Does Pop Culture Need To Be “Popular”? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

Does Pop Culture Need To Be “Popular”? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

Here’s an idea, popular
culture isn’t made up solely of stuff that’s popular. My sense has always been
that popularity in culture is simultaneously
referring to three things. One, something that a huge
number of people like. Two, something that seems like
a huge number of people like it. And three, something
made on purpose to resemble other things that
huge numbers of people like. The first is pretty
straightforward. “Harry Potter,” Beyonce,
“The Big Bang Theory,” all numerically popular. The second two are a little
bit less straightforward. “Breaking Bad” and “Mad
Men” are popular TV shows, except also sort of not. The final season finale
of “Breaking Bad” had fewer broadcast viewers than
most reruns of “The Big Bang Theory.” Phish, Jeff Buckley,
King Crimson, Tom Waits, zero hit singles. These things are popular in
that they are talked about. Though they might not
have been experienced by gargantuan audiences,
they are critical successes. They are important. And finally lots of stuff is
just designed to seem popular. It has a pop aesthetic. It’s meant to look and sound
a certain way, to be familiar. Usually, though
not always, this is in the hopes of
becoming numerically and/or influentially popular. Sometimes it works. Katy Perry, “The Da Vinci Code,”
“Guardians of the Galaxy.” But mostly it doesn’t. For examples go look
in the $2 singles bin or bookshelf at your local
record shop or gas station. Now as it turns out,
my three concepts of what the “popular”
in popular culture means are really only a very
small part of the story. When you combine popular and
culture into popular culture you can really change the
meaning of both words. Suddenly we’re no
longer just talking about culture that’s popular,
but about more and less than both of those
ideas separately. In his “Introduction to Cultural
Theory in Popular Culture,” John Storey lays
out six, count them six, concepts of
popular culture. Here they are in not
exactly his order. The first is that
which is quote, “widely favored or well
liked by many people.” It has achieved
popularity with numbers. The second is culture that’s
not difficult or scarce. If high culture is the opera, a
modern art museum, or the stuff they talk about in “The New
Yorker,” than everything else, TV, radio, comic books,
that is popular culture. Mass culture casts
popular culture as a wholly commercial endeavor. Like mass produced
products, mass culture is mass produced culture. You just churn it out. Postmodern culture
stands in opposition to the second concept. It quote, “no longer
recognizes the distinction between high culture
and popular culture.” Hi, Andy Warhol. There’s popular culture as
culture made by the people, not by some corporation
or institution. Popular culture as a folk
culture, essentially. And last but not least,
from the perspective of Antonio Gramsci’s
hegemony theory, popular culture
is quote, “a site of struggle between
the resistance of subordinate groups and
the forces of incorporation operating in the interest
of dominant groups.” What does that mean? Basically, popular
culture isn’t just a set of media objects like
novels, movies, or music, but a process that takes
place between an audience and the culture industry. A set of organizations,
businesses, institutions that produce
culture as industry. Media always communicates
ideas about the way its creator thinks the world works. That creator is in a
position of authority, but the audience might
resist some of those ideas. Or it might incorporate
some of them. This negotiation, a tension
between creator, audience, and media itself is in
this view popular culture. I find these last two
concepts, folk and hegemony, compelling because well,
because internet actually. Maybe because of
YouTube specifically. YouTube is home to all of
these ideas of popular culture, crass, over-commercialized,
high-low culture viewed an infinity of times. But it feels particularly,
to me at least, like the place to do something
with the texts and practices of the culture industry. Acoustic glitch mash up
remix this and that YouTube, that’s YouTube. And in addition to the
texts which you know, can mean basically anything. Produced by the culture
industries, we are able and I think in
certain cases expected to make use of the text produced
by each other, by the folks. Now painting YouTube as a true
folk culture is complicated, it’s true. YouTube isn’t available
to nearly all the folks. The people with access don’t
live in a media vacuum, and Google is very much a
dominant feature of the culture industry. So YouTube’s folkatude
is tainted, it’s true. But so too, I think,
is the strict audience slash culture industry binary. Maybe it’s naive or
optimistic of me to YouTube and the communities
on it as something other than
exploitative canoodling with a pre-existing
culture industry, but I do. Or at least I see it is the
start of something other. And I think in the gears of
that something’s process, the meaning of the word
“popular” in popular culture has become mangled. Cultural popularity
isn’t or maybe is no longer just a number like
Billboard charts, best sellers, or box office sales. It’s a process. One that doesn’t have
to involve mass culture. Popular culture and mass
culture are no longer married, they’re just very good friends. The upshot? Popular culture
doesn’t have to be, strictly speaking,
popular, or populist. How could it be popular? Are ASMR videos
popular culture then? Or what about the YouTube
scything media complex. My gut says yes. And hat tip to
Destin from Smarter Every Day for posting about the
scything videos on his Tumblr. Blew my mind. That was a very sharp and weird
rabbit hole that I fell down. But really, the
media landscape is so complicated and so crowded. Sure, more stuff is
always being handed down from on high, but more is also
being made within communities and passed around
laterally and semilateraly. The media fueling the
pop culture process doesn’t have to come from Warner
Brothers or Fox or Disney. And when it doesn’t, it
suddenly becomes more likely that while it might be five
million people’s favorite thing ever, it remains relatively
unknown in the world at large. It is amazing when
at VidCon say, to see dozens or hundreds
of people so, so, so excited about glimpsing a particular
YouTuber that I do not recognize even a little. And I make the YouTube
videos for a living. I know who Our Second Life is. I’m cool. Trevor seems like a nice guy. Hi everybody. I’m on a fisheye. But then OK, here’s the thing
I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. When you make things, especially
things that are popular, it’s easy to turn inward, to
