Stories with Tag mainstream

• What happened when REM went mainstream

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-17 18:36:14

  Verbose tl;dr

  R.E.M.'s trajectory from college-radio darlings to mainstream giants is examined through the lens of their 1991 album Out of Time. The article argues that the band's newfound popularity, while commercially successful, diluted their artistic integrity and signaled a broader shift in alternative rock towards commercial palatability. The album's polished production, reliance on softer instrumentation, and incorporation of orchestral elements, exemplified by the hit single "Losing My Religion," marked a departure from their earlier, rawer sound. This sonic shift, while broadening their audience, alienated some long-time fans who perceived it as a betrayal of their alternative roots. Ultimately, the article suggests that Out of Time represents a turning point, not just for R.E.M., but for alternative rock as a whole, illustrating the compromises and contradictions inherent in achieving mainstream success.

  The Yale Review article, "What Happened When R.E.M. Went Mainstream?" by Harmony Tavakoli, meticulously explores the band's trajectory from indie darlings to international superstars, focusing specifically on the period surrounding the release of their 1991 album, Out of Time. Tavakoli argues that R.E.M.'s ascent to the pinnacle of popular music was a complex, multifaceted phenomenon, fraught with internal band tensions and external pressures that ultimately reshaped their artistic identity. She posits that the band's conscious decision to embrace more commercially viable sounds, evidenced by the prominent use of mandolin and orchestral arrangements on Out of Time, was met with both critical acclaim and accusations of selling out from a dedicated fanbase that cherished their earlier, more obscure, and arguably more authentic sound.

  The article delves into the band's internal struggles with the implications of their newfound fame. It details the emotional and psychological toll that constant touring and media scrutiny took on the members, particularly Michael Stipe, whose lyrics on Out of Time reflect a growing desire for privacy and a retreat from the public eye. Tavakoli analyzes how the band navigated the paradoxical situation of achieving widespread recognition while simultaneously grappling with the loss of the intimacy and underground credibility that had initially defined them. She highlights the band's attempts to reconcile their artistic integrity with the demands of a global market, suggesting that their subsequent albums, while commercially successful, represented a departure from the raw, experimental energy of their earlier work.

  Furthermore, the article examines the broader cultural context of the early 1990s, exploring how the rise of alternative rock and MTV's influence on music consumption contributed to R.E.M.'s mainstream breakthrough. Tavakoli suggests that the band's success was, in part, a product of being in the right place at the right time, capitalizing on a shifting cultural landscape that was increasingly receptive to alternative music. She meticulously dissects the production and reception of Out of Time's hit singles, "Losing My Religion" and "Shiny Happy People," analyzing how these songs, with their distinctive musical and visual aesthetics, resonated with a broad audience and solidified R.E.M.'s place in the popular music canon. Ultimately, Tavakoli's analysis paints a nuanced portrait of a band wrestling with the inherent contradictions of artistic ambition and commercial success, and how the pursuit of one often comes at the expense of the other. The article concludes by suggesting that R.E.M.'s story serves as a cautionary tale for artists navigating the treacherous waters of mainstream appeal, highlighting the enduring tension between artistic integrity and commercial viability.

  • REM
  • Music
  • alternative rock
  • mainstream
  • 1980s
  • 1990s
  • band history
  • rock music
  • popularity
  • cultural impact
  • musical evolution
  • Peter Buck
  • Michael Stipe
  • Mike Mills
  • Bill Berry

  Summary of Comments ( 13 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43081929

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters discuss the Yale Review article about R.E.M.'s shift to mainstream success. Some felt the author romanticized the band's early indie days and overlooked the artistic merit of their later work, citing examples like "Automatic for the People" as proof of continued creativity. Others agreed with the premise, lamenting the perceived decline in quality after Bill Berry's departure and the adoption of a more generic sound. Several commenters debated the nature of "selling out," acknowledging the financial pressures and creative burnout bands face after years of touring and recording. A few chimed in with personal anecdotes about seeing R.E.M. live during different eras of their career, offering firsthand perspectives on their evolving sound. The overall sentiment leans towards a nuanced view of the band's trajectory, with many acknowledging the complexities of artistic evolution and commercial success.

  The Hacker News post titled "What happened when REM went mainstream" links to a Yale Review article about the band R.E.M. and their shift in sound and popularity after signing to Warner Bros. The discussion on Hacker News is relatively brief, with only a handful of comments, so an extensive summary of diverse perspectives isn't possible.

  One commenter focuses on the band's early, pre-major label sound, arguing that "Murmur" and other early albums possess a unique sonic quality that is difficult to categorize. They specifically mention the distinct guitar sound, Peter Buck's Rickenbacker, and the overall "jangle-pop" feel. This commenter suggests that the magic of R.E.M.'s early music lay in its undefinable nature.

  Another commenter touches on the changing landscape of the music industry and how artists often face challenges maintaining their original sound while achieving greater commercial success. This comment doesn't specifically analyze R.E.M.'s trajectory but offers a broader reflection on the pressures artists face when "going mainstream."

  A further comment directly addresses the Yale Review article, praising it for its depth and insight. They also lament the current state of music journalism, suggesting this type of in-depth analysis is rare.

  Finally, one commenter offers a personal anecdote about seeing R.E.M. live during their earlier period. They recount being impressed even back then, recognizing the band's potential for broader appeal.

  In short, the Hacker News discussion is small but touches upon themes of artistic integrity, the challenges of commercial success, the unique qualities of R.E.M.'s early work, and the appreciation for in-depth music journalism. The comments don't offer deeply conflicting viewpoints or extended debate, but rather provide individual reflections on the band and the linked article.

