the long tail

The first thing that struck me while reading the long tail was this idea that suggestions given by internet resources would help individuals expand their knowledge of books, music, and movies away from the limited mainstream world. I wonder, though, how much their direction really achieves this. Yes, one can get from an artist like Britney Spears (if you want to cal her that) to an obscure, close-to-lost, eighties band in a few clicks, but how much is this really an independent decision? Under the assumption that someone decides which bands influence each other or analyzes what people who liked certain groups tend to also enjoy their idea of what one should like is still, in certain situations, acting on the artistic education of people who use this source. Obviously we have the choice to like whatever we will. No one is going to suggest a book or movie and say 'here you go. you enjoyed this other thing so you have to love this or else you'll die.' Still it's not as though a little bit of our personal exposure is being directed for us by the influence of others.

What brought me to this idea? I was thinking also of one of my favorite features in itunes that I discovered only recently, the 'just for you' section. It provides pages and pages of music that I might like based on what I've bought in the past. While I admit many of my favorite songs and artists have come out of this feature, I recognize that it has in a way also manipulated me by choosing the artists that I would be most likely to take interest in and therefore buy music from. I do listen to a lot of mainstream music so the suggestions are also often popular but occasionally lead me to more obscure artists.

I agree that their is value to diversifying interests and branching out from the mainstream but there is also this potential for simply creating a new mainstream. If what is mainstream leads us to what is not and that becomes increasingly popular is that really moving away from this society obsessed with a hit. It seems to me that people want to be the same or at least share commonalities. It provides a way to relate to each other. Music can be a considerable representation of values, culture, and self. I doubt that it will ever be something that isn't oriented around mainstream ideals.

I'm curious about what the line between "mainstream" and "not mainstream" would be -- and what the stakes are in deciding whether a band or a movie or some other form of cultural text falls on one side or the other of that line. I always think about this in terms of the REM phenomenon: a bajillion years ago, when I was in college, REM was an edgy alternative band that only the cool kids listened to, but sometime during the time I was in grad school, they lost their "alternative" status and became "popular" instead. And this produced a lot of debates and anxieties among the kids who listened to them -- had the band sold out? Was it okay to continue to be an REM fan if you could demonstrate that you'd been listening to them long before they became popular? We all have a certain desire for the things that we really care about to remain individualized, and there's something deflating in seeing a taste that you thought was just yours suddenly become part of the cultural zeitgeist...