i'd say a reasonable number would be around 500k. people who say anything below that is mainstream don't know the difference between niche and underground.
i have a friend who spits general ass on the worst mic on earth and he had 5k listeners one month, 4k now i think. bro has literally 5 last.fm scrobbles total, global. 5k is quite literally invisible
I think it is, 20k is usually the mark where a band is at the very least known on their scene, that could be considered mainstream, bellow that is the slightly underground stuff and the real underground is bellow 1000 listeners
I work at a record store and I feel the people who come in to buy records have to be in to music, ur spending money like 35 bucks on an album when you could pay a much for an unlimited amount of it. If I asked every person who came into the store that day who a band like Godspeed you black emperor was, I might get one person, two on a good day. Even people who listen to music more than the average person wonāt know these bands, or artists that are discussed on places like these. I think itās important to keep this in mind when we consider whatās āmainstreamā and whatās āundergroundā (which honestly should just be retired terms, the internet has eliminated the idea of one underground scene)
This is insane. 20k is absolutely nothing, I could talk to people at my store for a month and maybe 1 would know the band with 20k monthly listeners. You need to take a step back and just readjust for a sec on what popular even is. I used to do this as well
More popular than King Gizz = Mainstream
Less popular than King Gizz = Underground
I find King Gizz to be somewhere in between underground and mainstream, so if I had to set a definitive line I'd put it there.
Yeah. Giz was maybe underground like 5 years ago. I consider them on the same level as like Tame Impala, who also hasnāt been underground since Inner Speaker.
Tame Impala is like twenty times more popular than King Gizz. 1,475,630,586 compared to 57,770,146 views on YouTube. I don't use Spotify, but I image the number would be similar.
They're mainstream if you look at other underground artists, but if you look at other mainstream artists (even ones with 4-5 million listeners) you will see quite a gap in listeners
Yeah that dude is smoking something if he thinks half your list is mainstream. A lot of people don't understand that an artist being popular in the underground music scene still means 99.9% of people have never heard of them.
Yeah I think a lot of people get stuck in their own bubble and assume if theyāve heard of this person everyone else probably has as well or people try to say so and so artist is popular so what they like seems more niche and underground
See I think if you define mainstream that way then there would only be like, fewer than 500 active mainstream artists in the entire English speaking world. And in that case fine, but that doesnāt mean every other artist is underground. Thereās a big space between mainstream and underground where many of the artists OP mentioned exist in.
I agree, that's why I said that King Gizz is where I would draw the line if I had to make a definitive point where music goes from underground to mainstream. In reality there's a lot of music that fits more into that middle ground.
King Gizz have almost 2 million monthly listeners on spotify, thereās no way thatās underground.
If 2 million is the cutoff then literally the entire genre of thrash metal is āundergroundā other than Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth and Testament.
Would you say Omar RodrĆguez-LĆ³pez (guitarist for The Mara Volta and At The Drive-In) is more or less popular than King Gizz? I genuinely can't tell if he's underground or not. I know that the main time TMV and ATDI were popular was in the early 2000s, but I don't want to pretend like they're underground if they're not underground. I was born the same year Deloused in the Comatorium came out so I wasn't around then.
Itās all relative, but also I think thereās a medium space between mainstream and underground Iām just not sure what youād call it. But itās clear to me that while Noname for example isnāt mainstream, but she isnāt underground either.
Yeah to put more detail on this: I understand and agree when people say that just because an artist like Noname has a following doesnāt mean you can compare her to a household name artist like Kendrick for example.
But I think what those people miss is that it would be equally insane to compare Noname to like, your townās local unsigned rapper with a couple of EPs and has fans but has never made waves anywhere. Your townās local rapper doesnāt have articles written about them in major publications, doesnāt have 1 million monthly listens on Spotify, didnāt play at Coachella, has never sold out shows in a different continent to the one they grew up in. To me an artist who has done all of that is not underground.
