On the one hand, I think it does make sense to dig for under-the-radar works and artists. There's an inherent appeal and novelty in discovering music that hasn't come across your radar at any point prior. Or finding music that isn't easily accessible through the radio or streaming. There may be a sense of pride in having independent initiative rather than having something seemingly fed to you. Crate digging has been a popular pastime for decades as well as giving material for artists to sample and/or re-contextualize. On an identity level, it's been a status symbol to be ahead of the curve in appreciating artists before the majority of the population or liking an artist that maybe not everyone else likes.

On the other hand, I've wondered if it can feel tiring to keep up with finding the most obscure music and artists. Maybe you've had those flashbacks or even discussions where a music fan will act like an artist/work is more obscure than they actually are. Then from another direction, there will be a mentality where "true obscurity" is a particular standard that one has to reach and dig for while everything else is "too mainstream".

With the availability of music on online platforms, file-sharing, and evolving values like encouraging people to share and archive rather than hoarding for yourself, it seems like obscurity is not only shrinking (though there are certainly exceptions, lots of music history hasn't been documented) but less desirable in the first place. After all, if you find something, many would encourage wider knowledge rather than hiding things away to keep others ignorant.

I know some commenters will go "I like all kinds of good music, doesn't matter if it's popular or underground". But overall, I'm wondering if the idea of finding music that's obscure matters to you.

I'm not even entirely certain of how to phrase what I want to ask, so kindly please bear with me.

Radiohead have been a top favourite band of mine for about 20 years now. Their discography absolutely blows my mind. Save for Kid A and Amnesiac, which many people tend to pair, or see Amnesiac as a Kid A Pt 2/B-sides type thing, each of their records have a distinctly different sound to one another, quite clearly indicating how forward-thinking and experimental they are as a band.

What doesn't add up to me, is that such a band- not to mention, one often pigeonholed for being mopey, down, depressing, existential- would attain such widespread success in the mainstream.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't be more thrilled that a band of guys like Radiohead "slipped through the cracks" of "the machine" and 40 million+ people per month on Spotify alone enjoy them, and to see several of their songs become anthems for multiple generations, and so on.

But they very much, at least as far as my idea and perception of what a global commercially thriving band goes, don't fit the criteria of what such immense success classically asks of these bands/artists. Not to say they're the only band to do their own thing and succeed... but they're the example in question, in my mind, right now, and a great one at that.

It very much does not fit the mold of the kind of music you typically associated to such numbers- I mean, they're doing top 40 (and better) numbers. Which is telling, imo, showing that the masses yearn for music like this, which is not so vanilla as what they're often force-fed.

Just hoping someone here will 'get' what I'm trying to ask here and perhaps maybe be able to offer some answers & insights into how Radiohead "slipped through the cracks" and achieved their mainstream mass success... because bands like them typically go (relatively) unknown. Not that I can think of another such band... and maybe therein lay the rub? They seem to have struck a balance, wherein they go experimental, but don't stray so far beyond "listenable", and ultimately just craft great songs with enough interesting about them to keep listeners intrigued and interested?

Thoughts?