ignore that pop culture process or take it for granted. To not test it or worst
of all, as Ze Frank says, to let your F-I-L-D-I gorge
itself on ego and arrogance. I think it’s fair to
say that Idea Channel is popular by some measure. And maybe it’s because of
comfort or an F-I-L-D-I with a poor diet. But I feel like we could give
you more to do something with. So we’re going to try. And I’m really, really
excited about it. Which I guess is a way
of saying we’re going to try a bunch of new things. We’re not going to
abandon our normal format. We’re just going to give
it a rest sometimes. Not because we are
trying to become more popular, but because as
a feature of popular culture I feel like we have to. We don’t want to
be like Metallica and just do the
same thing forever. We have to constantly encourage
and test that popular culture process. And I hope you’re
on board for it, because in my mind that is
what popular culture is. What do you guys think? What is a popular culture? Does it have to be
numerically popular or does everything have at
least the capability of becoming popular culture? Let us know in the comments. And for real, over
the next couple weeks we’re going to try
some new stuff, so comment responses for this
episode will be in two weeks. In the intervening time we’re
going to try some new stuff. I’ve had some things up my
sleeve for a little while. It’s got very uncomfortable. It’s very nice to get the
things out of my sleeve. I hope you like it. I’m really excited. Your comments are
worth the world to me. Let’s see what you guys had
to say about the ice bucket challenge. From the subreddit, which
remember we will be responding to comments from,
SevenStrokeSamurai talks about the attention economy, which
is a thing that we should have talked about but didn’t. And asked the question
of whether or not we are paying for things
with our attention or whether or not our
attention is paying for stuff. Right, which is kind of like
where is the relationship? Is one of them disembodied? And you know, attention
economy always made me think about
screen real estate. And I always think of
the attention economy as this thing that’s
sort of butting up against how much we
can actually just fit on one computer screen. Also in the subreddit, Platus
writes a really awesome comment breaking down the
way you can view the worth of every
step of the kind of social and
monetary transaction that comprised the
ice bucket challenge. It’s a really,
really awesome post. Thanks for writing this, Platus. dominique Wilson talks about
the sponsored post as a way to prove that social
media posts have some kind of monetary value. And yeah, I mean I think you
look at this a couple different ways. Is it the post itself, is it
the people taking a look at? Right, this is the stuff
that we were talking about. I think it also
follows ye old adage of if there is a place
we will find a way to put a product into it. That’s just how world works. Dbrockop talks about
something related which is the pay with a
tweeet mechanic, which is where you’re signing
up for something and instead of paying some small
amount of money you can “pay” with a tweet about
that thing, right. And so that draws a very clear
line between those two things. You can either give
us money or you can try to raise awareness about
our product, which eventually will lead to either more
money or more awareness. So yeah, good point. Drake 1500, Joseph
Catalano, and Hal Gailey all talk about the complicated
constellation of things that all contribute to
our value of something and that it is
incredibly subjective. And that you cannot say that
a social media post is worth something because someone has
labored on it or because it has taken up resources in the
way that was maybe suggested in the episode. And I think that is totally
spot on, and maybe kind of the heart of the question
we were trying to get at. That determining value is
ultimately so subjective. And anyways, these are
really, really great comments with links to awesome stuff. So links to these comments
and all the others in the doobly doo. Lupiou0 talks about
diminishing marginal utility in that the life of a
tweet is a thing that loses value over time. And in my other life as someone
who occasionally teaches businesses how to be
better at internet, this is a thing that we
talk about all the time. That these things have like
expiration dates and that they actually become
less valuable over time. Which is the thing
that the internet, being an archive
of itself, I want to fundamentally disagree with. We made an episode
about that, so. Ha. Jess Chambers takes the self
described marketing approach to the ice bucket challenge. And the thing I want
to seize on is the idea of our association between
ALS and to the ice bucket challenge. That now those two things
are two very closely related, to the degree that the ALS
association I read this week is trying to trademark
ice bucket challenge. Which is, I don’t think
that seems like a good idea. But going forward
now is the challenge of some kind of going to
be a thing that we will not separate from ALS? And is it now, is it now over? Is the challenge video
for charity done? Have we exhausted it? I don’t know. This week’s episode
was brought you by the hard work of these
members of the culture industry. We have a Facebook and
IRC and a subreddit that you might have
noticed I am now responding to comments from. And the tweet of the week
comes from goldroman22 who points me towards
a video that I’m not going to try to describe it. You should just watch it. I had a great time
when I watched it. I don’t know if I
was supposed to. And for this week’s
record swap we’re actually going to do a
kind of dual record swap. So last week we added Boards
of Canada, which you probably can’t even see right now. And I and a bunch of other
people kind of upset Boards of Canada, can’t really see it. So we’re going to
do the unthinkable. I’m going to switch two records. I’m going to put
Boards of Canada where Django Reinhardt is. Love Django Reinhardt, but
he’s been here for a while. He was on the last record wall. So I’m going to put
him in the corner. Sorry Django. We’re going to put
Boards of Canada, OK. I’m going to stop talking. I’m going to do it right now. So, so many structural
problems to contend with. OK so then for this
week’s actual record swap, new record which
is the last record swap, so that means that Sword
and Sorcery is going away, cue Taps. We’re going to be
replacing Sword and Sorcery with Jim Guthrie’s Indie Game
the movie soundtrack, which seems only appropriate. So here we go. [TAPS PLAYS] All right, so adios
Sword and Sorcery. It’s been real. And welcome Indie
Game the movie. We’re done. That’s it. No more record swaps. No more record swaps? What are we going to do in
this part of the episode now? We’ll figure something out.

