Slashdot Mirror
A Music Industry Case Study
spmkk writes "The NY Daily News has an uplifting look at the fate of a (hypothetical) 4-piece band "making it big" in today's RIAA-driven music industry. The condensed version: A band that sells 500,000 records for $8,490,000 gross ends up (after a few iterations of the new math) with $161,909 in their pocket. Split four ways, that's a whopping $40,477.25 each for a record that probably took close to a year to produce. And this is for a record that goes gold (as per the article, only 128 of some 30,000 records released in 2002 were so privileged). And I bet you wanted to be a rock star when you were a kid..."
Really, who's to blame here? Is the lack of income by the individual the result of the large share the recording label takes?
No one said the music business was easy either, and we all know the success stories are certainly the far and away cases.
Is making music really that much harder than, say, being an ER technician? Why should musicians feel automatically entitled to millions of dollars for a year's work? "I played a guitar for a few hours in the studio, travelled around being treated like a god for a month, had sex with a few groupies, and I only earned $40,000." Cry me a river.
Touring and playing live where most musicians really make their money.
Don't buy CD's from a record store. Don't pirate music - it only increases the popularity of the people you shouldn't be buying CD's from.
Go see live music. If you live in a city larger than 50,000 people, there should be a few bars that get live music. Go see them. If you like them, buy their music. No record company required. No inernet piracy required. Just good music.
If they wanna post stuff for free on the internet, more power to 'em. I'll download that. But I don't expect them to.
Get the hell out of the way.
And don't forget the artists. Attend local shows, support Independent acts. Buy merchandise, hell, mail a check, but find other ways to support your favorite musicians without giving a tithe to the RIAA. It can happen.
It costs quite a bit to make an album, and even more to market it. Most garage bands don't have that kind of cash laying around. So they need someone to finance it.
It's like going to a loan shark and getting a deal with 80% interest.
A band can either take the shitty deal, or go back to playing in their garage where no one will ever hear of them.
"People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
- Gov. Jesse Ventura
In this case, each band member got 0.476% of the total gross of the sales of the album they worked on.
At my job, I get approximately 0.307% of the total gross of the sales of the software I work on.
I spent 21 years in school working to get my job (which wasn't cheap), and I've been working in my industry for 8 years.
I also work well over 40 hours a week, and I'm never, ever going to get a product endorsement deal. (They probably won't either, but if they do, it's extremely lucrative.)
I'm not saying they're not getting screwed, but I do want to try to keep things in perspective.
Education is the silver bullet.
Rockstars are just underground punk-rockers that became popular. It seems to me that there are people who prefer bands that are underground (read: "not popular"). The moment those bands become popular (even though if their music didn't change and/or become more mainstream), the fans reject them because they have "sold out to the mainstream" or some other crap like that. I guess it's more l337 to like some unknown bands even if their music is no different from the more mainstream bands
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Usually when you're small, you want any record deal you can take. Usually you get a 7-album contract or something ridiculous, and you get the same money for each album. The money sounds good if you've never had a record deal before, but if your first albums do really well, tough luck renegotiating.
And then of course if you decide to back out of the contract, the company owns the copyright to your music, making it more difficult to find a new label (because you can't put out any of your old music). Besides leaving your label at that point means other labels probably won't want to touch you because _they_ won't make as much money from you, since you'll know what you're really worth. Bummer huh?
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
I think all the bands should get together once their contracts end to formulate a joint force against the greed of the music companies.
The artists deserve a bigger cut. The music companies spend a great deal to promote a band and get their music played on the radio but ultimately they end up taking most of the profits and force the band into debt! They thrive on chewing up bands and spitting them out afterwards! There's a lot of talent out there but all they look for are the handful of one hit wonders they can exploit.
If the artists could bypass the music companies and create their own music company to promote the collective bands they would be much better off. Such a collective would have to be non-profit and funded by the musicians.
The collective would need to release music digitally for a reasonable fee. They could partner with large Internet players that can handle the bandwidth. CD's can indeed be produced rather cheaply. The need for studios to record the CD's is not as necessary as it once was. I've heard CD's produced in sound altered homes and accoustically sound structures that is as good as the professional studios. There is no need to pay thousands a day to record an album!
Unfortunately, most bands are currently under contract with the music companies and breaking their contract would open them up to legal attack.
