What's the difference between being good musicians and mainstream?

[Darc]

I was just wondering. A lot of people only listen to indie music specifically and kind of look down on anything remotely mainstream, but honestly, I play the guitar and sometimes I have a hard time telling what the difference between good musicians and mainstream music :X

I love indie music and the like, but when I listen to good guitar players, often times they are in mainstream bands...

So...what is the difference?

 

[Ryso89]

"Good musician" is relative. Do you mean technical ability? Knowledge of scales, theory, composition, originality, inherent talent, et cetera all play a factor.

Talented musicians are popular.

Untalented musicians are popular.

And vice versa.

Mainstream is what sells. The underground is where it all begins, but those who remain underground write less marketable music. That's just how it is. It's all industry. And half of what sells today is image, if not most. It's definitely a huge factor.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

The mainstream (pop) in general pretty much destroys anything original that it touches.

A musician is a musician. I personally see a good musician as someone who can create music that moves others, simply enough.

I think that a mainstream musician just tries to cash in on what sells. Being successful in the mainstream requires you to be successful in creating what sells. Those who are “good” can simultaneously do that while also breaking new ground on with original work.

For the most part I see poor musicians as people who either do not make music that moves anyone, including themselves (due to lack of investment of time to perfect their craft) or who simply try to mimic what is popular and make forgettable music.

So that is my disjointed way of saying that good and bad musicians exist inside and outside of the mainstream.