Another rant about something obvious

[vovat]

A discussion that seems to come up on a lot of forums in which I've taken part is that of whether it's better for something you like to be remain obscure or become popular. On the one hand, there can be a sense of satisfaction in liking something that's essentially a hidden treasure, and that only you and a select few others truly appreciate. Having a fairly obscure interest in common can also be a good way to meet like-minded people, although it certainly doesn't always work; there's pretty much always going to be someone annoying who likes any particular thing you do, no matter how obscure or unpopular. On the other side of the argument, if you like something, it's natural to want other people to like it as well. If you really think a particular band or book or whatever is excellent, you might well believe that it SHOULD be famous, and that the creators should be recognized for their genius. Both sides of this argument have some merit, and, in my mind, a lot of it comes down to HOW the particular thing would become popular. If a lot more similarly-minded people become awared of this thing, and it becomes fairly popular that way, I'd say that's generally a good thing, although it has some drawbacks. For instance, in terms of bands, there's the issue of popularity resulting in more crowded, less intimate concerts. Still, at least these new fans are liking the band (or whatever; I'm mostly thinking of bands and music here, but I want to keep my rant fairly general here) for what it is. I think what really irritates fans is when they see a good ol' sellout taking place. That's a term that tends to be thrown around where it isn't entirely appropriate; I don't think having a song played in a car commercial is selling out, although I DO have to say that some car advertisers seem to choose rather odd songs for their commercials. I don't even think making some changes to appeal to a larger audience is necessarily bad, but changing TOO much can result in losing what was unique, and what attracted people to a particular thing in the first place.

So, in summary: More people coming to appreciate something obscure: Good. Selling out: Bad. That's really pretty obvious, isn't it?

Comments

[vovat.livejournal.com]

There are definitely cases where a song that I don't think is a good representation of a band's sound have become popular, and it can definitely be annoying. Songs like Blur's "Song 2" or Liz Phair's "Why Can't I" are definitely not examples that I would give people who are interested in what these artists sound like, yet they're probably what the mainstream population would recognize. And yes, I can definitely see people who were fans of the bands in question before (or despite) these radio hits being annoyed by this. It can be somewhat of a double-edged sword, though. Having one or two popular songs can provide a band with the money and resources to make more of the music they truly want to make, and that their more loyal fans enjoy. On the other hand, this could result in the band being known as a one- or two-hit wonder and appearing on "Where Are They Now?" specials. I almost think American society in general has more respect for artists who NEVER have Billboard chart hits yet maintain a steady, loyal fanbase than for those who have one or two big hits and then fall below the radar again. Or maybe it's just that the former are harder to make fun of because they're not as well-known, but the net result is pretty much the same.