It looks like what's mediocre is a matter of opinion. I think there is some value in any music that reaches a large audience although a lot depends on how much the hype influences the listener.

I don't think that Mick Jagger has much of a voice either. Neither does Louis Armstrong.
But what the two did with their voices counts for something.

I am not a great Stones, Beatles, or Dylan fan but I can appreciate what they have done.
And I wouldn't call them mediocre.

The majority (now that's a can of worms) were Alexander Hamilton's "Beast" and should in his opinion never allowed to participate in what is vaguely known in the US today as "democracy". So the "Beast" is ostensibly the arbiter of popular taste.

When we place a restrictive view on the majority or the "Beast" we have lost our way in a society. We may not really really know what the majority considers to be good. Opinion polls are always misleading and skewed.


We may not like the tastes of current popular music but I see it in two ways. One, a denial of the other alternative cultural music Mudcatters support, and a kind of a hype that tends to influence audiences who want to be "au courrant".

I think we can argue as to what constitutes good singing, musicianship (obviously IMHO Louis Armstrong was infinitely superior to Mick Jagger) but the bottom line is this, do we really care what the majority thinks? And if so why?

One good reason is that it brings into focus why we like what we do. And it also is a reflection of what has become of our society.

There are a lot of the names of artists mentioned on this thread with whom I am not familiar. This has to do more with of art as having business priorities today.
The names mentioned are not on the media or PBS.

Our society has become restrictive in what news, entertainment, and views it needs to be healthy. Art has become a popular trend such as the wearing of new clothes. It has no longevity and roots now. It is often presented in stuffy mausoleum/museums and has little currency to the way we live today.

So the premise of mediocrity is relative to the social environment. Today's popular music on the media suggests a deterioration of our society nationally. Why? Because it has suddenly become MacDonald's hamburgers. It is disposable and ephemeral.

Underground, there may be a well-spring of new artistic talent that goes unnoticed. Some good talent may reach the majority and we should all be happy and support that when it occurs. In this, the majority may come to like something that is not mediocre and substantive. I suggest for sure Louis Armstrong. Maybe Dylan. Maybe Springsteen. Maybe the Dixie Chicks.

But sometimes the Beast will fool you and pick something really worth while...like incidents of true democracy. When that happens, lets rejoice.

Frank Hamilton