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

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
I think people are confusing the terms "before they were" and "because they are".

It is perfectly reasonable to like someone BEFORE they were big due to the fact the band might have changed its style due to their new found fame. However to dislike something BECAUSE they're famous is a pretty pathetic justification.
 

Johanthemonster666

New member
May 25, 2010
688
0
0
I've found myself saying things like "I liked ___ before they became mainstream" but it seems more statement that you've been familiar with that artist or band for a long time and the person who brought them up doesn't have to catch you to speed.

I think smug, music elitism I've witness has more to do with the invention of the Ipod/MP3 music player and the ability to own all the music you could ever want with the click of a mouse than anything else.

I live near two college cities (relatively close) and all my acquaintances (though not any of my close friends) are hipsters in every stereotypical way you could imagine. So I get this a lot, but the meta self awareness of their douchebaggery just eggs the processes on.
 

mitchell271

New member
Sep 3, 2010
1,457
0
0
I'm a bit of an elitist. I'm not proud of it and I hate that I am but when some bands or musical acts get really big, I just stop caring as much, albeit unintentionally. Most recently, there was Lindsey Stirling. I used to absolutely adore her, watching her videos once or twice a day. Then she got one of the most viewed videos of last year and I suddenly lost interest. I'll still watch her videos and she's just as talented as before, if not more so, but I just didn't care as much.

So yeah, I understand where you're coming from. And yes, I'm very much aware that this makes me an assholish elitist hipster.
 

Brown_Coat117

New member
Oct 22, 2010
112
0
0
Abomination said:
I think people are confusing the terms "before they were" and "because they are".

It is perfectly reasonable to like someone BEFORE they were big due to the fact the band might have changed its style due to their new found fame. However to dislike something BECAUSE they're famous is a pretty pathetic justification.
A fair point, however the context of the OP makes the popularity of music the central issue not any changes due to increased corporate influence or whatever.

In real life the most common wording is "before they were," even though "because they are," would be most accurate. The 'before they were," being both a brag that they heard of them, probably before you did, and an implied superiority that they aren't being controlled by "the man" by their rejection of said music due to it's popularity.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Brown_Coat117 said:
Abomination said:
I think people are confusing the terms "before they were" and "because they are".

It is perfectly reasonable to like someone BEFORE they were big due to the fact the band might have changed its style due to their new found fame. However to dislike something BECAUSE they're famous is a pretty pathetic justification.
A fair point, however the context of the OP makes the popularity of music the central issue not any changes due to increased corporate influence or whatever.

In real life the most common wording is "before they were," even though "because they are," would be most accurate. The 'before they were," being both a brag that they heard of them, probably before you did, and an implied superiority that they aren't being controlled by "the man" by their rejection of said music due to it's popularity.
The bolded part is the big truth there.

I remember liking Black Eyed Peas before they got that extra baggage known as Fergie. It was also the time they started becoming really famous. The two happened to co-inside but it's also an example as to how a band can change with its fame.
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
363
0
0
Abomination said:
I think people are confusing the terms "before they were" and "because they are".

It is perfectly reasonable to like someone BEFORE they were big due to the fact the band might have changed its style due to their new found fame. However to dislike something BECAUSE they're famous is a pretty pathetic justification.
It's not always possible to know what people really mean when they say it, but either way it's still pretty awful.

Bands mainly define themselves by sound and lyrics, so it strikes me as dubious if people would put fame at the forefront when that didn't exist when they first got into the group. Basically, supposing fame wasn't there to begin with, it shouldn't even be a factor to someone's interest.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
AgedGrunt said:
Abomination said:
I think people are confusing the terms "before they were" and "because they are".

It is perfectly reasonable to like someone BEFORE they were big due to the fact the band might have changed its style due to their new found fame. However to dislike something BECAUSE they're famous is a pretty pathetic justification.
It's not always possible to know what people really mean when they say it, but either way it's still pretty awful.
I don't see how using the point at which a band entered the world stage as a point of reference in time as to when one's interest in the band waned could be a bad thing. If a band changes how it performs AFTER it achieves a certain amount of fame one can't be blamed for holding a differing opinion in a band... and it certainly isn't awful to do.
 

