The elitists among us ask themselves this question all the time: can I still like something that has left the underground scene and entered the mainstream or does this mean I am part of the pleb? Given that we don't like elitists, and we are not part of *that* group and we shouldn't care for their feelings and provided that the question is indeed interesting the maybe we can put it differently.
Underground things are interesting by definition for various reasons: they are "hidden gems", unappreciated by large members of the public who is most of times simplistic and looks for more banal things. The few, educated, charismatic, interesting, intellectual, artistic people from the public that really do want to find the the pulsating, new, modern interesting things look for them in the underground, where art is really happening.
There are some rare moments that an artist that is part of the hardcore underground enters the mainstream gloriously and is unconditionally embraced by the public. The question then is: how long can this ex-underground, edgy artist or whatever keep his/her edge? How long can coolness survive outside the underground and on to the mainstream?
Reading a review of Antony & the Johnsons' new album in the Observer I read the following poignant line: "(...) this might have put him in a tricky position as regards the follow-up, with the risk or either lurching too far towards the mainstream and diminishing his impact, or retreating to his more theatrical roots and potential self-indulgence." Antony's example is, I think, interesting because he came from the underground, from the weird Americana scene or whatever it's called, with his first album having him on the cover as an androgynous buddha and then was so embraced by the mainstream with his second album, wining a Mercury prize, collaborating with the priestess of successful underground-to-mainstream transition Björk and in general being universally acknowledged. Ok, he is not Britney Spears but the guy is mainstream now, much to my disappointment (because I am an elitist at heart), the guy fills the Barbican. So the question is *can* Antony and Björk and Massive Attack and whoever else is ex-underground but still not pop, can they be part of the mainstream and still be artistically important?
In Kundera an important writer ever if everyone has read the unbearable lightness of being (now a successful motion picture) or does a diamond only shine when it is in the rough, in the mud when no-one knows it? I am afraid the question is not merely one of elitism, because as my cousin put it, the system fucks you up when you enter it. The system, the entertainment industry or whatever, does not know how to market successfully the underground. It has to glitter it up, making it lose its character.
Don't get me wrong, I am still looking forward to Antony's new CD and I am sorry I'll miss his live here in Belfast. I just can't help but think that his record might have been better if there were no expectations from it (the follow-up to his Mercury prize won 'I am a bird now'). Then again, I might be wrong and mainstream-ness might be translated only to confidence.
Only time - and elitist listeners - will tell.
1 comment:
"Rob, top five musical crimes perpetuated by Stevie Wonder in the '80s and '90s. Go. Sub-question: is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins, is it better to burn out or fade away?" - High Fidelity, of course.
Does integrating mainstream culture mean you're burning out? Not necessarily. Sometimes it just means that a good artist can reach more people, end of story. Sometimes it means that artists are selling themselves in the wrong way, that they are sell outs. But if they are sell outs, then they never deserved our attention in the first place.
There are many wonderful things that are fully mainstream. Dostoievski, Shakespeare, for example. They are amazing and they are mainstream, everybody knows them and reads them (or should!).
If hidden gems are truly good and not fake, they will remain so even in mainstream culture. People can like everything as long as it is good and it's about time we come down from our high horse and realise the more people like true art, the better. Of course we secretly enjoy liking bands that no one else knows, reading books that no one else reads, but ultimately if we take elitism to an extreme, it just becomes so ridiculous (I remember what we've already discussed and the Portishead example, who at some point complained that too many people were listening to them or the wrong kind of crew was listening to them - sorry, what the f*** is this? Are you a band? Do you want to sell records? Respec your audience).
Let Antony be mainstream. That doesn't mean he's Britney Spears. One thing is being mainstream, the other things is being (white)trash. There's a difference, I think, and a very important difference. Being mainstream is ok, being trash is just unforgivable and there's no excuse for it.
Post a Comment