The artists should not be put into debt when the music company makes 8 million in profits, spends 2 in promotion and keeps the remaining 6 million for themselves. Allowing only a piddly sum to the artists. No wonder the artists have to tour to make any money!
Their position is weak because there are so many bands out there that want to be signed. I have a feeling that any band that tries to negotiate a better contract is just kicked to the curb and the next band is signed instead. It doesn't really matter to the record company who they sign, as long as they look good in a tight shirt on a billboard and don't play any music that might be banned in any of Clear Channel's areas.
There are of course some obscure bands signed now and then if they're willing to accept a contract bad enough (because it's the Record company that's taking the risk you see). I suspect that even those hundreds of records the company "loses money" on are actually profitable (or at least break even) with their fancy accounting practices, but why bother signing a bunch of good sounding bands (and taking up valuble shelf space), when you can sign a few good looking bands and mass market the heck out of them for a few years, which makes megabucks (although less than it used to) for a lot less effort?
I read the internet for the articles.
I was in bands. For many years. Some of my good friends were in bands with deals for many years.
95% of the time, you LOSE money on the road. Remember, you don't get to keep all that money. You have to pay for food, gas, roadies, hotels, the inevitable replacement gear (when yours breaks, is stolen, or left in Missouri by the drunk-ass drummer).
And that's assuming the venue owner decides to pay you at ALL, and not pull the ol' "how about we give you food and beer?" switcheroo.
Often you don't get to sell CDs at your shows (often due to contractual issues). In many cases, the merchandising company makes ALL the money on your T-shirts, buttons, etc. (the band gets about 5% of "profit").
If you're some huge band like Creed, yeah, you can make major cash. But even 1 or 2 levels down, you lose money. You have to have insurance, you have to pay the venue, you have to hire security guards...the list goes on and on.
SUCCESSFUL bands make money on the road. But most bands lose it. And lots of it. In the "old days" (pre-internet), everyone understood that you LOST money on the road, but it served to promote ALBUM sales.
Don't know where this myth got started about it being the other way around.
I think these figures are pretty conservative as to the amount of money that bands can make from online sales. I would much rather do business in this way than to do it the RIAA's way. And yes, this does nothing to touch the piracy issue, but we all know that whole Linux distros are freely available for download on the Internet; and this hasn't ruined Linux, has it?
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
My guess would be most bands sign the first deal they can get from a record company. They've been waiting for their big break, then it comes and the label rep assures them it's the "standard" deal and visions of rock stardom dance in their head. These bands don't feel they're in a position to negotiate, they're still "undiscovered" and to have clout you're going to have to have made a name for yourself already..
Artists are always being taken advantage of and there are some great examples in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone. "Why do hungry young artists keep signing these one-sided deals? Because they're too young and too green to have any idea how deep they can slide into debt. Because they don't consider the long-term complications of signing their lives away to a lard-assed corporation that will be perfectly happy to write them off as a bad debt at tax time. And because the label has no incentive to do anything on the cheap, sine the artist pays for everything. The dice are loaded. The deck is stacked. And the house never, ever loses." Good article in general, worth picking up.
- Because they are living in their car/van/truck.
- Because they are playing local clubs for $200/night (divided amongst all the band members, crew, and music store where they bought the gear on credit.)
- Because they see nothing but dollar signs when some guy in a suit comes to see them play.
- Because they'll do anything to get away from that day job at Burger King.
- Because they don't know that a lawyer's advice can be a valuable thing sometimes.
If someone's waving the temptation of fame&fortune in front of you, would you be able to think straight?NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Plus you don't want ot be labelled 'difficult' and risk being blacklisted. Not until you have the sales under your belt that is.
Some one forgot along the way that it's really about the music. Musicians don't make music so that they can become famous.. they make music because they love to make music. Sure we strive to "make it" but even though most don't make it.. it's still rewarding. True music is an art.. prefab music is a business. I have been writing songs since I learned guitar when I was 12. 8 years later I have a band... I could care less if we "make it". I just love to get together with my band and play music and give that music out to people who want to hear it. Remember, there are a lot of rock stars and wanna be rock stars out there.. but a lot of them aren't musicians.
