If the majority like it, it is popular, sure, but the chances are that is is not "at the edge", it "pushes no envelope", it breaks no barriers; ergo, it is middle-of-the-road.

The problem with "underground" is that by definition it's hardly known. Debbie Harry once said in an interview that most of the rap artists she knew (and that's *black* rap artists) told her they were introduced to rap through Blondie's "Rapture". It wasn't cutting-edge by the standards of rap performance (which had been around in underground clubs for ages), but since practically no-one had ever heard rap, it was new and exciting.

Similarly I'd be prepared to place large sums of money that most folkies were introduced to folk through Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Joan Baez, Tom Paxton or similar. None of them ever saw an envelope worth pushing musically, did they? Possibly Dylan, but then he was just using existing stream-of-consciousness poetry ideas (and later some fairly standard electric guitar playing). But I doubt many of us would call their musical output mediocre.

And if we're talking classical, it's difficult to beat the popularity of Bach and Beethoven, both of whom are arguably the best ever at the types of music they produced.

I find it a bit of a cynical view, really. Sure, there's plenty of pop that gets sold on image and marketing. But there is also music which is popular because it's good. From a personal level, think of what happens when you play at a club. Do you think you've done well if you just get polite applause, so your playing/singing hasn't really touched anyone - or do you think you've done well if you've really connected with the audience, such that they're singing along to the chorus, or so after a ballad there's a short pause as they get their heads back straight before the applause starts? Or if you don't play, what do you think when you see other people playing? I don't think that connection makes it mediocre - I think it makes it wonderful.

Graham.