What defines 'mainstream'?

karaokeman

So I was having a think about this recently after seeing a post in the Gigs & Events forum that said Beady Eye weren't mainstream.

Basically, how would you define mainstream and non-mainstream music? Do they have to have chart success or rigorously tour small venues to build their own name? Is it whether an artist has massive PR backing or uses the internet to attract fans? Do they need to have a certain level of airplay on popular stations?

When many think of mainstream, they would instantly consider Coldplay, Kodaline, Lorde, Macklemore and One Republic, but there's more to it than that.

For example, many consider a band like Radiohead non-mainstream, but yet their name is known to the masses despite a lack of play on pop radio, and they sell large venues with millions of album sales on the side. On the contrary, Savage Garden were huge during the 90s, but after their split frontman Darren Hayes who pursued a solo career has had little impact on the mainstream market and his name isn't a household name.

Then there are artists like Ryan Adams and Sigur Ros, whom, while retaining a large following among alternative and non-mainstream music fans have been signed to major labels such as EMI and Capitol.

So with all this in mind, where is the line when it comes to what is and isn't mainstream in the music world?

smacg

I would have said it depends on how well-known they are and their level of sales, not necessarily the label they are on. Radiohead would definitely be mainstream given how popular they are.

Definitely the terms Alt and Indie have gone a long way from their original meanings, especially when you see bands whos music might be considered 'indie' like Coldplay who will do anything to sell more and make as much money as possible, or tax-dodging millionaires like Arctic Monkeys.

S.M.B.

karaokeman wrote: »

So I was having a think about this recently after seeing a post in the Gigs & Events forum that said Beady Eye weren't mainstream.

Basically, how would you define mainstream and non-mainstream music? Do they have to have chart success or rigorously tour small venues to build their own name? Is it whether an artist has massive PR backing or uses the internet to attract fans? Do they need to have a certain level of airplay on popular stations?

For example, many consider a band like Radiohead non-mainstream, but yet their name is known to the masses despite a lack of play on pop radio, and they sell large venues with millions of album sales on the side. On the contrary, Savage Garden were huge during the 90s, but after their split frontman Darren Hayes who pursued a solo career has had little impact on the mainstream market and his name isn't a household name.

Maybe I'm just being defensive of my beloved Radiohead here but I would argue the opposite.

While Radiohead might be more engrained in the todays public consciousness than the likes of a Darren Hayes, to me this has little to do with how tailored to the mainstream their musical output is/was.

Radiohead have a 22 year history behind them (you could maybe argue that their early output flirted with the mainstream but I'd tend to disagree) in which they cumulatively gathered an army of loyal fans whereas Savage Garden had a ~3 year period in the spotlight before fickle mainstream fans moved onto the next big thing.

I would define mainstream music by how identifiable/liked a piece of music is by 'the masses' as opposed to any arbitrary figure.

Obviously this would all have to be done on assumption but I would be willing to take a punt that if you played Paranoid Android and Truly, Madly, Deeply for 50 random people back in 1997 there would have been more fans of the latter.

This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that Radiohead have released some rather left field stuff over the past 15 years. Something like Treefingers is the polar opposite of mainstream music.

karaokeman

Interesting point about Darren Hayes decline in popularity/ public consciousness being down to the fad tradition Savage Garden became confined to.

S.M.B. wrote: »

While Radiohead might be more engrained in the todays public consciousness than the likes of a Darren Hayes, to me this has little to do with how tailored to the mainstream their musical output is/was.

I would put it down to Radiohead being like The Smiths. The public's awareness of them is likely to their music being so well received by critics for so long, and they generally stand out among countless bands who have been innovative. As regards Darren Hayes, I would imagine the decreased interest in his music comes down to the fact remaining significant is exceedingly difficult in the pop industry due to competition.

S.M.B. wrote: »

Radiohead have a 22 year history behind them (you could maybe argue that their early output flirted with the mainstream but I'd tend to disagree) in which they cumulatively gathered an army of loyal fans whereas Savage Garden had a ~3 year period in the spotlight before fickle mainstream fans moved onto the next big thing.

True enough, I still think High and Dry is as safe a song as you're ever going to hear, but then again it would have probably appealed more to the older generation who liked Rod Stewart, Paul Young and Elton John than Savage Garden who would have had more fans under 18 (which often makes up a large percentage of the music listening demographic).

