Hating mainstream & art critique principles

[Twitch]

I agree, but I also get the whole "I liked them until radio & mtv started playing them 6 times a day until I couldn't stand to hear them anymore". If people like it, they will play it until it is completely exhausted. Then maybe you can actually enjoy it again a decade later when you haven't heard it for ages and can emotionally respond to it like you did way back when

I get that too, kind of, but, uhhhh, CHANGE THE CHANNEL. See its the same thing, "god MTV overplays the shit, but Im too lazy to change the channel, so Ill just continue to bitch about it''.

[Hellbat]

I don't hate mainstream music/movies/books as much as I hate being marketed to. I either like something or I don't like it. I don't give a Flying Wallenda if anyone else does or not.

[VitaminG]

I get that too, kind of, but, uhhhh, CHANGE THE CHANNEL. See its the same thing, "god MTV overplays the shit, but Im too lazy to change the channel, so Ill just continue to bitch about it''.

sure, but I can't change the channel on the bus or in a shop or at the mechanics or at someone else's desk at the office or at a party or at a bar. Or don't want to when I'm doing something in the other room and the song is being used in a commercial now. As much as I'd like to never again hear songs that shit me, I am still unwilling subjected to things like Nirvana. I don't bitch about it though - it's how things are sometimes. You deal with it and don't let it spoil your day.

[QuantumRider]

Mainstream media, be it movies, music, or television, has to cater to the lowest common denominator to have the widest range of appeal (to make $$$). People who say they don't like mainstream stuff may be trying to assert that they are more "high brow" than the mainstream target audience.

I agree with JazzNoise that it's entertainment, and so it's supposed to be mindless. The way I look at it is, if I want plot, character development and stuff like that, I will read a book. If I'm watching a movie, I want to see tits and explosions.

Another factor that may be in play here is that as people get older, they view stuff that they liked when they were younger as "better" than whatever is currently popular. It's the "when I was your age, people actually PLAYED their instruments instead of pushing buttons on a computer keyboard to make music" mentality.

As I think that a lot of people were turned onto Jackson/Charvel by 80's guitar gods playing them, I would venture to say that the average age of the JCF membership is a bit higher than those of, say, the ESP forums, and so the phenomenon that Endrik is describing may not be a rejection of "mainstream" music per se, but rather a rejection of "what's out TODAY". I am guilty of having this mindset as well. The only "new" band that I've checked out (on youtube) in the past few years is Nevermore, and that's only because Bill was constantly raving about Jeff Loomis. Incidentally, I bought Zero Order Phase and am glad that I did.

What the hell do I know though, I still wear tie dyes and bell bottoms...

[Scooter]

I like what I like, but I'm not close minded. My dislikes form from consistant repitition. Anything done over and over for the 'n'th time would wear on anyones nerves after a while.

Yes I edited this several times before posting, and finally said 'Fuck it'

[Pointy]

If you hate mainstream music on principle do you also hate mainstream motion pictures, books, paintings and any other form of art?

If not, then what's different between a mainstream pop music, a blockbuster movie or a Stephen King novel? Why aren't you applying the same criteria for directors like Murnau, Bresson, Antonioni and Mizoguchi or writers like Mann, Flaubert and Borges than you are applying to "true and real" musicians?

I'll probably sound like dick to someone, but fuck it

Just because someone cares about music it doesn't mean that they have to care about other forms of art. Being able to tell what's mainstream and what's not means that you have considerable experience in one field, say music. It says nothing about your experience with painting, sculpture or ancient Greek plays. You can't apply the same criteria on this issue.

Me, I don't hate mainstream on principle, I kind of hate music made specifically for TV, be it MTV or talent shows and that kind of crap which happens to be the mainstream. Other than that, I listen to it and see if I like it. If I liked a band when they were underground and then they go mainstream and change their style to make crap songs, I still like the old stuff, nothing has changed on it.

Being a movie fan as well, it is a little different. Again I don't hate something for being mainstream but I've seen enough Hollywood movies to know exactly what I will be watching with 9 out of 10 mainstream films - more of the same, so I find many of them completely boring and usually avoid them. However, I can appreciate a good, honest action flick that just blows stuff up and doesn't pretend to be a serious character-based heroic drama or something.

Movies - and books I guess - are different to music. You can get the idea of most songs in a few seconds, a minute. With movies you have to invest a couple of hours of your time, and unless you are watching it alone you can't even turn it off, so your prejudice does matter and your criteria will naturally be stricter. It is also a lot easier to have a sample and a good idea about a musical work before spending money on it - with movies you only have trailers and reviews, and that's another reason why different criteria apply (not exactly what you said in the OP but I don't want to delete my reply now, do I? ).

