Do you value a piece of music more if it is little known?

[jpgray]

I think most do. Something that is underappreciated and good is often valued more highly than that which is overplayed and good. Of course artists like the Beatles prove that the sheer greatness of a piece of music can outweigh the effects of overexposure, while a little-known piece of shit is often recognized for what it is.

But in my view bands like Big Star wouldn't be as interesting to rock aficionados if they hadn't failed to achieve the success their talent made them worthy of. I think if Big Star received that rotation, they would be roughly equivalent to someone like Tom Petty in terms of popularity and namedrops rather than being the go-to reference for so many indie bands.

And for you Big Star fans, I have my own biases. :) I love the single by Soft Machine 'Love Makes Sweet Music', but given the right exposure it could hardly match up to contemporary singles by the Beatles or the Stones, or even lesser bands like the Hollies. But because it is rare and unknown, I get more of a kick out of enjoying what's good about the song. So is little-known music more valuable for that reason?