Re: What makes a man start a mainstream band?

[nessus@GAFFA.MIT.EDU]

I disagree with Hofmann's definition of "mainstream".  I think that
mainstream does not mean "popular", but rather "conventional".
Unconventional music usually isn't very popular, so it might seem easy
to confuse the two, but I'm sure there's mucho mainstream music that
isn't all that popular.  Thus, we can't equate "mainstream" with
"popular".

The reason Peter Gabriel's *SO* is mainstream is not because it is
popular.  On the other hand, one of the strongest reasons for its
popularity compared to his previous albums, is certainly *SO*'s
mainstreamness.  *SO* is mainstream because the music is largely
fairly conventional.  Gabriel even said in interviews that on this
album he was trying for much more conventional song-writing.

I think that it is indeed possible for something to be popular and not
be mainstream.  I'm convinced that with the proper advertising,
*anything* can be made popular, at least for a while.  And sometimes,
things that aren't mainstream become popular for various reasons.  If
they stay popular for long enough, they become mainstream because they
have *defined* conventions.

Kate Bush has always been *very* popular (though a lot of people also
thought her music very strange) in England, but until *Hounds of
Love*, her music was usually pretty non-mainstream (though, of course,
she did always have mainstream songs like "The Man With The Child In
His Eyes") because most it wasn't very conventional.  It can't be the
popularity of *Hounds of Love* that makes it more mainstream, because
she's always been popular.

			>oug