quoted 2 lines Question: why is "underground" techno better?>>Question: why is "underground" techno better?
>
The underground is in fact often "better".
Why?
It's the old art/entertainment divide.
The artists are usually internally motivated - with some internal vision
which they are attempting to express. In a sense, they follow that calling
more for themselves than for the audience (which is not to say that they
are necessarily oblivious to audience reaction).
This type of creator tends to be less interested in the effect on the mass
audience and more interested in the work itself.
The entertainer is generally externally motivated - at best, to bring the
audience satisfaction via his or her work; at worst, to simply separate the
audience from their money as rapidly as possible.
The creators of underground music are more likely to be creating simply for
the love of music, rather than for profit or mass adulation. That is, they
are more likely to place high value on the music itself, rather than seeing
it as a means to an end (popularity, fame, wealth, whatever). If they were
primarily interested in the life of luxury, they certainly wouldn't choose
such an esoteric medium as their path to that plastic paradise.
Caveat Emptor: Of course, the division is not absolute. There is bad
underground music (though more often than not at least the intentions were
good); there is good* music which has made its way into the mainstream
(Eno!).
However, overall:
What's the result?
The work of the artist more often challenges the audience.
The work of the entertainer more often panders to the audience.
Guess which one sells more records.
Zenon M. Feszczak
Philosopher ex nihilo
*In my value system, "good" here means "artistic". I place higher value on
art than on entertainment, though both have their place. If the kind
reader disagrees with that hierarchy, then this argument collapses like a
fat cat on a polished floor.