"I liked them before they were famous" is a totally reasonable position

[the Dept of Science]

Whenever people bring up hipsters, they always bring up the phrase "I liked them before they were famous".

It's probably through it's association with hipsters that this phrase has been tainted somewhat. But I want to reclaim it. I think that it's a perfectly reasonable position to hold towards a band or piece of music.

Some things aren't as good when they are big
- Some acts work best when they are big. Their sound and theatrics seem designed for festivals and stadiums. However, this does not apply for everyone.
Basically, sometimes, people prefer spending £10 on seeing a band play their local venue than spending £50 on seeing them play a stadium in another city.

Having your own special music
- There's a lot to love about an anthem. The song that everyone knows and loves, will get everyone singing along when its played. Also, some songs become anthems for a reason; they are catchy and touch upon some widely held feeling at the time. We love a shared experience.
On the flip side though, there is also an appeal in knowing something that very few other people know or experiencing something very few experience. We may have our own secret spaces in this world which we only share with a privileged few. Imagine that there's was a cool cafe in your area that you went to regularly and knew the guys. It gets in the paper and now everyone goes there. You'd be happy for the owner, but would it still have the same appeal as before?

Musicians get popular based on a single, not a discography
- The public conciousness isn't large enough to give credit to musicians for more than a few songs, with rare exceptions. Bob Dylan is arguably the greatest songwriter of all time. Out of his 35 studio albums, at least 10 of which are stone cold classics, your average person could (probably) name "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Blowin' in the Wind". You may ask, though, why is this a problem?
Well, its like the public likes a less good version of that band/artist. Especially true if they are mainly known about from soundtracking an advert. The average fan was "I really liked their last album, I thought it had strong songs throughout, held together nicely and really spoke to me" now its like "their song has a really catchy riff". Before long it feels like the band that you like and the band that everyone else likes are almost 2 different things.


Now, obviously, this viewpoint can be taken to extremes. Some people seem to hope that certain bands won't get famous, because they don't realise that musicians are people that need to make a living from what is generally considered an unreliable source of income. Also, there are very different thresholds on what people consider famous; for one man it may be when Top 40 stations start playing them, for another it may be when Pitchfork writes a review about them.

Is it OK to stop liking a band because they've become popular or does still just make you an asshole hipster?

 

[Ferisar]

Not LIKING a band because of their fame is one thing. That's fine, styles change and a lot of things get lost in translation and transition between the two social states. But just going "THEY'RE SHIT NOW!" isn't really to hold all that much water. They appeal to a wider variety? Sure, yeah. They may even not be as precise and clear in their message when writing songs, but just "shit"? Eh... It's a case by case basis.

What you said in your last paragraph is what I usually refer to when in that argument; not wanting someone to become bigger is a little self-served. Yeah, the fans are important, but living is, too. I think people cling on to imagery of certain bands rather than their actual music. When the image becomes distorted, so do the "core" fans oft rebel.

So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with that stance, it just needs less hate associated with it.

CAPTCHA: virtue of necessity

I don't even know captcha, I don't even know.

 

[Galletea]

I think it can be a reasonable thing to say. When a band is famous the producers they get can have a big impact on their sound, and this can put off a lot of the people that supported them early on. Added to this is the pressure bands get to write albums means that they have not got the same freedom of writing they once had. If you stop liking them because other people do, then yes, you are an asshole hipster. If you stop liking them because fame has led to a change in their sound, then that is fine.

 

[the Dept of Science]

I think it can be a reasonable thing to say. When a band is famous the producers they get can have a big impact on their sound, and this can put off a lot of the people that supported them early on. Added to this is the pressure bands get to write albums means that they have not got the same freedom of writing they once had. If you stop liking them because other people do, then yes, you are an asshole hipster. If you stop liking them because fame has led to a change in their sound, then that is fine.

I consciously gave 3 reasons which had nothing to do with the band changing their sound. Do they make me an asshole hipster?

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

"I liked them before they were big" is an understandable sentiment if they've changed their style simply to gain fame and fortune. However, if people are just whining because the band is no longer "their little secret" they're just being selfish and can suck it. I love being the guy in the group who knows about an obscure band or two, but the people who only listen to such things and then lord it over others, like they're superior for enjoying more obscure bands somehow makes them "better", is just frustrating.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well, 'I liked them before they were big' is fine, of course but not liking a band because they've become famous is a bit stupid if nothing else has changed. if they change their sound? Yeah, sure. I think the later Foo Fighters albums are dull as hell (the newest one wasn't bad actually) but not because they got a lot bigger, because they changed their sound. I can understand if you were sick of talking about them or hearing about them, but the music's still the same.

