Ferreira and Grimes. Both are super accesible indie pop artists with major industry cosigns and backing. Why have they not truly cracked the mainstream yet?
Why does it like even have to matter when most of the music that is in the mainstream is most of the really bad in a really shitty way most of the music
>>66111176
Rihanna makes shit music without any artistic value. Kanye isn't that goo either. Still they are played on the radio all the time. Popularity has nothing to do with quality.
>>66111321
>Most of the really bad in a really shitty way most of the music
???
>>66111176
Mainstream audiences like sanitized pop/rock/rap. If you tried to play OPN on the radio you'd get a shit ton of backlash because it's "too weird"
>>66111016
Popularity is relative.
Whats listened to in my town is never posted on this board.
>>66111016
Does a song that is unknown in October (when it is first recorded) but becomes popular the following January become good at the point it becomes popular?
If so, what made the song popular? If the song is good when it's popular, is it no good when it's still be devised in the studio?
>>66111111
I wish a girl send me sexts this good
So the quality of an album changes depending on circumstances then?
>>66111416
>>66111332
That's subjective though. If most people like it, at it's objectively good.
>>66111532
Was waiting for someone to bring that up, so thank you! The song could be "good" as in the quality is acceptable, but not "good" in a level of widespread acceptance.
More son, I'm speaking strictly in the sense of artists who have had exposure or chances to be mainstream but didn't quite cut it for whatever reason. Not just acts with airplay, but acts with a following in general. Chance The Rapper is independent and, without major label backing, would receive little to no FM radio airplay. That's understandable! But Chance still has a major following, major artists collaborate with him, he receives a ton of recognition, and is started to receive buzz in the mainstream media. But what about an act has the exact same exposure as Chance, receives good reviews, but doesn't have as strong as following? Why would that be?
>>66111430
100% true, friendo, but I'm referring to a wider scale. Nirvana, Drake, The Rolling Stones, and Daft Punk are pretty much universally popular in Western civilization, at least. A majority of listeners know at least a few songs by them, and can recognize their name. Can you say the same for Swans, Kraftwerk, Sufjan Stevens, and Hüsker Dü? Does this make them objectively bad?
>>66111777
Does it? That's what I'm asking. You can listen to anything and say it's good or bad, that's just opinion and taste. But does something having mainstream credibility and widespread recognition make it objectively better?
Also, big fan of your digits.
>>66111176
>Why aren't they being played on the radio if they're so good? Why aren't they on award shows if they're so popular? Why aren't their songs featured in more commercials
Are you actually asking this question? Are you completely ignorant as to the kind of entertainment the masses want?
>>66111928
That's why I posed the question. If the masses do not recognize, especially in the information age where any genre, sound, or song can be found instantly, is the other stuff objectively bad?
>>66111983
The information age exists as a way for the masses to find the same cheap entertainment they've always yearned for. You won't see GY!BE played on the radio because the masses do not want to hear that shit on the radio. They want to hear something jovial or easily digestible on the way to work. You will not see rap group Atmosphere play their songs about suicide at the MTV VMAs because people do not want to hear that shit on that kind of platform. Society dictates we offer pockets of hope. You will not hear little Andy's noise ambient album on a commercial because noise ambient doesn't go well with Nike commercials. This is not difficult, and it does not make obscure things bad. It does not make mainstream things inherently bad either. Just generally more easily digestible.
>>66111879
>>66111983
You're trying to create an objective scale by using how well it appeals to people and that's not exactly how you should go about it. You should base music on how well it achieved what it set out to do and how enjoyable it is to listen to (which ties into how well it achieved what it set out to do).
>>66111879
No, because the art is the same regardless of the circumstances. You can't use something separate from the music to determine it's quality. You have to look at what the work achieves on a creative level.
>>66111016
If it's popular, it most likely is bad.
Popularity comes with being tame and accessible, so a wider audience can enjoy it.
>>66111016
As far as the music industry goes, the music that makes it to the top usually applies to the lowest common denominator. Music also cannot be "objectively" good, or good, "objectively" speaking. Music appreciation, like all art appreciation, is subjective by definition.
>>66111879
No because that's not going to change the content of the music you moron.
>>66111016
This type of thinking compromises your experience. Explore, listen, analyze, do it for your self.
>objectively
>>66111111
>>66111176
>Why aren't they being played on the radio if they're so good? Why aren't they on award shows if they're so popular?
Because award shows are swayed by money and radio is fucking garbage marketing and everyone knows it
>>66111111
Must have been TRIPpin
>>66111111
Nice get , truth was speak
>>66111016
What's your barometer for popularity? Is a jazz band that doesn't release albums but does have regular bookings popular? Or are they unpopular because their presence is limited to their local area?
>>66111111