• Anything threatening to be a subculture is commodified before it can walk (2014)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-03 12:50:36

  Verbose tl;dr

  In a 2014 Dezeen article, Justin McGuirk reflects on William Gibson's observation that burgeoning subcultures are rapidly commodified, losing their subversive potential before they fully form. McGuirk uses the example of a sanitized, commercialized "punk" aesthetic appearing in London shops, devoid of the original movement's anti-establishment ethos. He argues that the internet, with its instant communication and trend-spotting, accelerates this process. Essentially, the very act of identifying and labeling a subculture makes it vulnerable to appropriation by mainstream culture, transforming rebellion into a marketable product.

  In a 2014 Dezeen article entitled "Anything threatening to be a subculture is commodified before it can walk," author Justin McGuirk explores the prescient observations of science fiction writer William Gibson regarding the rapid commercialization of nascent subcultures. McGuirk elaborates on Gibson's assertion that the potential for any burgeoning counter-cultural movement to pose a genuine challenge to the dominant societal paradigm is swiftly neutralized through its absorption into the mainstream marketplace. This preemptive commodification, McGuirk argues, effectively neuters the subversive potential of these movements before they can fully develop their own distinct identity and ideology.

  McGuirk utilizes the backdrop of a discussion at the London Design Festival, where Gibson was a participant, to contextualize this phenomenon. He highlights Gibson's perspective that the mechanisms of capitalism, particularly within the spheres of fashion and design, are acutely attuned to identifying emerging trends and aesthetics associated with nascent subcultures. These nascent expressions of cultural difference, often characterized by unique styles of dress, music, or other forms of artistic expression, are rapidly appropriated and repackaged for mass consumption. This process, according to Gibson and McGuirk, strips these expressions of their original meaning and significance, transforming them into mere commodities devoid of their initial rebellious or counter-cultural spirit.

  The article further posits that this rapid commodification is facilitated by the pervasive nature of modern media and communication technologies. The internet and social media, while potentially offering platforms for subcultures to form and disseminate their ideas, simultaneously provide avenues for corporations to monitor and exploit these emergent cultural trends. This creates a paradoxical situation where the very tools that could empower subcultures are also instrumental in their assimilation into the mainstream. McGuirk emphasizes the speed and efficiency with which this process occurs, noting that subcultures are often commodified before they can even establish a cohesive identity or articulate a clear set of values.

  Finally, McGuirk's piece subtly touches upon the implications of this rapid commodification for the future of cultural expression and dissent. By preemptively absorbing and neutralizing potential challenges to the status quo, the dominant system effectively maintains its hegemony. This raises questions about the possibility of genuine cultural innovation and resistance in a society characterized by such pervasive and rapid commercialization. The article leaves the reader pondering the potential consequences of a cultural landscape where authentic subcultures are perpetually stifled in their infancy, continuously being transformed into marketable products before they can meaningfully challenge prevailing social norms.

  • subculture
  • commodification
  • consumerism
  • culture
  • trend
  • Marketing
  • William Gibson
  • Justin McGuirk
  • DeZeen
  • 2014
  • Opinion
  • design
  • media
  • Internet Culture
  • counterculture
  • mainstream
  • Capitalism

  Summary of Comments ( 232 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42917680

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN users generally agree with Gibson's observation about the rapid commodification of subcultures. Several commenters attribute this to the internet and social media, allowing trends to spread and be exploited much faster than in the past. Some argue that genuine subcultures still exist, but are more fragmented and harder to find. One commenter suggests commodification might not always be negative, as it can provide access to niche interests while another points out the cyclical nature of trends, with mainstream adoption often leading to subcultures moving underground and reinventing themselves. A few lament the loss of authenticity this process creates.

  The Hacker News post titled "Anything threatening to be a subculture is commodified before it can walk (2014)" has a modest number of comments, prompting discussion around the commodification of subcultures and the role of the internet and late-stage capitalism in this process.

  One commenter points out the inherent irony in Gibson lamenting the commodification of subcultures within a Dezeen article, a publication they perceive as catering to a consumerist audience interested in design trends. They suggest that subcultures are inherently attractive to those seeking novelty and, consequently, ripe for commercial exploitation. This commenter further argues that true subcultures, those driven by genuine shared interest rather than a desire to be different, are not inherently opposed to commodification, and may even embrace it.

  Another commenter builds upon this idea, asserting that the internet has accelerated the process of subcultural commodification. The increased speed of information dissemination allows trends to be identified, replicated, and marketed rapidly, effectively neutralizing any potential threat a subculture might pose to the mainstream. They mention “normcore” as an example of a manufactured trend presented as a subculture, highlighting the blurring lines between genuine movements and commercially driven imitations.

  The cyclical nature of subcultures and mainstream culture is also discussed. A commenter suggests that subcultures are frequently absorbed and reinterpreted by the mainstream, with elements becoming diluted and integrated into popular culture. This process, they argue, is not necessarily negative, as it allows for the wider dissemination of ideas and aesthetics.

  Another comment thread focuses on the definition of a subculture, with some arguing that genuine subcultures are defined by shared values and practices rather than superficial aesthetics. They contend that commodification primarily affects the outward appearance of a subculture, while the underlying principles remain intact. This perspective suggests that the commodification of a subculture's aesthetics does not necessarily equate to the death of the subculture itself.

  Finally, a couple of commenters express a more cynical view, suggesting that the entire concept of subcultures is now largely performative, driven by a desire for social signaling and individual branding within a capitalist framework. They posit that in the current environment, any attempt to create a genuine subculture is immediately co-opted and transformed into a commodity.