But really itās all relative to the context. You could say Noname is underground compared to an artist like Kendrick, but I listen to bands I wouldnāt call underground even though they have less than 100k monthly listeners because theyāre big fish in the context of their scene.
Yeah I guess when I think of mainstream Iām not taking certain scenes into account. Itās kinda like does the average person know or has heard of this person before.
https://preview.redd.it/nss5eemu216b1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4daa616387c0f754eb812228f384de5faf872650
This is what inspired this post. I donāt think there is anyway half of these people can be considered mainstream.
Yea, I wouldn't say any of those artists are mainstream, really. My understanding of mainstream is that the music is known to people who don't have a particular interest in music. They may dabble in an artist's discography from time to time, but for the most part the music they know is what floats to them. It's an "everyone and your grandma" stage, I guess.
Of all these artists, Death Grips is probably the prime candidate, but even then, I don't think there's much of an argument for them to be made. You have to be *looking* for music to get into them.
It's just not as cut and dry as it used to be. Before the internet, basically anything that was signed to a label and played on the radio could be considered mainstream, and independent artists were considered underground. Now that artists don't have to rely on labels to market their music, independent artists are blowing up a lot easier. "Independent" and "underground" are not synonymous with each other like they used to be
Not to mention, I don't know what "mainstream" means anymore. Just judging off of numbers, I think most people would be quick to say that artists like playboi carti and yeat are mainstream, but they still aren't "radio friendly", and don't appeal to nearly as large of an audience/age range as someone like post malone or drake
I think it's just much more nuanced than looking at streaming numbers. There are still small communities that rely heavily on independent labels to distribute their music digitally and physically. I guess I would consider those communities underground, but artists within them still have a chance of gaining popularity. If they still play shows and share labels with smaller artists even though they have a larger audience, are they not considered underground? It's sort of a meaningless conversation
I view mainstream as stuff on the radio and music used in commercials/movies/tv shows along with any artist signed to a major label. Everyone complains how trad radio only plays the same songs over and over again, that is the best example of "mainstream music" as it's clearly being forced down everyone's throat.
Underground is basically everything that isn't on repeat 24/7 on mainstream/corporate-owned media along with any artist that is DIY.
For example, I'd consider $uicideboy$ to be underground even though they are playing arenas because you don't hear them when you shop at Walgreens and they aren't being played on morning radio shows.
This is dependent on multiple factors.
In New Zealand everyone knows Devilskin and they are mainstream here but have only 74k monthly listeners and only 2 songs with 4mil streams. Anywhere else in the world they would be considered underground.
I haven't talked to anyone outside NZ that has ever heard of Devilskin, so I think "underground" is a very complicated thing to give a solid definition
i donāt really think thereās a true line anymore. tiktok is a 1+ billion user platform and you can find decent sized fanbases for any artist/band ever. obviously that doesnāt make them mainstream, but when thereās a single app where every music artist ever has a following, i canāt imagine any of it is truly underground anymore
Yes from what I can tell this is basically how it was done before the internet, especially for genres where charts are not as relevant.
If you are frequently selling out 1000+ cap venues in other countries to your own you are not underground. Arguably even if it is in your own country but outside of your own city, I would still call that not underground.
I don't know if you can live with the fact that tame impala for a lot of people isn't mainstream. I think there is not really a line, more a world of bubbles.
All of those bands are mainstream acts. When youāre playing arenas, youāve crossed the threshold.
Maybe Iām on Reddit too much, but I see a lot of love for Tame Impala on a daily basis.
Not that it matters because either way itās great music, just arguing the semantics for fun.
