If you hate on a pop song it's a different side of liking the pop song. If it was so innocuous then there would be nothing to hate about it. Tragedy requires greatness. She's a good singer, and she makes little heartbreak pop songs, but I get the feeling if she was on an indie label people around here would be creaming their pants to tell people all about this unknown starlet.
Bet she'd sound different if she were on an indie label, maybe, tho'. Hate, like - both are interest and both elicit a reaction, so in that way, yes, they're different sides of the same thing (generating discussion about the song/creating plays, etc). In a similar way to how everyone mocked Drake's dancing in Hotline Bling which actually caused more people to listen to (and watch the video for) Hotline Bling than if no one had cared. I'm still paying attention to "Hello." However, it would have been impossible for me to have lived in ignorance (true apathy) of the song due to my friend group and multiple people going, "OMG, have you heard the new Adele song/omg it's soooo goood," etc. I don't think tragedy requires greatness, I think it requires potential. A youth dying is tragic; an octogenarian dying is expected. It is easier to qualify as "tragedy" the greater the magnitude of impact, which is where your greatness comes in. But that is really a discussion of universality, not greatness or tragedy. I dislike this statement, but as I almost never bother to share music or, I confess, listen to the music recommendations that show up around here, I suppose I cannot speak to it. I do not even open the weekly music threads. (Whoever's running them now - I think they're a great thing - but they're just not what I am looking for out of my Hubski or internet experience.) I get the feeling if she was on an indie label people around here would be creaming their pants to tell people all about this unknown starlet.
Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of people pretend that a youth dying is tragic but really it's happening right now and no one cares, but a dying octogenarian who is your grandmother would be tragic. That's what I mean when I say greatness. You have to have some skin in the game. She may sound different on an indie (although XL is actually an indie label, but a big one, it's kind of a made up term really), but I don't really buy into the idea that an indie (read: small) label offers much that a big label doesn't. Rick Rubin produced her album. That's a boon that an indie can't offer. And if you look over the weekly music thread, the most well-known bands on there this week are Steely Dan (with the caveat that it's a boring band to even mention), The Allman Brothers (which has the one boop that everyone in the thread gets), and Motorhead (because Lemmy died). I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but that's the 'into-music-music scene' way. Why tell people about bands they're already aware of? So mainstream stuff doesn't get brought up as it's assumed that people already know about it. Regardless of how much better it might be than what does get brought up.
My thought is that the difference between a true indie label and a major one is oversight; aka artistic freedom. That probably sounds idealistic or naive. I also feel, again probably romantically, that artists on indie labels require more breadth and ability to their artistry: there are those pop stars that write their own songs (as well as songs for others - see Ke$ha) but I think on a major label with a big enough following or representment, there are also artists that skate by without those skills, whereas I think in the indie world you can't really survive that way unless you are doing really, really great covers. And then I think people will know you aren't writing your own songs and I think that will be added as a caveat to your rep when people talk about you. Of course, you are also very right in that major labels afford artists contacts and opportunities that indie ones don't or can't. And I'm right there with you about how indie/major label has become a meaningless term - when taken and used literally to refer to the size of the label. However, I think "indie" also represents a kind of sound quality (or lack of sound quality) and artist mentality. I am thinking of Kings of Leon when I think of bands that were indie bands and then went major label. I think going major label definitely impacted their sound. It is popular to say KoL "sold out," isn't it? Although if you wanted to, you could cover and say they just refined. Death Cab used to be super staticky-alt and they refined their sound w/in the first four albums and haven't majorly changed it since. What you describe in the music thread - I find that a positive, mainly because I think the alternative is r/music where, if you post the right everyone-knows-it song at the right time, it shoots straight up to the top because everyone doesn't have to listen, doesn't have to think or form an opinion, and everyone just upvotes mindlessly because of course Bohemian Rhapsody is a great song. To me that is more worthless. It is like saying "The Great Gatbsy" is a great book. Sure it is, but no one had to think or care to make that statement. No one's skin is on the line, to get back to your first thought. At least by asserting I dislike "Hello" I get challenged on that viewpoint and have to back it up somehow. I have to think my opinion through instead of just enjoying the song because it's Adele and sad and sometimes, sob, I'm sad too.