S.M.B. wrote: »

I would define mainstream music by how identifiable/liked a piece of music is by 'the masses' as opposed to any arbitrary figure.

I guess it depends how people in general define the term 'music'.

S.M.B. wrote: »

Obviously this would all have to be done on assumption but I would be willing to take a punt that if you played Paranoid Android and Truly, Madly, Deeply for 50 random people back in 1997 there would have been more fans of the latter.

I'd be inclined to think the same.

S.M.B. wrote: »

This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that Radiohead have released some rather left field stuff over the past 15 years. Something like Treefingers is the polar opposite of mainstream music.

Yes and no, it is followed by a mildly radio-friendly track (Optimistic) and a lot of pop albums have songs some fans would consider filler that introduce the more hook-driven song. Granted Treefingers would be more unconventional to the masses, but usually most of a pop album is forgotten.

lordgoat

Moved to general music.

Rigsby

karaokeman wrote: »

So I was having a think about this recently
where is the line when it comes to what is and isn't mainstream in the music world?

Does it really matter what label you put on a given band or genre ? That's what the music industry does to try to pigeon hole music into neat marketable goods.

Music is music. We like certain types, and dislike others. Just enjoy what you like.

Sandwell

Pointless question. There's no such thing. A label used by people to describe things they don't like or feel superior too.

Birneybau

What's the point in pigeon holing things?

nlgbbbblth

About 20 years ago I used to know a lad that refused to buy any singles or albums that were released by major labels.

A very narrow-minded view and he missed out on loads of great records..

karaokeman wrote: »

usually most of a pop album is forgotten.

Totally disagree with this. There's plenty great pop LPs - look at 1985 in particular.

karaokeman

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

Totally disagree with this. There's plenty great pop LPs - look at 1985 in particular.

1985 was a good year Brothers in Arms and Hounds of Love were great pop albums, but records where you enjoy every song are very hard to come across. This of course is nothing new (in before the 'music has gone to ****' crowd) sometimes even the best artists have to suck to learn from their mistakes, as Samuel Beckett said "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail Better".

I agree, disregarding all major label releases is a huge mistake for anyone to make in their pursuit of music.

nlgbbbblth

karaokeman wrote: »

1985 was a good year Brothers in Arms and Hounds of Love were great pop albums, but records where you enjoy every song are very hard to come across. This of course is nothing new (in before the 'music has gone to ****' crowd) sometimes even the best artists have to suck to learn from their mistakes, as Samuel Beckett said "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail Better".

1985 was a great year across the board. There were enduring LPs from The Smiths, The Fall, Husker Du (x2), The Cure, Talking Heads, The Cult, Sonic Youth, Replacements, Dead Can Dance, Colourbox, Run DMC, Meat Puppets, Felt, REM, Pogues, Half Man Half Biscuit, Tom Waits, Jesus and Mary Chain, Dexys Midnight Runners, New Order, Suzanne Vega, Sisters of Mercy, The Damned, Dead Kennedys and Joni Mitchell.

I bought a lot of albums that year and here's some of the great pop* ones [* a fluid enough term]

Prefab Sprout - Steve McQueen
Style Council - Our Favourite Shop
Prince and The Revolution - Around The World In A Day
Propaganda - A Secret Wish
Paul Hardcastle - Paul Hardcastle
Scritti Politti - Cupid and Psyche '85
Grace Jones - Slave To The Rhythm
ABC - How To Be A Zillionaire
Level 42 - World Machine
Bryan Ferry - Boys And Girls
OMD - Crush
Madness - Mad Not Mad
Tears For Fears - Songs From The Big Chair
Arcadia - So Red The Rose
Power Station - The Power Station
Eurythmics - Be Yourself Tonight
Paul Young - The Secret of Association
Phil Collins - No Jacket Required
Working Week - Working Nights
A-ha - Hunting High and Low
Chris Rea - Shamrock Diaries
King - Bitter Sweet
Marillion - Misplaced Childhood
China Crisis - Flaunt The Imperfection
Strawberry Switchblade - Strawberry Switchblade
Sade - Promise
Thompson Twins - Here's To Future Days
Lloyd Cole and The Commotions - Easy Pieces

justmyself

Music that's usually on the radio. Simple.