"The moment those bands become popular (even though if their music didn't change and/or become more mainstream), the fans reject them because they have "sold out to the mainstream" or some other crap like that."
Totally untrue. Most of the time these bands produce one record that fits their old style then fall to the hype from the record companies. The record companies will say, "hey, change this and you'll sell a couple hundred thousand more albums", or "Let's sound more like band X so that we can reach a wider audience."
When a band changes just to sell more records, forgetting the fans that got them to the point they are at is, when the band sells out. Sometimes the bands just change as the members get older. But any fan can tell the difference when a band starts "selling out".
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
It cost money to tour. No one NEW gets $200 a ticket. How many Paul McCartney's do YOU know??? Horrible argument.
A well managed and promoted tour can make a band a lot more money than records these days. I think our focus on recordings rather than showmanship and musicianship in our culture is what causes talentless hacks with lotsa money and technology to make it big. More and more musicians I know are glad to embrace their lives as part of the "minstrel class" and give up on selling obscene quantities of records.
Works for me.
_nfotxn
If you do not like the way a business conducts itself, then don't patronize the business.
That means if the entertainment industry cheeses you off, then you quit buying CDs, DVDs and stop listening to music radio. You then tell your friends why they should be doing the same thing.
Consumers in this country hold the purse strings. Stop complaining and vote with your dollars.
This also works for those of you upset over the outsourcing of employment to other countries. TELL those companies why you refuse to do business with them each and every time they approach you for your hard earned dollar.
Remember, you hold the purse strings. Of course, it's easier to moan about it on Slashdot and exchange goatse trolls rather than taking a stand on an issue in which you believe. I mean, you *can't* possibly live without your tunes, right?
Bands do not make big money touring.
Bands do not make big money touring.
Sure, they make a living sometimes, but most of the time they don't.
Band's tour for two reasons: They love to play music, and they want to promote the sales of their albums.
Tickets cost $200 sometimes because people are willing to pay it. If you can sellout a show at $20/ticket, then why not charge $30 (etc. etc.) and it grows from their. The money just gets spent making the show bigger, brighter, and louder.
The costs for putting on a concert are staggering. Just the local labor alone can be as much as $10,000 (or more) for an event. It costs $2/mile/truck to send the show down the road. Each truck. Each bus.
Why do you think some bands accept corporate sponsorship for their tours? Many (well-known) bands would lose money trying to tour if they didn't have the sponsorship money.
Merchandising? By the time the venue gets their 20%; the sales company gets their cut; the designers, manufacturers, etc. get their cut, there isn't much left for the band.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
The hottest cats in New York can't get gigs anymore. It doesn't help that Broadway producers are trying to reduce the number of music jobs by replacing live musicians with "virtual bands." Visit Save Live Broadway.
It doesn't matter if you play in night clubs or Carnegie hall -- this is a tough time for musicians.
I'm trying to think of another industry where the employees are given loans or are required to make initial investments and usually end up screwed. Hmmm... where else does this happen... In what other industry are the guys on the bottom so braindead they participate even though it's common knowlege they'll get the shaft?
Amway? Herbal Life? Yeah.
This nation is capitalist and if you are too stupid to ensure you are properly compensated for your efforts, you are giving work away for free. In this case the fools are giving it to record labels, and that's fine with me. When I buy something it's because I'm paying what it's worth too me. If the wrong people profit, too fricken bad... I still get what I want.
And you can't say "well people buy crappy music, thereby supporting an artificial economy perpetuated by marketing!!!" IF PEOPLE BUY SOMETHING THERE IS A MARKET FOR IT GOD DAMN IT! And if under the current system no music is produced that anyone wants, the system wont continue existing, now will it? Theres a reason labels continue to profit and it has nothing to do with them being bastards. Nearly everyone acts selfishly. The industry produces a product people apparently want and the competition to be an employee is so intense they aren't obligated to pay fairly.
Labels are trying some legislative things to prop themselves up (and they have the right to do so), but democracy has a solution for that: dont vote for the industry's lackies. And if they still win then the people seem to want the industry supported by laws. If you dont like it, too bad.