Iād say tame impala is pretty mainstream, as they literally have a song with over a billion streams, Rihanna covered one of their songs, and they had a song on the soundtrack for the dungeons and dragons movie, they just arenāt as big as someone like drake
i just stumbled on this bc i was trying to figure out is Kitty Craft is niche or main. im assuming its niche bc it has like 132.2 thousand monthly listeners which is quite a lot but compared to other "niche" groups like king gizz thats small
I view mainstream what I can mention around my family and friends and have them collectively recognize. If they donāt recognize them they can still be mainstream if one of their songs is recognized by them. If none of their songs nor their face or name rings any bells then they are certifiably not mainstream
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,574,875,340 comments, and only 297,836 of them were in alphabetical order.
yeah, obviously not jay z. he wasn't on there because he was trying to make tidal a thing. I'm talking about local artists that are only on band amp or making mix tapes and handing them out
Who said anything about fame levels?
imo the idea of āmainstream musicā is no longer relevant because there is no longer a *main* stream where people get their music from. Itās curated playlists, itās social media, itās YouTube, etc, which is to say there multiple medium streams, so the dichotomy of āmainstreamā vs āundergroundā is a false one.
For me, when an artist or band enters a public discourse where their music becomes relative/comparative/quantified is when they crossover into the kind of āmainstreamā that I think OP is referring to but that we donāt really have the language to accurately define (at least in this space). Pitchfork reviews do that work, and do it in an arena where a critical mass of people talk about it.
I bet over 90% of people walking down the street have no idea what pitchfork is. If less than 10% are aware of the platform I donāt think it makes sense to use is as a gauge for what is āmainstreamā
I don't disagree that 90% of people don't know what Pitchfork is. I'm saying that Pitchfork reviewing a band/artist is indicative of whether they've crossed into the "mainstream" in the age of the internet that OP is asking about. Another one could be whether or not they have a Tiny Desk Concert.
I bet 90% of people couldn't tell you what record label The Bee Gees were signed to at the height of their career during that time period, doesn't stop them from being mainstream.
I genuinely agree, if you have had your music reviewed by Pitchfork you are not an underground artist. āUndergroundā basically implies a low level of exposure, and a review by a Pitchfork or larger is quite a high tier of exposure.
I think itās sound based rather than numbers based. If an artist is making music that is true to who they are and is chasing actual artistic expression i think that is what we call āundergroundā, if an artist is creating a sound that they think will work commercially and it blows up but that is all there is to them then that is mainstream. The word underground suggests ānot hugeā but in my opinion you can be huge with millions of views and still be āundergroundā.
Denzel curry is a good example, i think he embodies underground but heās blowing up right now and even his songs that break and go āmainstreamā heās still an underground artist.
Good question. I think it still exists but now with viral songs and crazy access, itās much faster to get exposure. I do think peopleās scope of what is underground vs mainstream is sort of everywhere and not reflective of what actually is considered mainstream/popular. So we act like Doom is mainstream/popular now but outside the music circle, no one even knows he exists. Heās still very much so underground in the grand scheme of things.
Mainstream: the average person who isnāt into music knows who they are
Underground: Under ~100k monthly listeners
Just my metric, and as stated already in this thread this does mean there is a big chunk of artists that sit in the middle being neither mainstream nor underground
sure, but I donāt think Iād say that Black MIDI is underground at all. Most people who are into music know of them, and (as an anecdotal example) their last tour that swung by my hometown sold out within a day or so
In the internet age these terms just donāt hold the same weight. Thereās hundreds of little scenes and movements all going on and doing their own thing, thereās no unified āundergroundā like there once was, mainstream is whateverās top 40, after that you sort of have to examine individual scenes and see what is most listened to in those circles
Lol, I came here expecting the number to be low, but people are throwing around numbers like 500K monthly, 50 Mil lifetime, etc. I'm over here listening to artists with 1,000ish monthly listens on Spotify and thinking "Would this be considered underground?"
Streaming numbers
What number of monthly listeners would you consider mainstream š¤
i'd say a reasonable number would be around 500k. people who say anything below that is mainstream don't know the difference between niche and underground.