 

[Saelune]

I like when I liked something earlier than people, but I hate how people use it to devalue people who found them later. I liked The Killers before alot of people, but anyone who learns to like them today is more than welcome. Meanwhile, one of my favorite bands, Modest Mouse, I did not know of or like until their first album to actually have any real mainstream success. Doesnt mean I dont love them any less than someone who knew of them since their first album.
Then again, I encourage more people to like the music I do, as opposed to not. Would be nice if I could actually talk music with more people...

 

[Galletea]

I think it can be a reasonable thing to say. When a band is famous the producers they get can have a big impact on their sound, and this can put off a lot of the people that supported them early on. Added to this is the pressure bands get to write albums means that they have not got the same freedom of writing they once had. If you stop liking them because other people do, then yes, you are an asshole hipster. If you stop liking them because fame has led to a change in their sound, then that is fine.

I consciously gave 3 reasons which had nothing to do with the band changing their sound. Do they make me an asshole hipster?

1) The small gig is an entirely different animal to the stadium. People might appeal to the masses, but you're always going to miss the intimacy of spending a tenner to get into a pub. Not Hipsterish

2)The thing that you liked has lost its appeal since it is everywhere. I find this with certain songs, but generally it doesn't stop me liking a band. Sort of Hipsterish

3) I don't see how you can stop liking band because the general public loves a couple of their songs and you know more than they do. I am a big fan of David Bowie. Most people might be able to name 5 or 6 songs and probably 3 or 4 albums, none of which are my favourites. If people suddenly take interest because Sound and Vision was used in a Sony ad, or they heard Gasoline in Inglorious Basterds then great, it isn't going to have an effect on what I think. I think in this instance it is very shallow to stop liking something because you have a deeper understanding of the music than joe average. Asshole Hipsterish

So there are your answers. You are theoretically approaching asshole hipster status, but not quite there yet.

 

[ShipofFools]

Just don't use a music group to build your identity, these kind of problems will just go away.

 

[Angie7F]

I have a friend who is pissed off that the band she liked got too mainstream. Same for AKB48.
I kind of understand it.
A lot of bands and artists are fun because you are trying to push them into stardom and the distance between them and the fans are still so close.

I dont know how much this applies to hipsters though...

 

[Dark Knifer]

I think you summarise why pretty well, particularly the personal feel bit but for me personally it just depends on how much I like their music.

 

[Trivun]

I think it can be a reasonable thing to say. When a band is famous the producers they get can have a big impact on their sound, and this can put off a lot of the people that supported them early on. Added to this is the pressure bands get to write albums means that they have not got the same freedom of writing they once had. If you stop liking them because other people do, then yes, you are an asshole hipster. If you stop liking them because fame has led to a change in their sound, then that is fine.

I consciously gave 3 reasons which had nothing to do with the band changing their sound. Do they make me an asshole hipster?

1) The small gig is an entirely different animal to the stadium. People might appeal to the masses, but you're always going to miss the intimacy of spending a tenner to get into a pub. Not Hipsterish

Esben and the Witch. I went to see these guys at a place in Leeds, a small club called The Cockpit, and the space could maybe hold a hundred people - there were around 25 people there including me, and we were right up close and on the same level as the band. Their particular music style is suited to that sort of venue, and I felt really into the music and the atmosphere then. A similar band, Warpaint, I saw in a big crowd at Leeds Met a short while later, and while good it was nowhere near as awesome (that small Esben gig will remain one of my all-time favourite gigs, alongside seeing Hurts at V Festival, for a very long time...). There's no way it would be as good if Esben had been on a large stage playing even to hundreds, let alone thousands, of people.

2)The thing that you liked has lost its appeal since it is everywhere. I find this with certain songs, but generally it doesn't stop me liking a band. Sort of Hipsterish

I feel this a little bit with Taylor Swift and The Script sometimes. Don't judge me! Taylor Swift I first heard when she was in her country phase, when I spent two weeks in Florida and she was on the radio loads (specifically, the songs Picture To Burn and Our Song), and being a little bit of a country fan I really enjoyed her stuff. Now she's gone all 'pop' to appeal to the UK market, and although I still enjoy her music, my liking for it is a lot less so than it used to be. As for The Script, the same applies with their stuff from the Man Who Can't Be Moved days compared to now, with songs like Hall Of Fame - still decent, but not as much as before.

3) I don't see how you can stop liking band because the general public loves a couple of their songs and you know more than they do. I am a big fan of David Bowie. Most people might be able to name 5 or 6 songs and probably 3 or 4 albums, none of which are my favourites. If people suddenly take interest because Sound and Vision was used in a Sony ad, or they heard Gasoline in Inglorious Basterds then great, it isn't going to have an effect on what I think. I think in this instance it is very shallow to stop liking something because you have a deeper understanding of the music than joe average. Asshole Hipsterish

So there are your answers. You are theoretically approaching asshole hipster status, but not quite there yet.