What's wrong with the music companies taking the cost of touring, recording, distribution and advertising from the revenue earned by an act? How else are they supposed to pay for it? It's a business, not a donation to the arts
The problem is that the companies take their profits first before costs are taken out. If the system were truly fair, record companies would take their profits with the artist at the end of the day when all costs have been calculated. Yes, it is a business and the record companies deserve the right to make a profit on investment, but would you want your investment company taking their profits before costs were calculated? The folks that manage my portfolio take 1.5% of the portfolio value at the end of each quarter, not at the beginning of the quarter, therefore their income is dependant upon the performance and my costs to them are based upon mutual growth. Not bleeding the portfolio dry.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Artists never make money from the album. Nothing has changed. It's their merch, their ads, and their concerts
I know one barely platinum band that got paid $80,000 to play one concert. After payouts and taxes they each left with about $6,000 for ONE NIGHT.
also, when a band sells a lot of albums (500k, 1m etc), they get more money from the label and publishing (where most of the money is)
Because a few companys control distribution and collude with each other to keep these deals so unfairly slanted towards them. The also conspire with each other to fix prices artifically high. If the consumer, who has a complete choice of buy the music or not, can't deal with the RIAA cartel, why would you expect a band that has to choose between take their deal, starve, or get out of the industry, can?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
This is NEW? Chicago producer Steve Albini and Front person for Hole, Courtney Love both did this analysis years ago! To quote Steve: "What each band member made is about what they would have made working at Dunkin Donuts".
I don't know that I have ever seen a 'rock star' driving a really nice car. You know who I see with lots of money? Rap artists. Anyone care to venture a guess why there are rap artists that make a shit load of money?
They have their own labels! Death row, murder inc, I could go on and on. These guys were smarter then whitey from the get-go. They produced their own music, and sold it themselves. New artists get picked up by these labels and make ridiculous amounts of money because these labels know how easy it is to market these albums. All you need to do is have a video filled with hot chicks and some Bling, have music that doesnt suck(Doesn't have to be good, Ja Rule sucks heavy fucking ass and is really rich), and the white MTV watching yuppie kids will go out and buy that album in droves.
There is no shortage of smaller record labels that will sign interesting groups. If not, create your own label! Swollen Members did it with Battle Ax records, and the beastie boys eventually came out with Grand Royal as a record company. Hello Nasty sold a shitload of albums, and wasn't promoted by RIAA tools.
If more people followed this business scheme (Basically invented by Puff Daddy and Russel Simmons) when they went for a recording contract, they'd be rich. (See Bow Wow, but it helps that Snoop Dogg was in his corner.)
I don't feel sorry for Idiot Band A when they sign with Mega Asshole Company B, without taking into account whats going on. That's just stupid business practice.
If you want to take the risks, produce your own album. Borrowing someone else's money without providing them with collateral in case you fail is expensive. Go figure.
I agree, somewhat. Basically what this article is saying is that they have $40K left over in spending money after every possible deduction has been taken.
Doesn't sound like much, but the average person, after payroll taxes, transportation costs, food, work equipment, repairs, and other necessary incidentals, is likely to be left with closer to $4K in their pockets. Plus they are usually stuck doing a job they hate, without the free booze, pot, sex and limo rides.
Really, although people unreasonably romanticize the amount of wealth it will generate, being a rock star isn't such a bad gig. You don't see too many successful musicians walking away from their careers to go wait tables.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
If the average rock star only made $40,000 per album, MTV's "Cribs" wouldn't exist. Most bands get their money from booking sold out tours. Think about Phish. Out of like 15 albums, not a single one has gone gold, but they're still filthy rich because they put on a damned good show.
It's because the labels control distribution.
If the band doesn't want to sign, the labels can always find someone else to push through the pipeline. If the labels aren't interested (and the big ones have an oligarchy), the band doesn't have many options.
Or at least they didn't. That's why online music distribution is so scary. Piracy is a real threat to the music industry; but so is a distribution system that gives everyone equal access.
I feel that the focus on piracy -- and people's insistence that it's ok -- have diverted attention from the other issue, open access to distribution. We need a system that lets musicians sell their music to global audiences without middlemen taking out substantial chunks.
If someone wants to make a deal with a label because the label can hook them up with producers or songwriters, or because the label can promote them, that's fine. But they shouldn't be coerced into these deals just to reach the market place.