Comments (64)

  1. I think popular culture doesn't necessarily need to be "mass produced", but it does need to be numerically popular.  I don't think most of YouTube counts as popular culture; VidCon is just another niche con for a different audience.  I suspect the average teenager still doesn't know John Green has a YouTube channel.

  2. Pop culture is overall determined by the media. A whole bunch of people don't like something but the media shoves it down our throats anyway. Honestly pop culture is just a economical structure that allows corporations to have a selective culture to advertise to, because it's a proven demographic that will ensure profit.
    But just as important, a society must have a high class that herds the low class into a structure that won't be detrimental to society overall. And to provide the entertainment and media that keeps them in there level of thinking.

  3. I love the Cuil Theory!

  4. I found this guy's video style to be similar to yours… pop culture?

  5. I have heard the term "obscure pop culture reference" which would imply something not numerically popular.

  6. I wonder if ratings zare an accurate representation of how numerically popular shows like Mad Men or Breaking Bad are?  I mean if people watch them through streaming services, or even though illegal means, it doesnt get counted in the official ratings, but its still people watching it.  

    I know for myself, I never saw Breaking Bad until after the show was over and I streamed it on Netflix.  And I suspect I'm not the only one.   I still intend to watch Mad Men that way, but I somehow got pulled into watching all of the Star Trek series(yes even Voyager) first.  

  7. I feel like it would be wise to start drawing a distinction between "pop" and "popular."  So, for instance, pop art and pop music refers not the the popularity of the works, but rather to the style in which they are composed.  If you create a work in the style of Andy Warhol or a song in the style of Katy Perri, it is fair to call it "pop," but unless it reaches tens of millions you can't honestly call it "popular."

  8. I can't find the reply about it but i'm commenting on that post made about weather counter-culture and subculture really exist.