I've never had a case of this last one. My brother has, although every time I call him a hipster he vehemently denies it, but he basically stopped liking both Muse and Paramore (both of whom I still love) after they each contributed songs for the Twilight soundtrack (which, despite itself, the films do actually use very good music, like Mutemath, Radiohead, Iron and Wine, and so on). Since then he calls them both 'sellouts', and doesn't like the fact that both bands are getting more popular even in the mainstream recently (what with Muse's Olympic song and Paramore's self-titled album topping many, many charts).

On the whole, I've always just been of the opinion that I like what I like, of many kinds, and if anybody thinks I'm a hipster for saying that I happened to be into a band like Poets of the Fall (who are almost unheard of in the UK yet pretty big in their native Finland) despite the fact I'm also a fan of, say, Olly Murs (pretty popular) or Biffy Clyro (also very popular), then that's fine for them to think, but pretty much untrue.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Whenever people bring up hipsters, they always bring up the phrase "I liked them before they were famous".

It's probably through it's association with hipsters that this phrase has been tainted somewhat. But I want to reclaim it. I think that it's a perfectly reasonable position to hold towards a band or piece of music.

Is it OK to stop liking a band because they've become popular or does still just make you an asshole hipster?

If people want to distance themselves from a group because it got popular, they can go ahead, but should know it makes them a massive tool.

To me the phrase can be a bit condescending and have bad implications. While not always true, they can be, depending upon the person using it. Whether people saying it feel like it makes them special, more respected or more of a "true" fan, or if they want to insulate themselves from the new direction the band is going in so they don't get grouped into the mainstream -- it's really just a weak phrase.

A lot of times it's impossible to like a group before it became famous, either due to regional divides, deep obscurity or time. Sorry, I wasn't alive in 1983 before Metallica became an icon, but I can tell you how their sound has progressed along with the rest of metal and why their newer material doesn't appeal as much to me without sounding like a flake.

If you're an "old school" fan, talk like one.

 

[the Dept of Science]

Just don't use a music group to build your identity, these kind of problems will just go away.

It's got nothing to do with identity. Being a fan of a small, niche band, and being a fan of a large, popular band are two different experiences. One isn't necessarily better than the other and we can do to have a bit of both in our lives, but perhaps in some cases, for some bands, you just preferred the experience when they were small and niche.

 

[SecondPrize]

It's not a position. What stand are you taking when you say you liked something before it was famous?

 

[Robot Number V]

Whenever people bring up hipsters, they always bring up the phrase "I liked them before they were famous".

It's probably through it's association with hipsters that this phrase has been tainted somewhat. But I want to reclaim it. I think that it's a perfectly reasonable position to hold towards a band or piece of music.

Some things aren't as good when they are big
- Some acts work best when they are big. Their sound and theatrics seem designed for festivals and stadiums. However, this does not apply for everyone.
Basically, sometimes, people prefer spending £10 on seeing a band play their local venue than spending £50 on seeing them play a stadium in another city.

OK, but that only applies to concerts. A band's popularity shouldn't influence whether you have them on your ipod or not.

Having your own special music
- There's a lot to love about an anthem. The song that everyone knows and loves, will get everyone singing along when its played. Also, some songs become anthems for a reason; they are catchy and touch upon some widely held feeling at the time. We love a shared experience.
On the flip side though, there is also an appeal in knowing something that very few other people know or experiencing something very few experience. We may have our own secret spaces in this world which we only share with a privileged few. Imagine that there's was a cool cafe in your area that you went to regularly and knew the guys. It gets in the paper and now everyone goes there. You'd be happy for the owner, but would it still have the same appeal as before?

I guess I can sort of see this one, but...It's not a perfect comparison. For one thing, having your space be more crowded would actually effect your experience there. A song on your iPod doesn't suddenly change just because more people are listening to it. Your "experience" with a certain song isn't effected by how many people like it, it's only effected by how much YOU like it.

And for another thing...A "private place" suddenly becoming popular wouldn't necessarily be bad. So you used to know all the people there and now there's more people. Well, so what? Get to know some new people, then.

Musicians get popular based on a single, not a discography
- The public conciousness isn't large enough to give credit to musicians for more than a few songs, with rare exceptions. Bob Dylan is arguably the greatest songwriter of all time. Out of his 35 studio albums, at least 10 of which are stone cold classics, your average person could (probably) name "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Blowin' in the Wind". You may ask, though, why is this a problem?
Well, its like the public likes a less good version of that band/artist. Especially true if they are mainly known about from soundtracking an advert. The average fan was "I really liked their last album, I thought it had strong songs throughout, held together nicely and really spoke to me" now its like "their song has a really catchy riff". Before long it feels like the band that you like and the band that everyone else likes are almost 2 different things.

