mainstream vs. underground Options

[*mzkandi*]

Main•stream (mAn’strEm’), n., adj.
1) A genre in music and other forms of media that is often defined by widely-accepted and currently-popular standards, trends, and hypes that have been established by the by the media, typically resulting in the promotion of superficial traits.

Underground

Art, opinion or organization that exists outside of mainstream society or culture. Also known as "independent" or sometimes "counter-culture".
Ex.
Giff preferred the underground music scene in her area to the bland stuff that played on most radio stations

http://www.urbandictionary.com

There is alot debate on the issue of mainstream vs underground music. Like some say mainstream artist are basically sellouts controlled by corporate America, while some say underground is basically people who cant afford get on a major record label because either cant really get their name out or are not good enough. What is your take on the two and which do you listen to more?

[*mipadi*]

I think it depends. I don't listen to music simply based on whether it is underground or not; I listen to it if I like it. There are some good mainstream bands out there. Some of my favorite bands, including Nirvana and Pearl Jam, were mainstream at one time.

I don't find that a band being "underground" necessarily gives it more cred, because let's be honest: often there's a reason that band couldn't get signed to a major label, and reason is that they blow. I'm not going to listen to crappy music just to seem more "scene."

Of course, mainstream music often has a more polished sound that is more palatable to the masses--a sound I don't care too much for. I like a raw, rough sound, not something that has been cleaned up and overdubbed and processed.

But really, it depends on the specific musician in question.

[Mr. Slowjamz]

I think it depends. I don't listen to music simply based on whether it is underground or not; I listen to it if I like it. There are some good mainstream bands out there. Some of my favorite bands, including Nirvana and Pearl Jam, were mainstream at one time.

I don't find that a band being "underground" necessarily gives it more cred, because let's be honest: often there's a reason that band couldn't get signed to a major label, and reason is that they blow. I'm not going to listen to crappy music just to seem more "scene."

Of course, mainstream music often has a more polished sound that is more palatable to the masses--a sound I don't care too much for. I like a raw, rough sound, not something that has been cleaned up and overdubbed and processed.

But really, it depends on the specific musician in question.

agreed .....specifically it depends on the musician in question .....there are many underground artists who had the oppurtunity to have a major label on them ...but with there moral differences ....they`d rather have an independent label and get big themselves......that i guess also includes fine art , and music classical , theartre ...etc...