If the music is considered "obscure" then it's probably not very good...

If the music is considered "obscure" then it's probably not very good. If it was good people would've already recognised it

Attached: elsa pito.jpg (700x641, 46.42K)

That's not how life works.

Yeah. Case & Point: DJ Dubbi

this would make sense if the opposite was true, but it’s not. Lots of popular music sucks and is only popular because of major label backing, marketing, nepotism, etc

bad theory
I don't know if you understand how much music exists and is being produced daily

based retard zoomer

I really like a Haitian noise pop band who only have like 10 supporters on their only album's page (although I think it's an EP, actually). Get BTFO baitfag

Based. Been saying this forever. There's not secret beatles. The closest thing to an 'obscure absolute masterpiece' is King Crimson and it's like the first band you come across as a music fan

Popular music = broad appeal
Underground music = niche appeal
That's it. It has nothing to do with quality.

Democracy is rule by the npc. It promotes the mediocre and the lowest common denominator. Sure there is guaranteed to be a baseline level of quality with things that are popular, but things that are truly good or truly bad could never get popular. The only reason there is any debate surrounding the quality of obscure music is because midwits can't stand decide for themselves what is good or bad.

No, music has to be promoted. The most promoted music is the most listened to. Most people only listen to the promoted songs of their favorite bands called hits. They don't listen to the deep cuts, because someone didn't tell them to.

to add to what this user is saying basically, its not possible to compete with big companies by doing exact what they're doing even if the smaller company is totally capable of doing something identical, it would be a bad idea because then they wouldn't have their own brand and would be seen as a knock off and the bigger company could simply throw more money around and would win, but if the smaller company is willing to take a risk the bigger company isn't willing to take then they can target a different market in the blindspot and then they can make money, enough money to live off of. Look at Elden Ring (the video game), the reason Elden Ring exists is because there was a period of time when games were getting to standardized and generic and Demons Souls, the first game in the franchise eventually leading to Elden Ring, went against every trend at the time. Thats a good thing because all the trends at the time sucked. Now its paying off. Same thing happened with the Witcher developer from Poland.

>Beatles

Attached: j9ytez22u4t7aoz6zk2qvph7xsdm7eqd.jpg (597x559, 26.08K)

The general public are predominately wrong about most things. Why would they be right when it comes to their appreciation of musical quality?

Attached: 33d.gif (500x207, 3.06M)

No because the people deciding are gay old grandads on rym.

Sometimes obscure stuff is fun to know about because it's weird and not because it's good necessarily

This is correct. It has been proven time and time again that acts like The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Queen, Taylor Swift, Adele, Eagles, Bob Marley, Jay Z, Beyoncé, and Celine Dion are objectively good and stupid obscure shit like classical, jazz, and Any Forums-core are objectively shitty.

unironically this

stfu with your vidja shit fag

>"The Shitty Beatles, are they any good?"
>"They SUCK"

Not if it’s black metal