Mainstream VS Underground (In General)

I like much of the underground scene as I appreciate new material. That being said, I hate rap. Sorry bud, but I just don't like rap. Actually, I do like some, but it's more of a hybrid type of rap, such as Kid Rock has done.

When an underground song makes the charts, does it then become mainstream? Or is it just good music being appreciated by good people? That's always been the question behind the likes of Green Day, which has been labeled a sellout. I liked their early stuff and later music as well. I guess I like what I like, no matter what label is attached to it.

Commercial mainstream music, art, movies, etc. generally blows chunks 

As for Music I find myself listening mostly to Industrial, love the heavy punk influence in it.  Not to mention it's not researched, demographics studied and marketed like the mainstream garbage.  I appreciate talent, but like MF I just can't do Rap for it makes my ears bleed! 

I understand of course, but I hate kid rock.  Try immortal technique

I don't like Kid Rock that much either, but a song that he did with Sheryl Crow came to mind that had an abstract rap aspect to it. I just used that as an example of some types of rap that I will listen to.

Is this the immortal technique of which you speak?

Still not my cup of tea....

yes thats him, i would look up "4th branch"or "3rd World" he is a very political rapper.  He has rejected the Herd in a great way, he was offered music contracts, and record deals from sony, bmg,  and interscope, but he refused and went on unsigned because he said that they were on the agenda of changing his image and lyrical content.  he is one of the most concious rappers out there.

Isn't just the whole idea of rap music mainstream?

I mean everyone knows what it is, has an idea of what it's going to sound like, and it's widely distributed in nearly every available avenue. Would the "undergrounders" even consider perform their music if a huge audience didn't already exist for that brand of music?

Very far from the truth, the truth is the mainstream gets the ideas and creativity from the Underground.  Then it takes it, perverts it and makes an obscene amount of money selling it's butchered version of it.

Rap was started by a group of white boy Germans, Kraftwerk.

Just like bands like Led Zepplin took songs from the real creators like "Muddy Waters",  "Lightnin Hopkins", "Big Mama Thornton", "Howlin Wolf", "Mississippi John Hurt", etc and made millions off of their work while the true creators of the music mostly died in poverty.  It's all about the "marketing".

Here's a taste of the real talent and creators -

Here it goes, Boan I think hits the question squarely on the head.  At what point, stage or point of puncutation in sequential events does underground become mainstream?  Is there really no other differiential other than capital sucess and/or recognition by a large group of listeners (fans)?  Is what the underground artist fears most is actual acceptance and success? 

There are many threads to take this into, but since Foodforthought (FFT) is all about disconnected thought I will depart without injecting any pseudo-intellectualism for his benefit!

I do want him to know I hope he flourishes in his pursuit of underground annonimity and economic fraility if that is what he chooses.

looks like its time for an internet war....

So let me get this correct - Underground is anything that is not Mainstream and Mainstream is being defined as being economically successful? 

If this is the case my bewilderment is sourced at the thinking, logic and/or reasoning why then would one pursue an underground path?  If in fact underground means a narrow audience of acceptance with little or no economical advancement what is the point?  Or is the point just to avoid economical advancement and recognition for one's pursuits/endeavors and accomplishments?

If the argument is that economically (commercially viable) successful artist's owe their achievements to an underground foundation/origin I think there are valid examples to be sited both pro and con.  So I don't buy that argument - it is too absolute and simply doesn't hold water IMO.  Then if they were true Underground why did they permit/seek success?

Nirvana comes to mind - they were Underground and then became Mainstream or at least Mainstream within a substantial definable audience segment that provided economic success. 

Then Cat Stevens comes to mind although he was never considered Underground, his music wasn't Mainstream either, just uniquely different.  It gathered a wide acceptance over time and to this day is a commercial success.

So here is my position: To seek to be labeled Underground is just a cover for not risking failure to start with!