In the continuing battle against crimes of "hitism", let me take a gentle swipe at an otherwise excellent piece on the cultural implications of the peer production age by music critic John Pareles in today's NYT. He writes:
"The open question is whether those new, quirky, homemade filters will find better art than the old, crassly commercial ones. The most-played songs from unsigned bands on MySpace — some played two million or three million times — tend to be as sappy as anything on the radio; the most-viewed videos on YouTube are novelty bits, and proudly dorky. Mouse-clicking individuals can be as tasteless, in the aggregate, as entertainment professionals.
The key word there is "aggregate". Popularity is simply a place where many roads--each one a single consumer's path through culture--intersect. Each road is different, but for a brief moment many crossed that point. Hits are products that reflect the coincidence of our collective tastes, and the reality is that most of the things that we agree on are relatively banal (that's why they call it the lowest common denominator).
Individually we may have excellent taste, but collectively we're as low-brow as they come. This is simply an artifact of the statistics of the Long Tail--when demand is spread over a huge number of products, most things won't be popular. And the things that are popular won't necessarily define their consumers.
T'was ever thus: Yogi Berra's quote in the title reflects the reality of minority taste. We're as likely to avoid doing what everyone else is doing as were are to join them. For the discriminating, popularity is often a curse, even if it was their early embrace that kick-started that popularity in the first place.
Once the most popular fare defined our culture. Now a million niches define our culture and the few blockbusters are the exceptions that define none of us, even through many of us brush by them.
David Foster Wallace, writing about television, said it best:
"TV is not vulgar and prurient and dumb because the people who compose the audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people tend to be extremely similar in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests."
(Image taken from our photo shoot this month for our cover story on LonelyGirl15, an example used in the NYT.)