5 ms·
>Per the article, the "mainstream" is literally music for people who don't like music. No doubt your parents thought the same about your music choices.
by sparkzilla 12y ago
>Per the article, the "mainstream" is literally music for people who don't like music.
No doubt your parents thought the same about your music choices.
- yzzxy 12y agoBelieve it or not, this stock-standard response to criticism contemporary of popular music actually doesn't apply here. >Per the article, the "mainstream" is literally music for people who don't like music. This is because people (including and especially young people) have an unprecedented level of access to music, allowing deep dives into alternative genres that become popular. Radio is no longer the herald of a generation's taste, SoundCloud is. This isn't Silicon Valley masturbatory tech-advocation: SoundCloud and the like are far more popular than radio or anything like it is on high school and college campuses. Radio doesn't play trap, vaporwave, etc - the genres young people listen to right now. Mainstream/Top 40 is the default music for people who don't care about having a taste or exploring a genre, because people who do can do it with almost no effort today.
- davidgerard 12y agoDid you read the article? Hence me saying "per the article". They specifically look for people who aren't into music to test against.
- sparkzilla 12y agoI see what you mean now. Although "don't like music" is not the same as "aren't into music". This goes back to the definition of what "real" music is. I'm fairly certain suburban moms (one of the suggested demographics in the article) will know quite a lot about radio-friendly music through their kids. In that sense they are an ideal demographic. I also don't see a problem with testing the hooks of songs against the market before making a substantial effort in promoting those songs -- that's common sense.