why is mainstream automaticly considered as bad? because the

>>70597962
Because most is extremely formulaic and made to be "catchy" without having any artistic merit to it.

>>70597962
Because it's what the shitty society chooses

because it's copy + paste shit

It's not always bad. For example, The Beatles.

>>70597962
some mainstream stuff is good. but majority are just big labels paying producers for a hit for profit.

>>70597983
>>70599157
Not even accurate. Fucking idiots.

Music is subjective. It's a fact. You don't dictate what is good or bad. You either like it or don't.

>>70599212
Says the faggot

>>70597962
14 year olds and/or autists who think they need to stand out from the crowd. sadly they don't seem to understand that no one cares

>>70599212
Are you a fan of sophistic school of thought?

>>70597962
It isn't, it's just that most mainstream music is made with the wrong intentions, so it typically turns out terrible.

>>70599212
You failed to get it anons.

Society is full of thash and casual people, that's a fact. They choose the stuff that fits their stupid ideals and politics, and make them mainstream.
It's not about good or bad; no, it's about what the mundane people chooses

How shallow you are.

>>70599212
Just like with every other piece of media music can be made to be as bland as possible to apeal to as many as possible

>>70599178
>The Beatles
>good

>>70597962
It's just boring. Part of the fun of music is discovering something new and exciting that you could talk about or show people.

Mainstream music isn't "automatically" considered bad by anyone but wannabe contrarians. It's just that the majority of mainstream music is actually bad.
Many mainstream musicians care less about artistry or innovation and more about fortune and fame; and it shows in their music. Music fans who actually care about artistry are obviously going to gravitate towards more independent or obscure artists because they actually give a shit about making interesting music, at least more so.

>>70599595
The only good post here t b h

Tangentially related: Can a mainstream shit artist gradually make better music and lead normalfags into having good taste?

>>70597962
It is made for dumb fucks by studying what dumb fucks like. No experimentation whatsoever. Also mainstream music has that annoying trait that the artist's name and image means more than the music itself.

The general idea is that, when looking at an extremely popular piece of media (a top 10 pop hit, for example), in order for it to have such a wide reaching appeal, it needs to be shallow. Everyone needs to relate to it, understand it, recognize it, and enjoy it - and I mean EVERYONE. So these songs are built on compromise and cliche. Whereas "great" music/media of more general merit requires idiosyncracies.

The more popular a song, the broader the appeal. But the broader you go for a song's appeal, the less focused or experimental you are allowed to get.

>>70601510
Isn't it more like, good music sounds like noise to people who lack the ability to process many sounds at once?

Mainstream isn't automatically bad but I do find most of the stuff I hear is formulaic and boring. But my perception of pop is also pretty skewed - I never did have much of an appreciation for the standard "three minute pop song", so to speak. Enjoyable pop to me is stuff like Stereolab or Cocteau Twins, which are accessible and sometimes even snappy but also far from generic.

>>70600687
Yes, they're called Radiohead.

>>70602657

This. Probably the best entry level band in the world.

why do you keep spamming on here every day because you are mad people dont like the music you like?

Mainstream means lowest common denominator.