Well, the way that I see it, the two terms aren't mutually exclusive. Morton Feldman once said something along the lines of "who cares if they listen?" while you have artists who accomplish their artistry while simultaneously being appealing as an entertainment form (ie The Residents) and then there are those who have their audience as the main driver behind their music. That last one is difficult to pull off without being labelled as a sell out or simply pandering in the name of money *cough* U2 *cough*.
New ground is a very fluid term, too. The White Stripes were labelled as groundbreakers when in actuality they were simply retreading old ideas (not to say I don't like them). I also think that the "we" is as fragmented as you suggest mainstream culture is, which allows for a lot of diversity in the artistic realm. I really think it comes down to whether you can change styles and still make good music. David Bowie is a great example of that, as is someone like Tom Waits. I'd name some others on the opposite end of the spectrum, but all I can think of is Van Halen, but that was more just a change in vocals and I think that they sucked to begin with.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.
|