We could build something revolutionary: how tech set underground music free
theguardian.comAbsolutely nothing in that article is related to underground at all. From the styles of music through to the VC-funded platforms.
Underground is record labels owned by a couple of friends pressing 250 records globally and distributing them by any means possible.
Underground is people putting all their spare money into putting on parties/gigs in obscure venues for the 100 other people in their city that like their particular niche of music/art.
Underground is not sitting in your room recording lip-sync videos and then sending them out over a platform used by millions.
Here's half a million songs going back a few decades by a community of artists so underground they don't even play gigs.
It's good to see somebody else that visits The Mod Archive. Virtually nobody that I know is aware that it exists.
And there's some really great music there as well. Lots of crap of course, but the ratings are usually pretty reliable.
"underground" is as subjective as "That's a great song!". It's all a matter of individual opinion.
No. „underground“ is the antithesis to „mainstream“. Both are words and part of english language. It is not all down to individual opinion.
Okay - let's play. How many people need to hear a song or artist for them to be designated "mainstream"?
Mainstream is when it’s broadcasted on non interactive media channels nationwide.
According to your definition if some kid happens to get their music played across the country soley on college radio stations then they are mainstream.
Would you rather color it underground? Do you expect that piano piece to be obscure and stylistically uncommon?
Yes! Why it wouldn't be? I am here to learn, please, how do you define mainstream?
Just because there's a Sorites paradox doesn't mean the word is meaningless. This line of objections isn't constructive.
I never said it was meaningless, I said it was subjective.
Damm right!
Right on!
Summary:
if you are an artist performing live shows and you are interested in building a cult of followers you can do so, and no one will stop you. If your performances and merchandise fees break through a threshold of profitability, you are designated a success. You can use digital tools like YouTube and Facebook to do this, but engagement is low. There are new companies and digital tools that are building engagement by facilitating addiction and game mechanics to make artists money. Record companies are bad, and they are not the way forward.
Very interesting article- I do think Chance the Rapper is an outlier but still a potentially repeatable business model for the 'next' star.
Interestingly it requires the artists to be digital/business savvy which may select for those artists over those with better music, but that's always been the case to an extent.
> I do think Chance the Rapper is an outlier
Recently it seems to be the path to success as a hip hop artist, not the outlier case. Beyond Chance look at 21 Savage (who blew up before he signed to Epic), Lil Peep, hell, even Run the Jewels is independent.