Mainstream Vs. Underground

Posted: July 30, 2005 in Music

Today, I got into a debate with my friend on who exactly defines when a genre of music or an artist is considered mainstream vs when they are more underground. Thir relates to a previous post that I made about dance music.

My thought is that if it is on a major label, it is made easily available to the masses (like Moby) but if it is not easily available to the masses, then it has gone underground. In my friend’s opinion, the dance scene going underground is a good thing, but in my opinion, it is not really a good thing based on the fact that it is a sign that it is losing steam.

But this can really apply to any band, fad, etc. Who does really draw the line between what is considered mainstream versus what is considered to be underground?

And is being underground a good thing?

  1. Ryan says:

    I agree that if a band goes underground from mainstream, it’s losing it’s steam and the same goes for a musical genre. Dance going underground isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

    For the most part, going underground with music isn’t great because there are so many people who only listen to the radio and what’s mainstream. Thus those artists will never be discovered, regardless of how good, if they never decide to go mainstream. There’s a lot of potential that’s hidden when you’re underground, I think.

    But where’s the line drawn is the real question, and that I don’t have an answer to 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s