I agree if you hate something just because it's mainstream, that's silly.
Also it's entirely possible to dislike the mainstream concept while at the same time being able to appreciate things which might be mainstream. No, this isn't a contradiction. It is a distinction between a process and a product.
Anyone who is getting "You can't like mainstream things" from this completely misses the point.
reuben_tate seems to be understanding it pretty well.
Basically, the mainstream process completely sucks but that doesn't mean everything it produces absolutely has to suck. It just means it absolutely has to appeal to a wide audience, which necessarily limits what it can do.
Put another way, you're unlikely to ever find the very best x, y, or z in the mainstream although you may find x, y, or z which you like.
It's just a fact that in order to make something have mainstream appeal, compromises have to be made. These compromises generally take away from potential of what something could be in order to make it more acceptable "on average".
Mainstream is basically business marketability. The more marketable something is -- i.e. the broader or larger the target audience, the more mainstream it is. So you basically have mainstream as opposed to niche targets and a spectrum of what it means to be mainstream, which is why two people may differ on if a particular thing is mainstream or not.
Examples of things which are incredibly mainstream: Facebook, Windows, McDonalds, The Beatles
Examples of things which are pretty mainstream: MySpace, Macintosh, Hardees, Aerosmith
Examples of things which are borderline mainstream: Google+, Linux, Firehouse Subs, Marilyn Manson
Examples of things which aren't mainstream: <any private forum/BBS/etc>, <any experimental OS>, <any local niche eatery>, <any uncommonly heard-of artist/band>
Mainstream is basically business marketability. The more marketable something is -- i.e. the broader or larger the target audience, the more mainstream it is. So you basically have mainstream as opposed to niche targets and a spectrum of what it means to be mainstream, which is why two people may differ on if a particular thing is mainstream or not.
Examples of things which are incredibly mainstream: Facebook, Windows, McDonalds, The Beatles
Examples of things which are pretty mainstream: MySpace, Macintosh, Hardees, Aerosmith
Examples of things which are borderline mainstream: Google+, Linux, Firehouse Subs, Marilyn Manson
Examples of things which aren't mainstream: <any private forum/BBS/etc>, <any experimental OS>, <any local niche eatery>, <any uncommonly heard-of artist/band>
I don't think mainstream is always boring because it caters to everyone. Mainstream is boring because it's always 1 step behind what's actually interesting.
Whatever the next mainstream will be, it's currently a subculture. By the time that subculture reaches enough popularity, the people who first liked or created it are seeking something new. However, what ends up becoming popular is often not quite like the original subculture, in which case it usually brings in elements of the most recently mainstream ideas, which I suppose means it's trying to cater to as many people as possible.
There's also differences between things like mainstream music compared to mainstream movies or tv shows or fashion. Music changes mainstreamness much quicker than anything else it seems, probably because a song is only 5 minutes, and a focussed song writer can bang out a tune in a day. Fashion changes with clothing, and of course, as young people grow faster and as they begin to have autonomy with what they wear, fashion for teenagers changes much faster than fashion for 80 year olds, who, by and large, have been the same size and shape for a very long time.
Movies and tv shows, well, this sort of media I'm not sure follows the same general mainstream curve, mainly because it takes a huge amount of time, effort and money from a lot of people to create something. And a lot fewer people create movies and tv shows compared to writing a song and, well, everyone wears clothes even if they don't make their outfits entirely by themselves.
There's precedence for liking mainstream that lies in psychology. The more you are exposed to something, the more you like it. This has found to be true for so many different things, from music to art, etc. A follow up that I think makes a lot of sense, that at some point you'll start to dislike something due to overexposure to it, hasn't really been studied, at least as far as I know. I've only read a study or 2 about music regarding that.
Mainstream is basically business marketability. The more marketable something is -- i.e. the broader or larger the target audience, the more mainstream it is. So you basically have mainstream as opposed to niche targets and a spectrum of what it means to be mainstream, which is why two people may differ on if a particular thing is mainstream or not.
Examples of things which are incredibly mainstream: Facebook, Windows, McDonalds, The Beatles
Examples of things which are pretty mainstream: MySpace, Macintosh, Hardees, Aerosmith
Examples of things which are borderline mainstream: Google+, Linux, Firehouse Subs, Marilyn Manson
Examples of things which aren't mainstream: <any private forum/BBS/etc>, <any experimental OS>, <any local niche eatery>, <any uncommonly heard-of artist/band>
Comment