Mainstream (noun) - A prevailing current or direction of activity or influence.
I am a bit of a compulsive list maker, and websites like Facebook and Pinterest seem to exploit that tendency. As I've gathered my interests into their respective groups and subjects, it appears that, most of the time, my tastes, while eclectic, tend toward things that could be considered "mainstream." My definition of "mainstream" is: popular, known by many, similar to what we mean when we refer to something as a household name/brand/product.
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. But I know there are many people who think that liking things that are mainstream equals bad taste. They think that anything in the mainstream, by its very definition, must be mediocre. I once saw a statement posted on the internet by somebody who didn't want to have anything to do with "anybody who listens to Top 40 radio." If we follow this sort of thinking logically, then the only people with good taste would only listen to obscure bands, watch only independent films, read books that never make bestseller lists, buy generic products in anonymous stores, and possibly make their own clothes. They would probably have one secret t-shirt with a recognizable image, like "Van Halen" or something like that.
There is a fine line to walk here, because I agree that some things in the mainstream really are mediocre. There are movies, television shows, music groups, and countless other things that are thrust at us every day. The prevailing strategy of modern advertising is to saturate the market with the newest product. Let he who has the biggest advertising budget win. The problem with this strategy is that good things can be damaged by too much exposure; people don't want to buy something they're already sick of.
I've had this happen to me. There have been a few musicians that I heard about all the time, saw their names and pictures all over the place, and I got sick of it, so I avoided their music without ever actually hearing it. When I finally took the opportunity to listen, it turned out to be really good music that I was happy to have heard. The same thing has happened for me with a few movies.
Just because something is popular doesn't make it bad. Some of the people I admire in the world of music and movies, who are, in my opinion, the very best at what they do, also happen to be some of the most popular in their fields of work. I think a good part of the reason they became popular is because of the high quality of their work. Most of them have remained popular for years, and what is their longevity but a testament to the quality of their work?
I could probably make a list (don’t worry, I won't) of several popular people, household names, and I'm sure that most people would be forced to agree that the people on that list are among the best at what they do. And I'm talking about well-known people (and movies, books, songs, etc.) that are familiar to a wide variety of people. True celebrities, or people who are famous or celebrated because of their accomplishments. Our society has twisted the definition of a "celebrity," and many undeserving people are now called celebrities, although you would be hard-pressed to say why they would be celebrated or what they could possibly have accomplished.
In his essay on Schindler's List, Roger Ebert (mainstream!) wrote something about Steven Spielberg (mainstream!) that I liked: "The film has been an easy target for those who find Spielberg's approach too upbeat or ‘commercial,’ or condemn him for converting Holocaust sources into a well-told story. But every artist must work in his medium, and the medium of film does not exist unless there is an audience between the projector and the screen. Claude Lanzmann made a more profound film about the Holocaust in Shoah, but few were willing to sit through its nine hours. Spielberg's unique ability in his serious films has been to join artistry with popularity―to say what he wants to say in a way that millions of people want to hear."
To criticize something for the fact that it resonates with a majority of people seems wrong. The fact that anything is able to do that is a wonder. But that doesn't mean that anyone with a dissenting viewpoint should feel compelled to conform. And it doesn't necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with things that aren't in the mainstream. I guess I'm writing this in response to the criticism that commercial success is the brand of mediocrity. That shouldn't be an automatic assumption. I think that, deep down, all of us crave some form of recognition for a job well done. (Don’t we?) Some people, though, have succeeded in getting that recognition from millions of people.
It seems as though some people think that anything mainstream taints the purity of their interests. But from my point of view, it's the variety that makes life interesting. If something popular makes my life better, so be it. As I've said before, the trick is to find the right balance.
I am a bit of a compulsive list maker, and websites like Facebook and Pinterest seem to exploit that tendency. As I've gathered my interests into their respective groups and subjects, it appears that, most of the time, my tastes, while eclectic, tend toward things that could be considered "mainstream." My definition of "mainstream" is: popular, known by many, similar to what we mean when we refer to something as a household name/brand/product.
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. But I know there are many people who think that liking things that are mainstream equals bad taste. They think that anything in the mainstream, by its very definition, must be mediocre. I once saw a statement posted on the internet by somebody who didn't want to have anything to do with "anybody who listens to Top 40 radio." If we follow this sort of thinking logically, then the only people with good taste would only listen to obscure bands, watch only independent films, read books that never make bestseller lists, buy generic products in anonymous stores, and possibly make their own clothes. They would probably have one secret t-shirt with a recognizable image, like "Van Halen" or something like that.
There is a fine line to walk here, because I agree that some things in the mainstream really are mediocre. There are movies, television shows, music groups, and countless other things that are thrust at us every day. The prevailing strategy of modern advertising is to saturate the market with the newest product. Let he who has the biggest advertising budget win. The problem with this strategy is that good things can be damaged by too much exposure; people don't want to buy something they're already sick of.
I've had this happen to me. There have been a few musicians that I heard about all the time, saw their names and pictures all over the place, and I got sick of it, so I avoided their music without ever actually hearing it. When I finally took the opportunity to listen, it turned out to be really good music that I was happy to have heard. The same thing has happened for me with a few movies.
Just because something is popular doesn't make it bad. Some of the people I admire in the world of music and movies, who are, in my opinion, the very best at what they do, also happen to be some of the most popular in their fields of work. I think a good part of the reason they became popular is because of the high quality of their work. Most of them have remained popular for years, and what is their longevity but a testament to the quality of their work?
I could probably make a list (don’t worry, I won't) of several popular people, household names, and I'm sure that most people would be forced to agree that the people on that list are among the best at what they do. And I'm talking about well-known people (and movies, books, songs, etc.) that are familiar to a wide variety of people. True celebrities, or people who are famous or celebrated because of their accomplishments. Our society has twisted the definition of a "celebrity," and many undeserving people are now called celebrities, although you would be hard-pressed to say why they would be celebrated or what they could possibly have accomplished.
In his essay on Schindler's List, Roger Ebert (mainstream!) wrote something about Steven Spielberg (mainstream!) that I liked: "The film has been an easy target for those who find Spielberg's approach too upbeat or ‘commercial,’ or condemn him for converting Holocaust sources into a well-told story. But every artist must work in his medium, and the medium of film does not exist unless there is an audience between the projector and the screen. Claude Lanzmann made a more profound film about the Holocaust in Shoah, but few were willing to sit through its nine hours. Spielberg's unique ability in his serious films has been to join artistry with popularity―to say what he wants to say in a way that millions of people want to hear."
To criticize something for the fact that it resonates with a majority of people seems wrong. The fact that anything is able to do that is a wonder. But that doesn't mean that anyone with a dissenting viewpoint should feel compelled to conform. And it doesn't necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with things that aren't in the mainstream. I guess I'm writing this in response to the criticism that commercial success is the brand of mediocrity. That shouldn't be an automatic assumption. I think that, deep down, all of us crave some form of recognition for a job well done. (Don’t we?) Some people, though, have succeeded in getting that recognition from millions of people.
It seems as though some people think that anything mainstream taints the purity of their interests. But from my point of view, it's the variety that makes life interesting. If something popular makes my life better, so be it. As I've said before, the trick is to find the right balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment