(NOTE: This journal is targeted not at all hipsters, but a select few who I have witnessed exuding appalling character traits. Please do not mistake the entirety of this journal as a Straw Man against all hipsters, because it is not.)

The following is taken from notalwaysright.com:

(A customer walks over to the first aisle and taps each and every last CD case with his finger while saying either ‘mainstream’ or ‘sell-out’. He proceeds to do this with every single CD in the store, which takes him about 25 minutes. He then walks up to the counter.)

Customer: “What a bunch of mainstreamers you guys are! Don’t you have anything more obscure?”

Me: “We do have a pretty large indie section, which you seemed to have skimmed over.”

Customer: “You call those indie? I’ve heard of every single one of them. They’re all sell-outs.”

Me: “So, what is it that you’re looking for?”

Customer: “How the h*** should I know? If I’ve already heard of it, I wouldn’t buy it.”


Yes, it's a funny anecdote, but it makes me wonder why some people operate this way. What makes obscurity so inherently better than mainstream? I've heard a lot of empty, generalizing arguments. "They [mainstream artists] are sellouts" or "They're only in it for the money" and "Most people are stupid and will listen to anything fed to them by the media" seem to be the most popular explanations. But let's break this down, shall we?

Does something automatically become "all about the money" once it reaches a certain level of popularity or fame? Everyone who works in entertainment started somewhere; even the most famous of artists were nobodies at some point in their respective lives. Is there some process wherein becoming famous enough to get regular radio play or regularly cast in TV/movies means selling out all values of human decency for a paycheck? Sure, we may see such a scenario popularized in works of fiction (presented, ironically enough, in mainstream TV shows or movies), but is that an accurate reflection of reality? I'm not saying such scenarios never happen in the entertainment industry--I'm simply saying that it's exponentially unlikely to occur EVERY SINGLE TIME.

And consider all the people behind the scenes, too: the producers, CEOs, publishers, talent scouts, agents, receptionists, accountants, camera operators, gofers, audio equipment designers/engineers, janitors--everyone who is some integral part of the entire process of producing entertainment and bringing it to the mainstream for millions to enjoy. Are each and every one of those people sellouts as well? Because for someone to sell out their values for a paycheck--especially in that stereotypical, one-dimensional model so popularized by (again, so ironically enough) mainstream fictional entertainment--it inherently begs for the people to whom they are selling out to also be devoid of values. And all those other people with whom such immoral, evil, nasty, money-grubbing people do business must be in the same boat, caring more about money and lining their own pockets than with bringing something genuinely entertaining to the world. After all, THEY certainly couldn't be complex, multi-faceted people like you and me, could they? Mr. Evil, Rich, Entertainment-Degrading CEO of Sell-Out Labels MUST have been BORN already 42 years old with a wife he abuses, a scar of a Satanic cult, a bad attitude and a thinning hair line, mustn't he? There's no WAY someone like a CEO of a major, mainstream, multi-million-dollar record label could EVER have any sense of altruism, compassion, integrity, or any other ethically-merited virtue. (Or maybe this Straw Man I'm concocting isn't at all in line with what Hipsters believe happens behind the scenes of the entertainment industry, since, ya know, I've obviously been brainwashed by the mainstream.)

Every mainstream artist I've ever heard interviewed (and I'm not saying I've heard thousands upon thousands, but at least a good couple hundred in my life) speak only of a profound passion for the craft itself. They have NEVER spoken with anywhere NEAR the same enthusiasm about how much they're getting paid. It's always about (paraphrasing/summarizing), "I LOVE doing this so much, and I'm stoked that so many other people in the world garner so much happiness and entertainment from what I do!" Take note there: Happiness and entertainment. We all have something within us that we want to share with the rest of the world, and when we find that others with whom we share our special something enjoy it, we feel honored, proud, perhaps even a little humble. Yes, there IS a risk of becoming egotistical or of losing sight of what's important along the way, and I'm not trying to say that people who are mainstream entertainers are inherently more virtuous than the rest of the populace (the so-called "Halo Effect"), but at the same time, there's no evidence that I can see to suggest that all or even a majority of entertainers fall into the trap of being about the money moreso than being about the craft.

Many entertainers--especially those who work on that massive, mainstream scale--understand that there are SO MANY others trying to make their voice heard, to make sure that what they want to contribute to the world is both heard AND worthwhile, and yet the fact remains that there is such a large gradient of skill that most of what comes through is absolute rubbish. It takes wading through a LOT of crap before finding something that's truly a gem, and even then, it will only be a gem to certain individuals. There is some quote--I can't remember who said it or how it goes exactly (nor can I find it online), but it says something to the effect of, "I beheld I did not stand amid a field of giants."

So really, is obscurity any better? If the argument about mainstream being sellouts is untrue--that is, if mainstream artists have just as much incorruptible integrity towards their craft as obscure artists--then what makes an obscure artist better? Is there anything at all? There may be an artist who is obscure because he/she is JUST starting out, yet has potential to be the next YoYo Ma or Marlon Brando, but that person may very likely rise from obscurity into mainstream. However, I've come across MANY entertainers who could be just as good as those in mainstream, but they never catch a break. Why? Well, in so many cases (not all, mind you, but many), these people simply do not put in the necessary work to network and promote themselves (a problem I have myself), and so are never really seen or heard in any large scope. Sometimes, somebody puts in a lot of effort and has a lot of skill and talent and gets relatively far, but never pushes into the mainstream just due to unfortunate circumstances. In an ideal world, this would never happen, but we all understand that life isn't fair. So it IS good for people to at least take the time to look into more obscure entertainers--just don't go in automatically thinking they will be just as good or better than mainstream. I'm not saying you have to like anything mainstream, either--the real point is to simply explore and like what you like; like what speaks to you. Don't choose to like or dislike something just because of how popular or unpopular it is.

On the issue of "most people are stupid": Well, Mr. Hipster, since you're implying that you're so much SMARTER than "most people," you must have some more terrific insights into the world. Can you suggest a cure for cancer that works better than what all those "mainstream" research facilities are looking into? What about world hunger, poverty, and war? Any practical solutions to any of those that people involved in the mainstream have glossed over? And how much EFFORT do you put into making such solutions a reality on a large scale? Oh, wait...I guess if you went too large a scale with such a solution, it'd become mainstream and, hence, "evil," right? You'd stop fixing world poverty for the virtue of it and start doing it for the money, right?

There ARE a lot of people out there who refuse to utilize the faculties of logic and reasoning and prefer to stay in willful ignorance, but does that rob justification away from what entertainment they like? Or do you think that someone is inherently less intelligent than you on all levels simply because they like something you don't (or don't like something that you do)? What I personally think is that you, Mr. Hipster, are just another teenage human being trying to feel like what opinions you have to offer the world are special and unique and worthwhile...just like everyone else, just like all those people clamoring to be mainstream. You just either feel that you'd get more success by rejecting the mainstream route that's clogged with so many others, or else you've been led to believe in a fallacious, stereotypical model of the mainstream so that rejecting it makes you somehow more virtuous. You're not more virtuous. And in many cases, you're likely not really LESS virtuous, either. You're just taking a different route. But just call it for what it is; don't try to act all high-and-mighty, as if YOUR selected route has any traits that make it inherently better than mainstream. Doing this is no better than painting such arbitrary lines anywhere else. It's no better than a Democrat not voting for a bill that makes a lot of objective sense simply because it's being supported by a lot of Republicans. It's like not wanting to do business with another human being just because that other person happens to be a different religion or sexual orientation or skin color than you, even if the business in question is not influenced in any way, shape, or form by such traits. You're NOT an inherently better person for being a hipster, nor are people who expose themselves only to mainstream entertainment inherently better than you.

Like what you like because you like it, and don't judge others for having different tastes. Judging others so makes you look like a pretentious asshole. After all, do YOU like being told what you should or shouldn't enjoy in your life? And always remember: Nonconformity is conformity of a different kind.