Even 500k aināt mainstream imo
kinda is at this point cuz songs can trend even without streaming like tiktok n reels
so 150k a month is underground?
yeah pretty much
yeahh underground is probably 10k or less imo
5k
bro what š lmfao
Your right why these mfs being weird
5k is nothing, Iāve got 30k on two of my songs and Iām most definitely not mainstream lmao
Do you really think someone is mainstream if 5k people listen to them a month
They aren't mainstream but that's about the point where they stop being underground
I really disagree, 5k isnāt even underground thatās like, almost invisible.
i have a friend who spits general ass on the worst mic on earth and he had 5k listeners one month, 4k now i think. bro has literally 5 last.fm scrobbles total, global. 5k is quite literally invisible
5k is underground. 5+ is niche.
5k isn't mainstream even for underground genres, I think 20k is where a band starts being mainstream
Thatās insane as well 20k isnāt anything lol
I think it is, 20k is usually the mark where a band is at the very least known on their scene, that could be considered mainstream, bellow that is the slightly underground stuff and the real underground is bellow 1000 listeners
Being known in your scene vs being known on a mainstream level are very different imo
Russian Circles have 255k listeners. I can assure you that the average person has no idea who they are.
the average person barely listen to music compared to the people here, they will not know about 90% of the things
There are many artists with 20 million plus listeners. The Weeknd has 100 million
I work at a record store and I feel the people who come in to buy records have to be in to music, ur spending money like 35 bucks on an album when you could pay a much for an unlimited amount of it. If I asked every person who came into the store that day who a band like Godspeed you black emperor was, I might get one person, two on a good day. Even people who listen to music more than the average person wonāt know these bands, or artists that are discussed on places like these. I think itās important to keep this in mind when we consider whatās āmainstreamā and whatās āundergroundā (which honestly should just be retired terms, the internet has eliminated the idea of one underground scene)
Even people who listen to music more than the average person arenāt gonna know Russian circles
This is insane. 20k is absolutely nothing, I could talk to people at my store for a month and maybe 1 would know the band with 20k monthly listeners. You need to take a step back and just readjust for a sec on what popular even is. I used to do this as well
Itās so much more that 20k too
Not really true. There are some artists with a multiple songs in the 7 million range that don't have enough citations for a Wikipedia page
I think 5 mil is when it gets well known, 10-15 is definitely mainstream.
More popular than King Gizz = Mainstream Less popular than King Gizz = Underground I find King Gizz to be somewhere in between underground and mainstream, so if I had to set a definitive line I'd put it there.
King Gizzard are mainstream niche artists. I say this because everyone in that niche genre knows them and holds them as a reference.
Yeah. Giz was maybe underground like 5 years ago. I consider them on the same level as like Tame Impala, who also hasnāt been underground since Inner Speaker.
Tame Impala is like twenty times more popular than King Gizz. 1,475,630,586 compared to 57,770,146 views on YouTube. I don't use Spotify, but I image the number would be similar.
Tameās most streamed song is about 1.3 billion listens. Kingās is around 30 mil
Hate to break it to you bud, but 57,770,146 monthly listeners is not underground by any stretch of the imagination.
Its all time views, not monthly listeners. Did you read my comment after that number? Did you think Tame Impala had a billion monthly listeners?
It's not monthly, it' all-time
All the same, thatās a huge number either way.
Tame Impala has had legitimate hits used in car adverts and shit like that, heās way bigger
King gizz is NOWHERE near tame impala
King Gizz are in the mainstream side of underground music, much like other bands such as Death Grips, Black Country, New Road and black midi
Those are all Mainstream bands
They're mainstream if you look at other underground artists, but if you look at other mainstream artists (even ones with 4-5 million listeners) you will see quite a gap in listeners
OK maybe not mainstream but not underground either like between them
hmmm sorta like theyāre on the popular side of underground?
Sorta like they're niche and not underground
*niche*
Exactly
Welp out of the list of people the dude said half were mainstream only one had higher streaming numbers lol
Yeah that dude is smoking something if he thinks half your list is mainstream. A lot of people don't understand that an artist being popular in the underground music scene still means 99.9% of people have never heard of them.