So for me music has to pass one of two tests before I start looking deeper into it. I have to hear it and think, "Oh man, that's really good," like I did with Dizzee Rascal and R.A. the Rugged Man, or it has to survive a few years and bring me back to it. Just looking through the share some music post, I didn't hear anything in the top half of the post that's going to pass either of those tests. There's simply too much music out that doesn't have to pass the 'Will anyone buy this?' test because the barrier to entry in music is soooo damn low right now. You can literally record and distribute your own album for such a low cost that there's no one that has to ever approve of you. That's too much artistic freedom because you are never forced to learn technique, and few people have the discipline or resources to teach themselves. It's not that music suffers or anything but it does create a lot of noise that makes it hard to sift through to get to something that will stand the test of time better. As for Kings of Leon, they've never held my attention, and I really tried to listen to both of those songs to see if they label influence would have brought the band closer to what I prefer. But even the label didn't change my mind on them, it's just not my thing. Neither is Adele. And I really like pop music in general. Especially Ke$ha. r/music does suck. And it's because it's a default which means it's just going to mirror that age demographic's popular opinion. So many people say they're "into music" but have nothing to say outside of top 40. It's an identity thing more than an actual hobby. Like people who say they're into poetry and only ever read half of Leaves of Grass in English class. Speaking of r/poetry I just looked and the top posts right now are Bukowski (OMG he said sperm!), Whitman, and I shit you not, Shakespeare.
I wrote up this big comment and I'm posting it because hey, I went through all that effort, but it needs this caveat, which is that I don't disagree with anything in your comment at all. I thought maybe I did, at first, but really, we're not saying very different things now that I have written it all out. So since you mentioned it, I'm going to draw some parallels between music and poetry and use them to guide my thoughts! First, I absolutely agree: Anyone can get a poem published somewhere, just as anyone can put a song up on YouTube, even if it's pure and utter crap. The barrier to entry is basically the same too: you can put anything up on YouTube, you can put anything up on your blog. And that "publication" means absolutely nothing because yeah, no one vetted your work, no one had to like it, and so on. It does create a lot of noise - IF you are using YouTube to find new bands to listen to, if you are reading anything in the blogosphere tagged "poetry" in the hopes of finding good verse. However, thank god, we have music blogs and websites and poetry journals and suchlike to sift through the sweaty, non-deodorized filth for us. (As a former reader for a poetry journal, oh what filth there sometimes was! And there is something you didn't specifically say but I think is there underneath your text, which is: how disheartening sifting through shit is. It is exhausting, thankless, and will make one cynical if not utterly fed up.) There are "little" music blogs, like the Swollen Fox and there are big sites like Pitchfork. Or, for poetry, a small press like one of my favorites, FLAPPERHOUSE, and large snooty presses like the Poetry Foundation. I personally think the smaller sites have a lot more to offer, such as personality and freshness, that the large ones don't. The large ones are not dissimilar from r/music: they will publish and gush about big names simply because they are big names, not because they are doing anything new or interesting. They also can get elitist, pompous, and snooty. Everyone secretly wants to get featured by them even if they hate and rage against them. Because a feature in Pitchfork or Poetry means you're really real, and you've Arrived. You are an undeniable success. Pop music is like Pitchfork or Poetry. I think there is a lot of very good pop music out there. I too am a huge Ke$ha fan. I think that being Pop, or mainstream, gives an artist considerable short-term advantage in market but that doesn't necessarily carry over to long-term at all. I suspect you might agree. I absolutely read the Poetry Foundation even though it's "Pop" - but I find I build relationships with the small presses. To me I value them more because I know that real honest genuine sweat has gone into every page of every issue, that every sale/donation really makes an impact to their bottom line, etc. I was recently chastised for having "too many publications in small presses" and I was like, girl do you even know. Like, don't you dare look down on some magazine because it hasn't been established for 50 years. At one point neither was the Poetry Foundation. We've both totally wandered in this discussion but I've enjoyed it. If I found a song or a poem I enjoyed, you're right, it wouldn't matter what press or label got it to my attention. But I definitely care about supporting the smaller ones more. I guess because of that I'm more likely to seek out "indie" music than pop - but since pop is ubiquitous, there's no real need to seek it out. It will come my way nonetheless. I f'in love Ke$ha, and some pop. "Hotline Bling" is my jam, man. Saying you are "into music" is like saying you "like to laugh and have fun" in a dating profile. Do you know a single person who doesn't like to laugh? Hey, at least that means people in r/poetry are reading Shakespeare. or come on, let's be honest: at least they are all reading the title and upvoting without clicking the link because they see "Shakespeare" and it reinforces their mental idea of "good poetry" without requiring them to digest any content or think about anything.