Music Banter - View Single Post - Does a Band's Popularity Affect Your Taste?
View Single Post
Old 02-18-2011, 07:09 PM   #77 (permalink)
Palatable Vera
Quad?
 
Palatable Vera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 125
Default

I don't think popularity has anything to do with whether I like a band or not. I mean, I try to listen to these popular bands, since they're popular for a reason, right? (Yeah... Not the best conclusion I've ever came to.)

But popularity doesn't really seem to bother me much. Take for example, I don't like the Beatles very much (but they still get the occasional rotation. Just 'cause) yet I absolutely love the Rolling Stones. Both bands are hyped to hell, and I don't think either are as good as what critics make them out to be, but I still like one of them, right? In fact, the Stones have the most plays on my last.fm, followed by that Zimmerman dude and the Doors in that order. And those are pretty popular, right? For a more recent example, I heard good things about the Decemberists' music, so I picked something by them up (of course, they aren't popular in the same regards as the Beatles or the Stones, and they may not be as popular in relativity to anything, but being popular is almost synonymic with "lots of praise", right? And I saw lots of praise for the Decemberists) and I liked it. For an even more recent example, I've heard really good things about Radiohead's new album, King of Limbs (ie: "Codex is the greatest song that they've down" and "Bloom is the best opener ever"), so I obviously want to check it out. In fact, I just bought myself a cheapo digital copy of the album of their website just a few minutes ago.

But that's not to say that I don't listen to unpopular things either. In fact, I have my fair share of "obscure" artists, from the Dirty Projectors to My Morning Jacket to Julian Lynch. And I like those too. However, as much as I do like them, they don't get as many listens as the more popular artist for the simple reason as I don't want to burn out on them. Some have an epochal quality about them and some of them just can't be listened to all that much before you're tired of it, which is why I save my "obscure" albums for a rainy day. And that's a problem I've been seeing with music. People who like these albums don't listen to these albums because they know (perhaps even unconsciously know) that they weren't made to last that long. That's why these "popular" albums are listened to more -- they're petty albums, but not petty in the conventional sense of the word. They're more accessible so they can be listened to for an extended period of time. Take this for example: You have two albums, The Epic Story of Oscar Wilde and His Army of Gnome People on Pogo Stilts and In the Court of That One Red Guy That Looks Rather Strange and Likes to Leave His Mouth Hanging Open a Lot For Some Reason. That Gnome People on Pogo Stilts album is short, fun, and full of pleasant pop hooks while That One Red Guy is a long, drawn out post-rock-esque work that's really good, but takes some stamina to get through. Which one would you rather listen to a few times in a row? Gnome People on Pogo Sticks, right? Which is probably why these "popular" albums are so popular, if you catch my drift. Also, I didn't mean to get so wordy or off-track. so... Whoops. >.>
Palatable Vera is offline   Reply With Quote