    I think sub culture is made as a reflex action by people coming together for their commonalities good or bad in popular culture or in society whereas a counter culture is created as a response to culture or society. Neither are meant to last as we all know that capitalism is meant to take the piss out of everything and create numerous watered down carbon copies for sale to the public. This becomes the conflict of becoming a "movement". When a culture (sub or counter) gains enough following to create change or a shift in paradigm to a portion of population. As creators of subculture and counterculture. The response by sub cultures and countercultures to the the profiteering is to subvert the previous subversion as capitalism only commandeers aesthetics. By being fluid with tactics those cultures can remain ahead of the game. I'm almost convinced that that there is a secret subversive aspect to almost anything's history.

  9. I saw a picture of Benedict Comberbach and I cried. Season 4 just won't come out.

  10. Oh, you… it's so weird that my mind gets so oversaturated with thoughts by this topic (which I love… after all I wrote my MA thesis on it) that I don't know what to write ahhaahah… sorry for that.

    Now, getting my stuff together a bit, I've always liked Henry Jenkins' take on the term popular culture. He says that "popular culture is what happens to the materials of mass culture when they get into the hands of consumers. In other words, popular culture is what happens as mass culture gets pulled back into folk culture". He kind of woks with Storey's ideas of the "folk" and the gramscian aproach. Popular culture becomes in this way a site of counterhegemonic re-apropriation of cultural elements by an empowered and self-aware group. The confrontations has become very evident in some cases, as in the copyright lawsuits that media industries issue against "unauthorized" use of their property or in the case of the manga scanlation communities (there are some really interesting research papers on how they consitute highly organized transnational and transcultural communities with clearly deffined identities and "political" views on copyright and the agency of cultural actors in relation to the products they consider the base of their activity and identity). One of the focal points of the hegemony/counter-hegemony interaction between the "people" and the "industry" lies in the different aproaches to the value the attach to the product. In an interview Jenkins did with Mark Duffett, the latter said that "fans use economic mechanisms for cultural purposes, while media industries use culture for economic ends". This idea of media industries producing and distributing cultural products focusing on economic value and fans doing it based on cultural relevance is fundamental to understand popular culture as much more than what Habermas and the Frankfurt School used to say about it and also helps to see the active role people have in the shaping of "their" popular culture. It gives agency to the passive and duped masses Habermas & co. used to warn about (in what turned to be in hindsight a rather obvious try to justify a break between high and low culture under a neo-marxist disguise, but basing it on a complete disregard for the complexities culture comes with… something Gramsci did much better).

    I believe popular culture doesn't need to be number-popular, especially nowadays, but it need to be constructed up to some level by the agency of the people that "consumes" it. Following the previous stuff, I think that it need to be a deconstruction and reconstruction of the cultural products that surround it. If it is just a passive following or consuming, it is more mass than popular-culture. The creation of a community, the analysis or socialization of the implicit texts, etc. is wat distinguishes a trend or a mere fad from a living culture. After all, at the centre of culture is the social codification of meaning, which can only happen, or at least only makes sense, if it has a projection in time and if that projections implies change (language being a good example for this). It is interesting to use Umberto Eco's definition of what makes a cult-text (movie, book, etc.) "cult" and extrapolate it to the previous idea. To Eco, a text ascends to that status when it offers multiple readings that provide satisfaction, engagement and the possibility to explore and build on it for the reader. In the same way; and using Jenkins' idea that fans are not followers of extraordinary texts, but people who do extraordinary reading on ordinary texts; popular culture is all about what we do with stuff (in a way this is just the same as the old-fashioned ideas about folk-culture being the offspring of the people-medium interactions).

    Now, the idea of the fan is particularly important to understand popular culture, since the fan is kind of the "über-popular-cultrural-agent". They are the early adopters, they tend to be the hardcore ones, the more engaged and active and usually the ones that do the bulk of the exploration of cultural products' possibilities. This is not to say that fans are the only actors in popular culture, but unlike "most" people, they tend to percieve themselves as "owners" of their cultural space and it's contents, leading them to confront more often and more openly the staus quo, putting them at he heart of what Gramsci calls the contested space (which I believe is what popular culture is at its heart). Of course, to most people popular culture is much more about cunsumption than action, but it's never 100% one or the other (if not just go and see what happens in the world of sports, its followers and their unmittigated sense of belonging, ownership and agency).

