[evo_9]

Mainstream music, sure, but there will always be bands like The Flaming Lips, or My Bloody Valentine releasing records that are completely counter to this approach.

I would argue that any 'true artist' - aka one that is consumed with the perfection of their art - is not going to be swayed to produce a 'hit' no matter what the studio wants (they simply won't sign with a big label to begin with, I know plenty of musicians that feel this way and are happy on an indie label).

[davidgerard]

The mainstream is fragmenting now that people can get access to music without it, per Steve Albini's recent update to "The Problem With Music": http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-k...

Per the article, the "mainstream" is literally music for people who don't like music.

[sparkzilla]

>Per the article, the "mainstream" is literally music for people who don't like music.

No doubt your parents thought the same about your music choices.

[davidgerard]

Did you read the article? Hence me saying "per the article". They specifically look for people who aren't into music to test against.

[sparkzilla]

I see what you mean now. Although "don't like music" is not the same as "aren't into music". This goes back to the definition of what "real" music is. I'm fairly certain suburban moms (one of the suggested demographics in the article) will know quite a lot about radio-friendly music through their kids. In that sense they are an ideal demographic. I also don't see a problem with testing the hooks of songs against the market before making a substantial effort in promoting those songs -- that's common sense.