It's not just the labels that do this. If you want to sell your house, you have to pay a broker to put it in the MLS -- why isn't there a web site that charges you $4.95 to list the house for 6 months? People tried to set those sites up, and they failed in the face of opposition from large real estate brokers, who fought to keep their inventories off of them. People who have set up tollbooths fight pretty hard to hold on to them.
To make any real money, you gotta tour. That's where the actual money gets made for an average band. I remember reading an interview with CC Deville of Poison where he says he only got 20K out of their first major album.
This space for rent.
Seriously, when you make music, typically you want it to be your life, not just a hobby. If you want to make money doing it, and you're good, you should be able to. Which do you value more? The music musicians make? Or the papers lawyers shuffle around endlessly?
One could say Lawyers put more effort into it. However, I don't think anyone can say that making good music is easy. It's just one of those things that are subjective. Music is something that only a few can make a living doing.
No hypocracy here... Go PAY to see them live. They get paid for the work they do that way... Download the music for free, and if they are any good, they'll draw large crowds when they come to town.
They won't get royalty checks for 20 years on the recording session they spent a few months on, but what's so bad about that? I don't get paid for 20 years for the network I spent 6 months perfecting.
The recurring theme around here seems to be 'update the business model'... How about a business model that doesn't include money for recordings anymore?
No hypocracy involved...
I'm not big into music, but I laugh at the pretensious people who act like they know more about music then the general public, because they've decided they know more.... *grin*
The moderators find no irony in this line?
How about a business model that doesn't include money for recordings anymore?
Begs the question. I don't really want to see any but a few bands live. I don't want them to reshingle my roof. I don't want them to wash my car. What I want are recordings of their music. There's a lot of money in sales of recordings; surely more of it could find its way to artists.
I'm not big into music, but I laugh at the pretensious people who act like they know more about music then the general public, because they've decided they know more.... *grin*
I know what your saying but I think i'm actually one of those people who act like they know more than most people about music. I've been a musician for some time now, and am studing Music Production and Engineering at Berklee College Music.
But hey, who needs to know what a Tritone Substitution or Modal Modulation is?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
I think you're totally off. It's about the music, sure. But at the same time, it's a music industry or a music business, neither are music philanthropy.
I'm a student at Berklee College of Music, and a very serious musician. You do music because you enjoy it, but at the same time- by the time i'm outta here, I'll have over 60 Grand in college loans and i'll be damned if I just 'love music' and not try to pay that off, get a house, get a car, etc.
I really enjoy music, and so does everyone at Berklee. Who doesn't wanna be a rock star though? No, it's not all about money. But you can't live in a cardboard box and play in the subway forever, well some people do, but not me.
And have you considered that if you are a real musician out there doing it you better be making some money to pay the bills, even if you don't get any of the money for yourself.
Studio time is over $100/hour at anywhere decent. Guitars are $2000+ for ones of good quality. A drumset is gonna run at least 2000 also. Think about microphones, preamps, speakers, etc. Ok, that's just the items. But at the same time there's people that need payed. Your manager, booking agent, business manager, accountant, cover artist, web designer, producer, engineer, roadies, lighting designers, etc... They all need to live too, and if you are just playing at people's houseparties, you can't make the money to pay them, let alone you. And don't tell me that professional musicians do it all by themselves. Just open up any cd and look at all the credits. They need to get paid. Go to a concert, it makes money, but it costs money to start up. You need a lighting and sound system, tour busses, etc.
Yes, I love the music. But as a real professional, it's insulting to not try to get paid for your talent. Most programmers program because they enjoy it, but at the same time, program what the boss says, not whatever they are doodling away on randomly.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Well, translating things to $AUD... here's my workings per 100CDs being completely independant:
100 good quality CDs with cases - $100
Ink Jet Ink + good Paper for cover - 100$
$4.20/disk postage Aust Wide for disks not sold at gigs.
Assume:
75% of disks posted (not sold in person)
Own web site for promotion
Owns PC/MAC w/ Burner + Printer
Owns instruments
Time Burning disks, printing & cutting covers etc is free*.
Time writing & recording music is free*.
The first 25 disks in each box that are sold at the door at gigs are going to cost me $2.00ea = $50.00.
The second 75 disks per box will have an extra $4.20 added - which is the cost of posting a CD anywhere in Australia via Aust Post. They will cost me $465.00 to produce.