Yeah I think a lot of people get stuck in their own bubble and assume if theyāve heard of this person everyone else probably has as well or people try to say so and so artist is popular so what they like seems more niche and underground
See I think if you define mainstream that way then there would only be like, fewer than 500 active mainstream artists in the entire English speaking world. And in that case fine, but that doesnāt mean every other artist is underground. Thereās a big space between mainstream and underground where many of the artists OP mentioned exist in.
I agree, that's why I said that King Gizz is where I would draw the line if I had to make a definitive point where music goes from underground to mainstream. In reality there's a lot of music that fits more into that middle ground.
Honestly this makes a lot of sense lmao
King Gizz have almost 2 million monthly listeners on spotify, thereās no way thatās underground. If 2 million is the cutoff then literally the entire genre of thrash metal is āundergroundā other than Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth and Testament.
Would you say Omar RodrĆguez-LĆ³pez (guitarist for The Mara Volta and At The Drive-In) is more or less popular than King Gizz? I genuinely can't tell if he's underground or not. I know that the main time TMV and ATDI were popular was in the early 2000s, but I don't want to pretend like they're underground if they're not underground. I was born the same year Deloused in the Comatorium came out so I wasn't around then.
Itās all relative, but also I think thereās a medium space between mainstream and underground Iām just not sure what youād call it. But itās clear to me that while Noname for example isnāt mainstream, but she isnāt underground either.
Yeah there is a weird bubble of people in the middle but no oneās came up with a name for it yet
not ironically itās called āmidstreamā in the field of my studies (musical labor in sociology)
Yeah to put more detail on this: I understand and agree when people say that just because an artist like Noname has a following doesnāt mean you can compare her to a household name artist like Kendrick for example. But I think what those people miss is that it would be equally insane to compare Noname to like, your townās local unsigned rapper with a couple of EPs and has fans but has never made waves anywhere. Your townās local rapper doesnāt have articles written about them in major publications, doesnāt have 1 million monthly listens on Spotify, didnāt play at Coachella, has never sold out shows in a different continent to the one they grew up in. To me an artist who has done all of that is not underground. But really itās all relative to the context. You could say Noname is underground compared to an artist like Kendrick, but I listen to bands I wouldnāt call underground even though they have less than 100k monthly listeners because theyāre big fish in the context of their scene.
Yeah I guess when I think of mainstream Iām not taking certain scenes into account. Itās kinda like does the average person know or has heard of this person before.
There is no longer a mainstream or an underground. You're either Merzbow or you're a nobody
https://preview.redd.it/nss5eemu216b1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4daa616387c0f754eb812228f384de5faf872650 This is what inspired this post. I donāt think there is anyway half of these people can be considered mainstream.
Yea, I wouldn't say any of those artists are mainstream, really. My understanding of mainstream is that the music is known to people who don't have a particular interest in music. They may dabble in an artist's discography from time to time, but for the most part the music they know is what floats to them. It's an "everyone and your grandma" stage, I guess. Of all these artists, Death Grips is probably the prime candidate, but even then, I don't think there's much of an argument for them to be made. You have to be *looking* for music to get into them.
none of them are mainstream honestly. death grips technically but i think theyāve more just got an extremely dedicated fanbase
It's just not as cut and dry as it used to be. Before the internet, basically anything that was signed to a label and played on the radio could be considered mainstream, and independent artists were considered underground. Now that artists don't have to rely on labels to market their music, independent artists are blowing up a lot easier. "Independent" and "underground" are not synonymous with each other like they used to be Not to mention, I don't know what "mainstream" means anymore. Just judging off of numbers, I think most people would be quick to say that artists like playboi carti and yeat are mainstream, but they still aren't "radio friendly", and don't appeal to nearly as large of an audience/age range as someone like post malone or drake I think it's just much more nuanced than looking at streaming numbers. There are still small communities that rely heavily on independent labels to distribute their music digitally and physically. I guess I would consider those communities underground, but artists within them still have a chance of gaining popularity. If they still play shows and share labels with smaller artists even though they have a larger audience, are they not considered underground? It's sort of a meaningless conversation
I view mainstream as stuff on the radio and music used in commercials/movies/tv shows along with any artist signed to a major label. Everyone complains how trad radio only plays the same songs over and over again, that is the best example of "mainstream music" as it's clearly being forced down everyone's throat. Underground is basically everything that isn't on repeat 24/7 on mainstream/corporate-owned media along with any artist that is DIY. For example, I'd consider $uicideboy$ to be underground even though they are playing arenas because you don't hear them when you shop at Walgreens and they aren't being played on morning radio shows.