[Endrik]

The reason I'm asking this is that I know too many folks who generalize that all mainstream music is crap and made for sheep. Yet some of them like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings etc. which are the Britney Spearses of film-industry. Well produced, big budget, big studio products aimed for the masses. What's the difference between mainstream movies and music? Generally, nothing. All made by the same companies and with the same mindset.
A friend of mine from Amsterdam hates passionately any kind of mainstream film director. He loves Abbas Kiarostami and Béla Tarr but Michael Haneke is already too mainstream for him. Bloody hell, few people actually know who Haneke is. But when it comes to music he thinks that AC/DC is "edgy" and "out of the box", I'm like who doesn't love AC/DC but they are one of the best selling bands in the history, as mainstream as it gets. AC/DC is like Terminator II or something like that.

Mainstream is exactly like underground, there's a lot of crappy stuff, a lot of mediocre stuff and some good stuff. Not everyone considered "mainstream" produces safe art. There's plenty of big money earning artists who have total control over their work. And sometimes even a product dictated by the "company" can be really great because often the producer is the "genius artist".

But what really amuses me is when you make a difference between a mainstream music or a movie, or underground music or a movie.
I don't see many differences between music, literature, films, photography, architecture etc.
When you paint you use colours to compose your work. In music, the notes and sounds are the colours which are used to compose the tune. In books, the words are the colours. In film, there's many different colours, visual colours, sound colours, the colour of words etc.

I generally like the formalist way of producing and appreciating art. Art made in the sake of art. There doesn't have to be some "reason" to do anything. Wether it's responsibility for the society, aim to address some deep message, earn money, gain popularity, be considered innovator etc. You just do something because you like it. That's it. The same way when appreciating it. You just like it and that's that. You like the note combinations and sounds, or the camera angles, the lighting and the energy. Basically the way how different colours are put together.

I don't care if it's mainstream or not but what I do like is indulgent art. Indulgent isn't a negative adjective like many like to think. In art indulgence is great. Human mind deep in side is actually very weird and crazy, non-politically correct and often even criminal. I like when the artist is honest and shares his/her own humour and his/her own ideas no matter how crazy they can be. I like when he/she puts everything into the work.

[Endrik]

I dont. If I like it I like it. It's ok if everyone else does too.

Hating anything mainstream is just an affect people adopt. I hate putting on the junior psycholgist hat, but indulge me: most people are common in their abilities, in their ambition, in their talent and circumstances. The one thing they can use to differentiate themselves which is both costless and takes no effort is in their tastes.

Average height average looks average income average intelligence- and measurably so! You can't measure my tastes, however! And believe me, they are special!!

Music probably is the easiest choice. You just press play and let it go. Books take more effort both to read and understand... Movies too. And you must understand the book/movie because the medium lends itself to discussion and heaven forbid you may meet someone with the same tastes who isn't a dilettante! Music is just safer.

If I like it it's good- happily common!

I agree that we are mostly average and like to boost ourselves in different ways to compensate it.

Not sure if music is the easiest choice. It depends. There are some who demand you to explain why you like some piece.
In formalist approach you don't have to find deeper meaning but you do have to analyze the form. In painting the colours, the lighting, the framing, the brush strokes technique etc. In music, the arrangement, the chemistry, the vibe, the mix, the sound, the performance etc.
Sometimes it's difficult. There's some folks who listen only to 18th and 19th century European classical music. I mean they really do listen to it all the time. And they have at least 10 different performances of each piece and they know exactly all the differences between them. If you like some composition then they may want to know by whose performance and why?
But for them it's very natural like it's for rock fans to hear a difference between different guitar players who are performing the same piece. The notes may be the same but huge difference between tone, feel, attack, vibrato etc.

Whatever. The stupid thing is, it's entertainment, not education. It's supposed to be enjoyable. So, whatever is enjoyable to you is what you should be entertained by, and fuck whether it is popular or not.

But entertainment and education are combined a lot. Often entertainment is documentary of some event. It is done in different ways of course. Brutal in your face post-war realism or how I went fishing with uncle Joe.
I'm not sure if everything has to be enjoyable, some things which I like are actually really disturbing but the most important thing here is that it creates emotions. No matter what's the subject but the lamest thing is when some piece of art leaves you cold and you forget about it instantly. I believe good art creates more emotions than average art.
But as we are all different, we see different entertainment values in different things.

I have seen some independent films that were just awful. Oh, sure, sometimes it takes some effort to get the message or whatever, but if I'm struggling to make sense of it at a basic level is that really "entertainment"? I get enough mental stimulation at work, so maybe that's why my choices in entertainment don't really have anything to do with challenging my thought processes or whatever.