This makes the least sense to me. Who CARES what the "public" thinks? How does the public perception of a band that you like make a damn difference to how much you personally enjoy their music? I don't even know how to respond to this one, it just makes no fucking sense.

Once again, your "experience" with a certain band is determined by how much YOU like them. Nothing else.

Is it OK to stop liking a band because they've become popular or does still just make you an asshole hipster?

Unless the band's music actually changes for the worse at around the same time that they become popular, then it absolutely makes you an asshole hipster. Hypothetically.

 

[crystalsnow]

Yes, it is a reasonable position, and I didn't even need to read your arguments to agree with you. But it still makes you sound like a douchebag.

 

[PromethianSpark]

Tbh, you have described the thought process behind this hipster attitude, you summed it up to a tea. I'm am not judging you, I have thought this way, and I am sure plenty of other people have too. But if you really think about it, you will realise that it is silly and probably narcissistic.

When you made the argument about the cafe, I nearly began to think you might be right. I love pubs that aren't frequented by many people, where old men hang out and it has a gritty character. Then word spreads and its just not the same. But then I realised that there is a difference. People enjoying music that you like, does not in any objective way impact that music, it only robs you of some special feeling you had for liking it when others didn't. This is the narcissistic component that really questions what it is you like about said music (really think about that). However, people frequenting my regular really do have an impact in how I appreciate that space. And that my friend, is the difference.

 

[Brown_Coat117]

Whenever people bring up hipsters, they always bring up the phrase "I liked them before they were famous".

It's probably through it's association with hipsters that this phrase has been tainted somewhat. But I want to reclaim it. I think that it's a perfectly reasonable position to hold towards a band or piece of music.

Some things aren't as good when they are big
- Some acts work best when they are big. Their sound and theatrics seem designed for festivals and stadiums. However, this does not apply for everyone.
Basically, sometimes, people prefer spending £10 on seeing a band play their local venue than spending £50 on seeing them play a stadium in another city.

Having your own special music
- There's a lot to love about an anthem. The song that everyone knows and loves, will get everyone singing along when its played. Also, some songs become anthems for a reason; they are catchy and touch upon some widely held feeling at the time. We love a shared experience.
On the flip side though, there is also an appeal in knowing something that very few other people know or experiencing something very few experience. We may have our own secret spaces in this world which we only share with a privileged few. Imagine that there's was a cool cafe in your area that you went to regularly and knew the guys. It gets in the paper and now everyone goes there. You'd be happy for the owner, but would it still have the same appeal as before?

Musicians get popular based on a single, not a discography
- The public conciousness isn't large enough to give credit to musicians for more than a few songs, with rare exceptions. Bob Dylan is arguably the greatest songwriter of all time. Out of his 35 studio albums, at least 10 of which are stone cold classics, your average person could (probably) name "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Blowin' in the Wind". You may ask, though, why is this a problem?
Well, its like the public likes a less good version of that band/artist. Especially true if they are mainly known about from soundtracking an advert. The average fan was "I really liked their last album, I thought it had strong songs throughout, held together nicely and really spoke to me" now its like "their song has a really catchy riff". Before long it feels like the band that you like and the band that everyone else likes are almost 2 different things.


Now, obviously, this viewpoint can be taken to extremes. Some people seem to hope that certain bands won't get famous, because they don't realise that musicians are people that need to make a living from what is generally considered an unreliable source of income. Also, there are very different thresholds on what people consider famous; for one man it may be when Top 40 stations start playing them, for another it may be when Pitchfork writes a review about them.

Is it OK to stop liking a band because they've become popular or does still just make you an asshole hipster?

Point 1: As pointed out before this only applies to concerts and not the how they sound on your stereo, also big bands do frequently play smaller shows that cost less to attend. On this point: Asshole Hipster

Point 2: Pretty much the definition of an Asshole Hipster. I knew a little hole in the wall place in high school knew the owner and all that jazz, was a regular and knew a few other regulars. By the time college rolled around it was really picking up popularity which meant that I had more people to enjoy it with. Then the owner killed himself and the new owners sucked, therefore the place now sucked.

Point 3 : Who gives a damn what the public thinks, what matters is what you think about them. Generally you can avoid the over-saturation effect by choice. A song is on a commercial, mute your TV, it comes on the radio too much, change the channel, someone else has control of the radio at work, listen to them less at home, Asshole Hipster.