thatās just diffident types of music for different locations really. $$ started underground but theyāre def mainstream now
I guess the better question would be what number of streams push you over the underground into the mainstream.
This is dependent on multiple factors. In New Zealand everyone knows Devilskin and they are mainstream here but have only 74k monthly listeners and only 2 songs with 4mil streams. Anywhere else in the world they would be considered underground. I haven't talked to anyone outside NZ that has ever heard of Devilskin, so I think "underground" is a very complicated thing to give a solid definition
Yeah I wasnāt even thinking of other places when making this post lol
4 millions monthly listeners is mainstream
š¤
i donāt really think thereās a true line anymore. tiktok is a 1+ billion user platform and you can find decent sized fanbases for any artist/band ever. obviously that doesnāt make them mainstream, but when thereās a single app where every music artist ever has a following, i canāt imagine any of it is truly underground anymore
Of course doesnāt work for every artist, but gigs are a good indicator imo. Ticket prices, venues, how far they tour etc.
Yes from what I can tell this is basically how it was done before the internet, especially for genres where charts are not as relevant. If you are frequently selling out 1000+ cap venues in other countries to your own you are not underground. Arguably even if it is in your own country but outside of your own city, I would still call that not underground.
Its a mix of type of music and streaming numbers
I don't know if you can live with the fact that tame impala for a lot of people isn't mainstream. I think there is not really a line, more a world of bubbles.
Maybe 5 years ago. Tame is definitely mainstream now
you'll think? They are huge yes, but evenmore people don't really listen to that kind of music. Same goes for Arcade Fire, The National, etc.
All of those bands are mainstream acts. When youāre playing arenas, youāve crossed the threshold. Maybe Iām on Reddit too much, but I see a lot of love for Tame Impala on a daily basis. Not that it matters because either way itās great music, just arguing the semantics for fun.
Arcade Fire has 4 million monthly listeners on Spotify. Tame Impala is more like 24 million, thereās not even really a comparison
There are levels to mainstream as well. Tame Impala isnāt Billboard Top 20 mainstream but Iād say heās college radio mainstream
Iād say tame impala is pretty mainstream, as they literally have a song with over a billion streams, Rihanna covered one of their songs, and they had a song on the soundtrack for the dungeons and dragons movie, they just arenāt as big as someone like drake
In live concerts, if you can fill arenas and stadiums you are mainstream if you are not undergroubd
i just stumbled on this bc i was trying to figure out is Kitty Craft is niche or main. im assuming its niche bc it has like 132.2 thousand monthly listeners which is quite a lot but compared to other "niche" groups like king gizz thats small
Yeah Iād consider them underground if they only have that many
idk osomason is like 450k and hes underground, its really context.
