"their level of popularity enhances/detracts from their greatness..."

It sounds like you're suggesting four basic categories, Kilian:

A) a band whose popularity enhances their greatness (Eminem) B) a band whose popularity detracts from their greatness (you don't name anyone here)
C) a band whose unpopularity enhances their greatness (Low)
D) a band whose unpopularity detracts from their greatness (Gay Dad)

For me, I'd say the Beach Boys fit into category A. Knowing the history and popularity of the band makes me appreciate them that much more. On the other hand, I'd put the Beatles in category B -- I don't think I appreciate them as much as I should, since I've heard so much about them and am sick of it all. Although I can easily imagine other ILMers switching these two.

Category C makes me think of Tara Jane O'Neil. Her first solo record, which I found quite accidentally, is achingly beautiful and sparse. And since I don't know anyone else who's heard of her (besides people I've recommended her to), I think that really contributes to the intimate, homemade vibe I get from the album.

I think Category D would have to be a band that I only sorta like, but would pay more attention to if everyone was talking about them. I think this defines a lot of indie stuff I buy and aren't quite sure what to make of.

but still, i kind of know what you're saying, but for me it boils down to this: i want/need only so much of any given artist/record in my daily musical diet, so if i'm hearing that song on the radio every day, or all my friends have it and i hear it at every other party, then i'm less likely to buy/listen to that record, because i hear it either way, i don't have to go out of my way to hear it. plus, it's always nice to have something you can share with people that they don't already know. so yes, if something is popular, then i'm less likely to listen to it, or broadcast the fact that i listen to it. but i'm not sure if it's for the same reasons you would.

and if anything, i think something like an Eminem record is elevated to something more interesting simply by how ridiculously successful it is, in spite of some fairly long odds against him to begin with. plus all the metadiscourse and self-referential stuff on his last 2 albums about public reaction to his music would be a little confusing.

you're actually right to a certain degree. i suppose the difference is that if a small band i love suddenly becomes big, it generally wouldn't detract from/add to my listening pleasure. it's just that the particular Lonely SOUND of that record wouldn't be quite as REAL if everyone was experiencing it, i suppose. and yes, my point about eminem was exactly the opposite : it's BETTER for being popular.

jaymc was OTM, it was more about individual bands/artists and their particular SOUND or lyrical content that is more suited to being popular/unpopular. (and also, do they sound worse/better now that that level of success has been acheived/not acheived?)

i remember someone saying this on another thread ages ago, and it is often true. i think the example they used was eminem, and it's a good one - wouldn't be half as much fun to listen to if everyone wasn't listening, if you get me.

http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/ladygaga/default/lady-gaga-fame-monster--large-msg-125876924148.jpg

Ha, I was actually just thinking this the other day about "TiK ToK." I was sort of ambivalent about it at first, and then when it hit #1, it somehow made me like it more. It seemed more significant somehow.

I hate lady gaga exactly the same way that I hated eminem years ago

if i had been introduced to him by some time magazine 'rap needs to be taken seriously now' shit i woulda been hot but i/we had known him and dug him for a while by then so it was easier to take in stride. whiteys gonna white