Kailow Krow

New member
Mar 24, 2011
22
0
0
That privileged few space can exist with well known large bands. Look at Tool for example, to this day there's arguments about Jambi's lyrics being, damn my eyes, dim my eyes, or jambi eyes, or all three. Not everyone has the volition to search for it and think about it or dig about. You can be bad listening to this music.
But I get where you're coming from. Steam Powered Giraffe in stadium would be nothing like coming across them on the street and dropping money in the donation box. Not the same experience by a longshot.
It's like all art is, situational, and there's always exceptions.
And it is a little different for each medium of course. I've witnessed fans of Ice and Fire rage and GoT sudden popularity, and it's just for me at least a "took you long enough to catch up" but if there's a indie game no one else knows about it, spread that freaking word. You read "oh I saw that before it got picked up for sundance" once in awhile on the internet and that's like the cope de grace of just saying it to seem cool, ya know?
It's like "girl gamers" versus "Gamer girls" as I put it, yeah, there's authenticity to some of them, but some are being manipulative too. It's a mix, like I said, situational, context, exceptions, situational context exceptions; I hate it when these things are treated like generalizing blankets like they're made into rules that are always true all the time, it is a law, that's the word for it. Like it's a law that all gamer girls are being manipulative or it's a law all hipsters are doing it just for the image. It's like, I was a hipster before it was cool and now I'm mad about that too. It's just, b.s. it always was. As if it has to be a quantifiable fact at all times. But that's never the way stuff works. Life has just never, ever had any binary absolutes, even night and day have an in between, like ever, it just baffles me. That's just silly human behavior trying to measure and rationalize reliably; like if this is true then this is always true. And yeah, that's not always wrong, but that's not always right either! It's a simplified primitive more distilled logic, that's not wrong, but still needs to be, or sometimes can be still expanded upon, and then that goes back to laws and the only right way and not allowing that expansions and just...
It comes down to the individual, the individual case, the individual example, the individual event, everyone is different, and that's fine but if you really need a rule or a law that is reliable that's it, the only certainty is uncertainty, everyone is different every case and example is different. It's just not always yes or no question like that ya know? But to answer the question, disliking a band because they're popular, well, I try not to dislike any music. It's like I was explaining to friend, some music is science fiction, some music is horror and some music like a comedy, ya know? And the question becomes does their popularity somehow affect their sound or change their art or the way it experienced? If they sell out for example is a different question, and if a band becomes popular they might sell out, that does stand to reason, but did they? Are they worse or better or should be glad they're getting the rcognition they finally deserve? Gray areas people. It's about the gray areas.
 

Ophiuchus

8 miles high and falling fast
Mar 31, 2008
2,095
0
0
Abomination said:
I think people are confusing the terms "before they were" and "because they are".

It is perfectly reasonable to like someone BEFORE they were big due to the fact the band might have changed its style due to their new found fame. However to dislike something BECAUSE they're famous is a pretty pathetic justification.
Yeah, pretty much. Although I'd say that in a lot of cases it's not so much changing style because of new-found fame, but more changing their style in an attempt to get fame. My go-to example is a bit of both. Their first three albums were awesome. The fourth brought them mainstream success while still being pretty decent, but the two they've released since then are absolute garbage with none of the power, feeling, or great tunes that they used to be known for. No hipster guilt there, they were simply better before they were famous.

Also I'm still really bitter that I missed out on seeing The Strokes at my local venue for £5 before their first album came out. I liked what I'd heard from them but decided I just couldn't be bothered to go out that night. I'm an idiot. But at least becoming massively famous didn't stop them being good.

But as for hating a band just because they're famous? That's an attitude I don't understand. As long as they stay good, I have no idea what difference it makes how many other people listen to them. In fact, I think it's great that as many people as possible will hear it and hopefully get to enjoy it as much as I did. I was a big fan of fun.'s first album and was really pleased to see them gain huge success with We Are Young and their second album.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
The problem with the assertion that you liked them before you were famous is that it is fundamentally seen as an aggressive comment. Loaded in that simple phrase is the idea that you are less cool for only hearing about them now, that the band is worse now that they are known, and that your experience is inferior to their own. Even though that phrase does not explicitly state such things, that is the association with it. Language being what is is then, if someone simply means to communicate that they liked a band before the band was famous in a way that is less likely to be interpreted as an attack upon tastes and character, they simply need use different phrasing and definitely different tone.

For example, saying ; I've listened to them for ages works just fine especially if followed up by asking the other person what they like/don't like about the group. That both gets the information across, lets your opinion be known, and doesn't carry with it the idea that somehow your experience is superior to their own. Even if you believe that to be true, pointing it out is douchebaggery of the highest caliber.
 

the Dept of Science

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,007
0
0
Ophiuchus said:
Also I'm still really bitter that I missed out on seeing The Strokes at my local venue for £5 before their first album came out. I liked what I'd heard from them but decided I just couldn't be bothered to go out that night. I'm an idiot. But at least becoming massively famous didn't stop them being good.
There was this venue round the corner from my house which used to put on free gigs all the time. Smallish pub, foot high stage. I have a flyer from one month where both Frank Turner and Mumford & Sons were playing. I missed both of them.
 

WouldYouKindly

New member
Apr 17, 2011
1,431
0
0
Fame, in and of itself, shouldn't mean anything for most bands unless the core of their ethos is a DIY ethic and they joined a major record label.

I do see with getting annoyed with people who hopped on the bandwagon of a band you liked when no one knew about them. For the most part, it's from the touch of ignorance they have. If they look back into the bands history and learn and listen to what they did before they were famous. Do that, and you're just a fan in my eyes.