    Uf… sorry if that came up  a bit confusing. I hadn't written about this stuff (I love so much) in a while and wasn't particularly inspired. Also, forgive my errors (I'm not a native english speaker).

    Great topic! Great channel!

    Oh… On this topic I recomend Henry Jenkins' "Convergence Culture" and "Fandom: Identities and communities in a mediated world" edited by Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss and C. Lee Harrington. Also, for those who read Spanish there's the excelent "Fanáticos: la cultura fan", edited by Daniel Aranda, Jordi Sánchez-Navarro and Antoni Roig; and of course you should check out Matt Hills' stuff and John Fiske's much earlier and much more political takes on fandoms and popular culture.

  11. I thought rush would of been a great example for the definition of 2 as they're so popular but are still kind of a cult band

  12. I think popular culture is defined by individual groups. 
    A school can for a period of time be in to pokemon cards or whatever. 
    Love your videos!

  13. This has to be one of the best "Old Media" owned knock-offs of vsauce i've seen.

  14. Kudos for mentioning my favorite bands, King Crimson!

  15. What's up with the Marvel hate AGAIN, naming guardians of the galaxy as a typical wannabee popculture movie even though it's pretty original and different and where it not made by Marvel it would have probably put in the "cult" category. Also at every mention of big corporations and lesser art forms a picture of Marvel or the Avengers shows up,why is that ?

  16. Also why would you use Metallica as an example for doing the same thing, these guys are famous for trying different stuff all the times, it's the main reason old fans dislike them. Bad example guys..

  17. Zac is my favorite champ, but why throw that, or any League of Legends spotlight up there?

  18. I love Hatsune Miku!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  19. Tim Hecker's Virgins is behind your head. That made me happy

  20. Recently I've been thinking about The Simpsons and The Beatles as Cultural Bookmarks: when something it's inside the pop culture we can watch a Simpsons' episode about it or we can see a Beatles' Abeey Road parody about it.

  21. Nit-pic acknowledged, nothing personal, registering an objection. Metallica didn't "do the same thing forever". Granted they're no Maynard James Keenan, and even he has a shtick, which happens to be 'try not to do something different forever'. But, they're no Axle Rose either. There have been several phases in their evolution. I count four of significance. The worst, arguably, was their attempt to redo what made them who they are.

  22. OF CULTURE I AM!!!





  27. Hello Mike
    I just watched a recent Vlogbrothers video "My face on a bus" were Hank Green talks about how he feels about the new attention that Scishow is getting; Also he states that when youtube, and other media like it, becomes less special when it goes/becomes mainstream, I hope to see a video about it.     

  28. So what ever happened to you saying you were going to make a video about asmr?

    this video was great 😀

  29. Watched a video about pop culture, no reference to Portal for number 2,or Half-Life 3 -_-

  30. This was a really interesting episode and I went to look up "Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction" and I found out it was a textbook. Not very helpful to a person who wants to read about these ideas independently and non-textbook format. Any suggestions that talk about the same things in that book and episode? 

  31. my miku shield flew to my hand, miku is not only made to look popular, she is popular,and has loads and loads of videos on youtube and nico nico douga. bad example man.

  32. Pay with a tweet is an interesting concept.
    In terms of the value of things in general, if you take the sentimental value it has for you into consideration it's definitely objective and varies from one person to another, for the same object (I love my old GameBoys).
    In terms of the value of social media and how it's affected by time, I for one agree with the comment. If the value depends on the views (the number of people reached by the post) and that this number is at its highest when the post is new, when it's fresh, when it's in your newsfeed, then I believe it's safe to say the value decreases over time. That's if you assume the value depends on the views. I also assume that fewer people will go and check out your old posts, arguably here I'm a bit hypocritical as I am watching all of the Idea Channel episodes starting with the oldest one, so I guess it's fair to say it depends on the social medium (do people do that say on Twitter?).

  33. Fish aren't aware of water.  In the same way, we are not aware of our own culture.  Popular culture is just the part of our culture that most people like.  Go to another region of the world and you will get a whole new popular culture.


  35. I think "Office Hours" would be fantastic (if I ignore the cost of flying out to where you are, and how intimidated I might feel about how much more well-read you are).

    I cannot speak for everyone, but I often feel the need to discuss things with people outside my social circles who also share my interests, which is why I visit forums and dare venture into the comment section of youtube. 😡

    Maybe have your "meet-up" be on a Twitch stream? I feel the chat system would distance you from us, compared to a face-to-face, but sadly, casual virtual reality forums aren't an option yet. 