Total cost $515, avg $5.15 per disk.
Charge $10 per disk at gig or over web, claim free postage for web customers.
For each box of 100 you sell, you get $1000 cash, $485 of this is profit.
So sure, I will need to sell 300 & 1/3 boxes of CDs to get the $161,909 that those guys got.
Here's the big difference to me: I have a nine to five in a good profession, writing and performing is a weekend interest. I never intend for it to make a single red cent, if it does well good. I always assume that any costs I incur in my music making is money on a hobby.
This has a distinct advantage or two, 100% artistic control, 0% risk as I am not relying on the cash for rent etc. I can take my sweet time and it never has to mean anything to anyone but me.
-Idiot
* - By free I mean that I am a hobiest. This is the time I was going to dedicate to the project anyway.
Production often includes PR, M-tv model, leverage for cd space, etc.... Often it seems; it is instant band, just add people.
The advantage now is the one source model. In a few years the previous model may loss it's monopoly control and have to start selling to consumers who simply have more choices. Staying in step cost very little and you don't hang yourself in the process.
With the RIAA blessing, the pick of the crop can come from a weekly email (but outsourcing can become dangerous to the livelyhood of business models that use it-as history can attest). The M-tv and radio models still maintain the best selling practice and the mp3 habit doesn't necessarily get broken. Plus, gaining a wider base of artists allows flexibility and potentially legal/legit stats can be good.
I thought 12 channels of pure freedom was enough, but what do I know, lol. And thanks for the alternative spout.
>Hilarious stuff.
Bullshit though. Mixerman is giving one side of a story. I'm up to day 5 of the diary, and all I notice is that he does not cop to being a bureaucrat, essentially a PHB.
Aside from the opinion of the drummer's ability, OK, I can accept that the drummer is a complete boob. But when they finally got the room setup (lava lamps? tapestries? That stuff should develop organically over the course of a long stint in the office, not at the beginning as a costume! Get real!) so the board is trimmed, the band is here, everybody is motivated, and he won't roll the tape and let the band record for a few hours because the freakin "Producer" won't show? Bullshit.
Any soundman who calls Protools "Alsihad" is being biased. Mixerman is just an asshole who wouldn't do any better in any other situation with management.
I've heard so many real-life stories like this, where record company execs get rich off of someone else's talents, and the artists themselves get very little. Most signed artists that I know end up owing money to the record companies (unbelievable but true)
I'm not a signed musician, yet last year, I made about $12,000 from my music. Whilst this was by no means a good salary, it is certainly more than any non-gigging musician that I know. The vast majority of that money was from selling homemade CD's directly to the public.
You don't need the RIAA in this day and age. With the power of the internet/mp3's & (god forbid) paypal, who needs a coccaine addicted suit to take the food from your mouth?
-- 7 string electric violin + live loop samplers
One big reason that musicians get screwed on record deals is because there is no shortage of good bands out there. Pretty much everyone knows a killer guitar player or song writer and probably have more then one on their block. The distribution channel and mediums for discovery are so limited that only a select few are allowed to take advantage of them. Thanks to the monopoly of the airwaves much of the talent in the world goes unnoticed. Don't let your taste in music be dictated by corporate greed.
Looks like an interesting reversal, if it can happen. After all, the music industry is intimately linked with mass media. This article wasn't signed and we don't know how much media-cred it can get but it's interesting nonetheless.
For a while, the Press has favored a "RIAA vs. Net" view of the situation. Actually doing the math is a step in another direction, raising a lot of old issues and a few new ones.
We all know the current model has a problem. Even RIAA members know this. There has to be a new model that will satisfy everyone in the food chain.
Alexandre http://enkerli.wordpress.com/
Think about it, humans have been music makers forever. Only in the last 50-100 years has the technology for reproducing recorded music existed. Only in that tiny window has a musician been able to make a living from selling those recordings. Who's to say that this isn't a blip, an oddity, one whose time is rapidly passing. And that musicians will go back to making a living the way they always have, through live performance (not that ClearChannel makes that any easier these days).
> A lot of people don't like anything that gets radio play, because that's the crap that people listen to
no, its the crap that is
a) played over and over (and over and over ad. nauseum)
b) designed or written with the intent to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and hence played over and over.
where you been for the last 60 or so years?