It all boils down to personal tastes, some like escapism, some like escapism combined with realism, some like radical realism.
And there's people who like "radical escapism" which is very indulgent and honest, it's not realism because it's not interested telling us something that we already know, it portrays the artist's deepest feelings and ideas. This is something I personally appreciate the most because the best works done this way have been the most emotionally touching for me and there's usually no sentimentality at all.
For many it's not easy to watch but sometimes it can have a profound affect on them.

Fellini's "La Dolce Vita" is a film with no plot and standard narrative. Basically some horny and dissatisfied dude wandering around Rome for 3 hours. Many at first are thinking what fuck is this boring crap but when the film ends they can't get it out of their heads for weeks, months or years. They start analyzing and wondering about it constantly. To me that's a sign of a great piece of art.

It is understandable that you feel that way. The best stuff is always underground anyway. You know- some get it, some don't.

But you can say that most of the bad stuff is underground too. The overwhelming majority of underground "artists" are amateurs who play out of tune or shoot some crappy flick with horrible lighting.

The DaVinci Code (the book) was a decent shut-your-brain-off adventure story in the McLean vein, but waaaay too much fuss was made over what was essentially pulp. Focault's Pendulum was much much better.

The essential difference between them is that The Da Vinci Code is like Poison. Flashy, entertainment fun but someone who has read Kafka since the age of 10 probably notices the C.C. DeVille'ish sloppy phrases and Brett Michaels-esque cheesy subjects instantly. Focault's Pendulum on the other hand has phrases from David Gilmour's magical hands. Umberto Eco can write really entertaining books and has a great sense of humour but he is also one of the most intelligent folks of hour era. Just astonishing knowledge and skill. Basically it is just like discovering Pink Floyd (Umberto Eco) the first time after listening to Poison (Dan Brown) and bands like that for a while.

I agree with JazzNoise that it's entertainment, and so it's supposed to be mindless. The way I look at it is, if I want plot, character development and stuff like that, I will read a book. If I'm watching a movie, I want to see tits and explosions.

But the question is, why one can be mindless and other not? Why different genres aren't rated with the same criteria?

I totally agree that when I want a plot I'll read a book.
But that's because I enjoy a film the most when it really is what it suppose to be, an audio-visual art. The visual language speaks for itself. But 97% films are slaves to a plot, specially mindless entertainment flicks. Basically books screened out for us. Not all of it's bad but they don't satisfy me most of the time. A film is suppose to be the closest to photography and painting not to every man's novel. Yet everyone keeps illustrating texts for us.

I agree about tits but not about explosions.
Tits have a magic power. There have been many occasions when some young horny dude (a famous director in the future) went to a cinema to see that "crazy European film with nekkid chicks" but came out and wanted to be a film-maker himself because that proclaimed skin-flick was actually some masterpiece by Ingmar Bergman.

Huge difference how the tits are filmed. Some shitty teen flicks which have made by some talentless hacks and show skin just to make a bunch of douche bags drool are so incredibly un-erotic. But master filmmakers use the camera to show the female body like an amazing Renaissance sculpture. It takes a lot of skill to make a shot look really sensual.

But explosions are boring as hell. Possibly the most boring thing that you can do. Lately I've almost fallen to sleep when those stylized action scenes come on. People are entertained by different things... but since I was very little I went to see every single film in the cinema with my family until my puberty hit. Since then I started watching things mostly on my own. 3 flicks a day was usual, even now when I have more time. I've seen explosions and that crap too many times. Nothing more boring as this shit in my book.
Usually most things which are proclaimed as "not a great film but a great entertainment" are actually really boring. What's entertaining about shit that everyone has seen bazillion times?

Great fun entertainment are 70's Hong Kong Kung Fu flicks. Funny as hell and even though made with low budgets they are better as films than most western action flicks have ever been. Why? Because they are very visual. Not only the amazing choreography during the fighting scenes, but the way the characters walk, communicate and do many other things is incredible. They have a lot in common with Charlie Chaplin films.

I like what I like, but I'm not close minded. My dislikes form from consistant repitition. Anything done over and over for the 'n'th time would wear on anyones nerves after a while.

I agree, can't stand when the same things are repeated all over again. Hence why I don't like explosions, standard plot, standard narrative etc. very much. Or in music the same type of watered down production. When you eat macaroni every single day you'll get tired of it too.

Just because someone cares about music it doesn't mean that they have to care about other forms of art. Being able to tell what's mainstream and what's not means that you have considerable experience in one field, say music. It says nothing about your experience with painting, sculpture or ancient Greek plays. You can't apply the same criteria on this issue.