  36. On #6:  Stop thinking it's just a binary feature.  It's everything in between.

  37. Antonio Gramsci <3

  38. What is the significance of the record swap? I think ive been silly and ignored the real meat of the public thought section of your videos. Boy do I love some Boards of Canada.

  39. This channel is post modern culture in its purest

  40. If something is heavy discussed but doesn't have huge numbers, why not call it "culture"

  41. Only Jim Guthrie can be a nice swap for… Jim Guthrie

  42. Where do kings keep their armies?

    In their sleevies

  43. I was surprised there's not a single image of lady gaga here.

  44. We saw this in class today and I freaked out when I saw Miku, it was embarassing, lol

  45. Will there be a point in time when the number of views on a video exceed the number of living people on Earth? Will our current construct of popular culture survive that long?

  46. i was i made my own youtube video

  47. i PERSONALLY think that like the Metallica reference was a bad one, mostly bc they did grow and change(in the wrong direction) compared to a many a other metal bands who are stagnate. I think it is importatant to move forward and it upsets me when artists do this and they get all this backlash for trying something new, like c'mon atleast they are trying. They the backlash will turn the artist inward and usually they will try to "get back to their roots" which means to me as a playing it safe as a way to please their audience. I think this is the place where mediocrity festers and grows the most.

  48. Damn, talking about King Crimson you made remember something… David Bowie died, now people are going to talk about him even more, making a bunch of people to start listening to him and get hooked on.

    But what will happen when Robert Fripp dies? Since King Crimson was never numerically popular, the only way this will go is less and less people will begin to listen to King Crimson until theyre such a little group… So sad considering the talent the man has and the legacy he has left.

  49. You should put Cold War Kids.

  50. You talked about popularity here completely in terms of admiration. But popularity has to do with interest, not effection. "Hate views" are not only something that happens but happen enough for creators to have it their pitch. While I wouldn't say the TYT falls into this category, they do tap into it as evidenced by the view count on any video that has Trump in the title. Most TYT viewers (myself included) find him at best a 2nd grader's joke and at worst terrifying and appalling. Yet a clip of "what did Trump say this time" will get more views than anything else that week.

  51. For me it just seemed like a meshing of mass media/culture (corporate products for large populations) and local "folk" culture (how YOU and your local friends/community interact with both corporate made product). Meaningfully I think pop culture can only be mass markets oriented products because though people can use means of mass communication and shape an entire culture, means of mass communication by people is often made in a niche mindset. (I.e, to communicate to THEIR audience)

    To encapsulate everyone's "popular" culture you're more describing "normal" people's communications and micro cultures. In this sense normal means middle class white that's consistently more progressive and diversity accepting as the years pass by. (Younger people are more open minded.) Of course different people exist with different normals. A black community will consistently have a different popular culture, with varying disconnectedness and similarities commercially to the white's idea of "popular" culture.

    Just an idea though I do think I posited my idea to inevitably suggest that only "white" culture (with it's varying degrees of accepting minorities) is accepted as pop culture with a possible exception to the "post modern" culture

  52. 4:05 Since when does something have to ubiquitous to be 'folkey'. Keeping in mind that nothing has been ubiquitous in the anywhere in the ever.

  53. I always referred to pop culture as forms of media that are popular such as television, movies internet videos, music, comics, etc. so I think even if a particular show or movie isn't popular within itself, it is still a part of popular culture…ya feel me?

  54. Popculture is the culture of the people, aka, not of the elite; it should have nothing to do with popularity, which tells about the amount of people it attracts. But. We kinda twisted the meaning.

  55. 7:03
    "We don't want to be like Metallica, and just do the same thing forever," he says, while playing a clip from the Black Album–which was a complete departure from what they'd done previously–in the background.

  56. Nah, I still agree with your first definition.

  57. It's memes, dude. Nothing but memes.

  58. Your videos are like really well done research/analysis papers, but more impressive because they're performed.

  59. What do you think about ‘Indie Pop’ as a genre? Because, it seems like an oxymoron, but I suppose it would qualify as media that imitates Pop-culture (even though it hardly ever resembles anything that’s actually been on the radio).

  60. 3:31

    Who's the guy in the blue (white?) shirt?

  61. Props for the King Crimson reference. Just saw them on Tuesday in LA!

Comment here