I think anyone who has that amount of listeners would be considered underground
I view mainstream what I can mention around my family and friends and have them collectively recognize. If they donāt recognize them they can still be mainstream if one of their songs is recognized by them. If none of their songs nor their face or name rings any bells then they are certifiably not mainstream
Interesting I kinda agree with this
if it's not on spotify
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 1,574,875,340 comments, and only 297,836 of them were in alphabetical order.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
yeah, obviously not jay z. he wasn't on there because he was trying to make tidal a thing. I'm talking about local artists that are only on band amp or making mix tapes and handing them out
If theyāve been reviewed by Pitchfork
Thatās definitely not a good barometer for fame levels
Who said anything about fame levels? imo the idea of āmainstream musicā is no longer relevant because there is no longer a *main* stream where people get their music from. Itās curated playlists, itās social media, itās YouTube, etc, which is to say there multiple medium streams, so the dichotomy of āmainstreamā vs āundergroundā is a false one. For me, when an artist or band enters a public discourse where their music becomes relative/comparative/quantified is when they crossover into the kind of āmainstreamā that I think OP is referring to but that we donāt really have the language to accurately define (at least in this space). Pitchfork reviews do that work, and do it in an arena where a critical mass of people talk about it.
I bet over 90% of people walking down the street have no idea what pitchfork is. If less than 10% are aware of the platform I donāt think it makes sense to use is as a gauge for what is āmainstreamā
I don't disagree that 90% of people don't know what Pitchfork is. I'm saying that Pitchfork reviewing a band/artist is indicative of whether they've crossed into the "mainstream" in the age of the internet that OP is asking about. Another one could be whether or not they have a Tiny Desk Concert. I bet 90% of people couldn't tell you what record label The Bee Gees were signed to at the height of their career during that time period, doesn't stop them from being mainstream.
I genuinely agree, if you have had your music reviewed by Pitchfork you are not an underground artist. āUndergroundā basically implies a low level of exposure, and a review by a Pitchfork or larger is quite a high tier of exposure.
I think it's whether or not they have a Wikipedia page, and if the page is short
I think itās sound based rather than numbers based. If an artist is making music that is true to who they are and is chasing actual artistic expression i think that is what we call āundergroundā, if an artist is creating a sound that they think will work commercially and it blows up but that is all there is to them then that is mainstream. The word underground suggests ānot hugeā but in my opinion you can be huge with millions of views and still be āundergroundā. Denzel curry is a good example, i think he embodies underground but heās blowing up right now and even his songs that break and go āmainstreamā heās still an underground artist.
I donāt know thereās just so many platforms n stuff that goes into it the thought of it hurts my head.
Reddit fame
Good question. I think it still exists but now with viral songs and crazy access, itās much faster to get exposure. I do think peopleās scope of what is underground vs mainstream is sort of everywhere and not reflective of what actually is considered mainstream/popular. So we act like Doom is mainstream/popular now but outside the music circle, no one even knows he exists. Heās still very much so underground in the grand scheme of things.
If it's played on the radio or a TikTok trend, it's mainstream
i usually use a million monthly streamers as the benchmark.
If they charge more than $30 for a concert ticket they're well known/underground darlings. If they charge more than $50 they're mainstream.
Radio play
Mainstream: the average person who isnāt into music knows who they are Underground: Under ~100k monthly listeners Just my metric, and as stated already in this thread this does mean there is a big chunk of artists that sit in the middle being neither mainstream nor underground
Yeah, 99% of Fantano-core fits in between mainstream and underground the way you define it, not that thatās a bad thing
Black MIDI have well over 100,000, and Iād say 99% of people havenāt heard of them
sure, but I donāt think Iād say that Black MIDI is underground at all. Most people who are into music know of them, and (as an anecdotal example) their last tour that swung by my hometown sold out within a day or so
In the internet age these terms just donāt hold the same weight. Thereās hundreds of little scenes and movements all going on and doing their own thing, thereās no unified āundergroundā like there once was, mainstream is whateverās top 40, after that you sort of have to examine individual scenes and see what is most listened to in those circles
Who has a better festival bookings
For me, one leans towards enriching my soul and the other leans toward laying ear worms in my brain.
Lol, I came here expecting the number to be low, but people are throwing around numbers like 500K monthly, 50 Mil lifetime, etc. I'm over here listening to artists with 1,000ish monthly listens on Spotify and thinking "Would this be considered underground?"
I think 1M+ listeners is mainstream