I like pretty much all music. Even the stuff people consider "bad" or whatever.
I had to agree, but was mostly making a principled argument based on my hate of labels. If the tune is good, I don' t care whether it's jazz, classical, rock, blues, jazz, or whatever. There I go using labels. But good music is good music.
[...] all the greats are here.
Can you help me to define "or whatever" as used above or whatever?
Sure, the "whatever" refers to the notion that the person making the claim about music being "bad" has a self-riotous air about their opinions on music in general. I would say that many of these people like to look like they enjoy more sophisticated music. Than they actually do enjoy what they tote as the be all and end all. The concept of "Mainstream" is pretty funny anyway if you think about it, Radiohead is certainly just as mainstream as Lady Gaga though that's not what the some would have you believe.
False choice or premise or assumption or something?
Mainstream music is music produced by for-profit companies that handle talent discovery, talent development, music writing, music production, distribution, marketing, and copyright.
Independent music is produced by musicians without benefit of the above. They may very well have their own organization to do the same thing, but it is theirs.
There is no reason mainstream music can't be good, and no reason independent music has to be. All you can say is that mainstream music is produced with a close eye on what people seem to like. Independent music generally is also, but by people 1. unwilling to hand over most of the economic yield from their artistry to corporate suits and/or 2. unwilling to allow the corporate model to make artistic decisions about their music.
Stephen Colbert recently had, if I remember correctly, Radiohead on his show. I believe they broke away from their affiliation with a major label (or an imprint of a major label, a categorization and marketing of music of the same genre or style within a major label.) They reported making less money overall, but keeping a much higher percentage of the money that did come in, and were apparently happy. I didn't find their music particularly noteworthy, others' mileage may vary. It might be fun to compare their music while they were with a label compared to what they are doing now, and see if there's any difference.
In brief, the labels "mainstream" and "indie" seem to me primarily to bear on who gets the money, not on the quality of the music or what genre it might be.
Nor am I persuaded there is any connection between the low numbers of INTP personalities in the general population, the appeal of mainstream music to the greatest numbers of people possible, and any "not for INTPs" quality therefore intrinsic to mainstream music. As noted, those folks have split themselves up into divisions to market to every niche out there. "Thinking" music, lyric wise, certainly includes Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians' "What I am", and that came under Geffen Records label back in the 80s; The Kinks (I'm dating myself) "Lola," has intriguingly ambiguous lyrics that always appealed to me, and they always produced under labels, not independently. However, since much of the appeal of music is emotional, I suspect we are as open or closed to most music as we are to emotions, depending on where we are and how much we trust them.
Just thinking out loud.
Indy music sucks, the record companies know what we like better than we think we like. Thats why they are so rich!
I am confused by OP. If anything I would bet on a correlation of INTP and non-mainstream music, but even that would be a complete guess. At the very least I would argue INTP's are less likely to enjoy mainstream music simply because it is popular.
Most music is uninspired rubbish IMO. Some fields in which there is more creativity include metal and classical, as there is more scope for manipulation of musical elements, but I'd go so far as to say that even these areas are mostly stagnant.