Transferrable poptimism?

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

When you start exploring a new genre do you make any assumptions about whether the best-known acts/records/choons in that genre are likely to be the best or not? Do you think, for instance, that there must be a load of obscure better records lurking behind the famous ones that the Real Heads know about?

Of course I think for most people the answer is "depends" - but what does it depend on? For instance, here are two statements someone might make:

"James Brown isn't actually that good - there are loads of other obscure funk acts who are way better than him."

"Incantation aren't actually that good - there are loads of other obscure pan pipe moods acts who are way better than them."

I think statement #1 would raise eyebrows and statement #2 would be more generally accepted as likely to be true.

(I started on this train of thought because I realised when answering a thread on sukrat that for all I knew Merzbow might be a huge noise sell out and despised by all the real noise fans.)

Comments

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Well I don't know! People might say the same about r&b now.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

The difference is that R&B is a genre whereas Motown is an organisation designed to produce hits, and was very very good at spotting what would make a hit. It's not that there aren't hidden gems, but pretty much any "Best Of" 60s Motown is solid gold.

You could actually say the same about R&B though - it's not that the stuff that doesn't hit big is better than the stuff that does, it's that it's often as good so you shouldn't STOP after that initial compilation.

Whereas with reggae, say, you will find reggae fans making a case that the best stuff rarely was commercially successful outside Jamaica, and though I wouldn't agree with their hypothetical disdain for pop reggae I wouldn't deny their point either.