I do apply the same criteria If you make art with a fiddle or a paint brush doesn't matter. It's ok, if one doesn't know much about sculpture or theatre but it helps a bit if he/she would shut the fuck up generalizing mainstream because while he/she may listen to obscure alternative rock doesn't mean he/she doesn't have some cheap mass produced statue ("Who let the dogs out" of sculpting world) in his/her home.

Movies - and books I guess - are different to music. You can get the idea of most songs in a few seconds, a minute. With movies you have to invest a couple of hours of your time, and unless you are watching it alone you can't even turn it off, so your prejudice does matter and your criteria will naturally be stricter. It is also a lot easier to have a sample and a good idea about a musical work before spending money on it - with movies you only have trailers and reviews, and that's another reason why different criteria apply (not exactly what you said in the OP but I don't want to delete my reply now, do I? ).

Depends. You can usually tell the idea of a movie in few seconds too if you see "A Jerry Bruckheimer Production" sign at the start.
But it's pretty hard to get an idea of the whole work in a few seconds if you listen to a Emerson, Lake and Palmer tune or a 3 part Concerto.
Personally I could purchase many films based on samples. Fore example Visconti's "Il Gattopardo" or Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" have such a jaw dropping cinematography, that you just want to see it.

[Nimitz]

Main Stream whatever is all propaganda anyway.

[Twitch]

sure, but I can't change the channel on the bus or in a shop or at the mechanics or at someone else's desk at the office or at a party or at a bar. Or don't want to when I'm doing something in the other room and the song is being used in a commercial now. As much as I'd like to never again hear songs that shit me, I am still unwilling subjected to things like Nirvana. I don't bitch about it though - it's how things are sometimes. You deal with it and don't let it spoil your day.

Yeah, getting stuck in Tire Barn listening to top 40 for 2 hours sucks, but you cant do anything about it, I agree. I generally tune out anything that isnt metal or at least classic rock, but so many seem to let it ruin their day.

[Nightbat]

Wall of text

When I saw "tits" in your reply, I thought it was worth reading everything

Well, it wasn't!
Lots of expensive words, but not even a further mention of even a nipple

Thanks alot Endrik, now give me those 50 minutes of my life back (those were complicated words you used, y'know)

[Endrik]

I guess we have progressed so much during the last decades because everyone wants their life back all the time, so busy inventing a cancer cure or alternative energy

What's the point talking about tits though? I don't get it. When I stayed in California and got more familiar with North American television entertainment I think I've never heard so much talk about sex before in my life. There was awfully a lot of talking about sex and there was a lot of implications to sex but there was almost no real sex at all. I mean what's the point?

[VitaminG]

that's because they haven't seen 9 Songs yet...

[Pointy]

Mainstream is exactly like underground, there's a lot of crappy stuff, a lot of mediocre stuff and some good stuff.

Very true, but the distinction still stands: If you are into a scene, by the time anything out of it becomes mainstream it is already old news to you. It doesn't mean it is of lower quality, it means that you are already tired of it, so you have no reason to bother with the mainstream stuff.

Another difference is that in the mainstrem whatever there tend to be a lot of works of marketing as opposed to works of art (again, without implications as to quality), so once you are into it enough to notice them they are a huge turn-off.

On the other hand is is easy for an underground (or just new) idea to produce tons of cloned crap early on until it settles into a well-refined and original new trend or style - which may or may not become mainstream later.

Some people would rather deal with the one or the other, some don't really care.

[Endrik]

that's because they haven't seen 9 Songs yet...

9 Songs... wasn't there a score by Michael Nyman? Nyman of course is an amazing composer but what's noticeable is that his tunes go very well with sex. He did bunch of scores for Peter Greenaway who I admire highly. Most folks, even movie buffs don't know much about Greenaway (strangely he is known more among fans of other art-forms, painting, sculpting etc.) but maybe some remember his film "A Cook, a Thief, his Wife and her Lover" which has a lot of bare Helen Mirren. There's always been tons of skin in Greenaway's films but never real graphical sex. But let's not give up hope, recently he's been trying to cast actresses by asking such questions as:

"Would you be willing to have unsimulated intercourse on screen?"

and

"Would you be willing to appear in a shot in which semen leaks out of your vagina?"

Sounds fun! But whatever it is I'm anxiously waiting for it as Peter is one of the very few who actually tries to do something new with cinema. For some he may sound like a pretentious tosser but I guess they don't just get his humour and feel threatened because he does knows a lot more about film history, theory and how to actually make them than a bunch of popcorn eating whiners. He can back up his mouth, very few today have such a high skill like he does.