BlaqueKnight said:

Ahhh...!

Okay. Now I see what you are getting at. From that article, one can gather that back catalog sells (albums) were once used to help offset the losses major labels faced when releasing new artists. Guess what?...nobody is buying albums anymore. Neil Young needs to get a grip and if he's interested in reselling his older material, he needs to come up with a better sounding audio codec.

I still would like to see numbers on how large back catalog sells were to render one pronouncing them the bread and butter of the music biz.

chuckaducci said:

No, You don't. I found the article as a form of support for my statement, not vice versa. This is not new knowledge to anyone but you. When people say "album" often times they mean the record in all of its formats. I guess you're one of those people who need everything spelled out to you.
If you want info on back catalog profits - you do the research.
I never said back catalog would "save the industry", its far too late for that.
I'm a little tired this.
Okay Chucci, you win. All new music is great. I'm wrong. Everybody loves the current output. There, are you happy?

chuckaducci said:

I don't think "To Sir With Love", "Joy To The World". and "My Sharona" are such bad songs. They all have their separate charms and merits. Having said that, the Billboard Hot 100 has always been about commercial appeal and not necessarily about good taste. But some of the music and the artists who made it who are considered classic today rarely or never made it on to the Billboard Hot 100 charts.

For example, most of the artists of the 1960's who are revered as great musicians today (The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, Cream, Janis Joplin) had only a handful of hits on the Billboard Hot 100. (In the case of the Grateful Dead. they had only one song in their entire history which charted on the Billboard Hot 100, and that was "Touch of Grey" in 1987.) The charts back then was as dominated by teeny bop acts then as it is now. The difference back then was the rise of FM radio and stereo. All of the hottest pop acts of the time were played all over AM radio, while FM at the time was a niche format for wealthy people who could afford to but hi-fi stereo equipment. In fact, at that time FM radio was so niche that even though radio stations had the technology to broadcast in FM, advertisers were reluctant to buy time on those stations, so with lots of free time on their hands, program directors could get creative and play pretty much whatever they wanted to. Since a lot of these same programs directors were young baby boomers, they decided to play some of these now revered artists which AM radio was afraid to touch. The artists who dominated the Monterrey Pop Festival, the Summer of Love, and the original Woodstock owed their popularity in large part to FM radio.

It was also around this time that a lot of musical artists themselves wanted to do something other than create a bunch of three minute songs to be played on the radio and slap them into a portable collection which was classified as an album. Bob Dylan was one of the first artists who understood that the album could be used as a conceptual format to present a story or theme, and the Beatles wanted to do the same. It was the huge success of Sgt. Pepper that would lead to the album as the primary vehicle for music sales as opposed to singles, but it would be another ten years before big business caught on to that. At any rate, you soon had a bunch of artists who felt free to create a concept album (Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Black Sabbath, Yes, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, etc.) that didn't require radio-friendly pop tracks to be successful, and even some pop acts like Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye picked up on the concept album as well.

What finally got the major music industry interested in the album format was the huge successes of Peter Frampton's Frampton Comes Alive and KISS' Destroyer albums with the multiple album covers. Once the record labels discovered that these albums could become cash cows, they started pushing all of their resources into marketing albums instead of singles. Granted, there were still disposable pop acts that would have only one or two hits, but those pop acts who had a little bit of potential were directed to A&R people to help develop their sound and musical chops so they could push the more preferred album format.

The record companies, even despite resisting earlier changes such as 8-track tapes and cassettes, managed to make a fortune from this back catalog of albums. They got to "reprint money" by issuing old album titles in new formats, such as the 8-track, the cassette, and later the CD. They still had to push new artists, of course, but they had the power of MTV and other music channels to help them weed out the good stuff from the filler. And for those who didn't like the pop acts, they could still sell back catalog from really successful artists and even from other artists who were allowed to grow and prosper.

The real problem, though, was the consolidation of the music labels and radio outlets. The focus changed from developing decent and profitable artists whose music would continue to sell over time, to hyped-up disposable artists who could sell millions of units of "product". Suddenly it didn't matter whether the artist had any talent; it was about how marketable they were to record buyers and how many millions of albums they could sell. The record companies got really greedy and went almost exclusively towards pushing "product". In fact, Todd Rundgren realized the potential of making huge amounts of cash with the labels' back catalog in the mid-1990's and even presented this idea to a couple of head music executives, but they claimed that it would cannibalize their CD sales. So because of their shortsightedness, the record labels allowed a scenario for Napster to eventually flourish, and Steve Jobs to take over the music industry.

chuckaducci said:

Just look at the Billboard catalog charts for some of the sales information. Having said that, it only tracks sales of back catalog albums; it doesn't track all of the compilation albums which are created for retail chains like Walmart, Target, and Best Buy, and it doesn't track the licensing of the back catalog for movies, TV commercials, and even TV series themselves. In fact a lot of TV series just use old songs for their opening themes (see CSI, The Apprentice, Hell's Kitchen, etc.) The labels make huge amounts of money from these licensing fees, and they make huge money licensing songs to shows like American Idol and Dancing With The Stars. But then again the record companies are probably not willing to release some of this information because it most likely would undermine all of the arguments they have been making in court about file sharing hurting their business, and it would expose their current business model as being even more flawed than people already perceive it to be.

TonyVanDam said:

This is where the quality is. I know a lot of y'all could give two shits about country, but the stuff they play on country radio these days is what you guys are all complaining you want. Real music, written by people who know how to write, played by folks who know how to play, and sung by people who know how to sing. You may not like the twang, and yeah there's some shit on country radio, but there's also a lot of quality stuff like the videos I posted below. I hope some of you will put your musical prejudices aside and check out these songs because they are truly great pieces of music.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...annel_page -"Start A Band"-Brad Paisley & Keith Urban. Just a fun song with some great guitar playing going on courtesy of Brad and Keith. The video is hilarious too!


http://www.youtube.com/wa...4EarfzxcCQ -"The Cost Of Living High"-Jamey Johnson. A more gritty song that is partially autobiographical about losing it all to drugs. A really great story song that you know comes from the heart considering Jamey Johnson's troubled past.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...uKBdTdlhzU -"Ain't Goin Down Till The Sun Comes Up"-Garth Brooks. This one's for vainandy A fast jam with lots of great playing on it. It's hard to believe that so much could be packed into 4:33!

Again, I hope some of y'all will at least check out one song and see what you're missing. People in Nashville still love music because, well, there's a lot of good music to be heard. I almost feel bad for those of you who go around thinking that the pop and rock, or "classic rock fucks of the 70's" stations are the only game in town.

With regards to licensing, not as much money in it as there was a few years ago. All streams of income from music have been diminished. Touring band wages are severely down etc.

Look, nobody is going to dispute that the current music business model is flawed. But I do think that you are all severely underestimating the impact that illegal downloading has had. Yes, it is the industry's fault that they didn't respond to it earlier; if the major labels had put their differences aside 13 years ago and set up an one stop download purchase site (www.therecordindustry.com, for example), we wouldn't be in this mess. No business model competes with free. And that's what we're up against.

I also have no idea why the industry pursues a demographic (teens etc.) that doesn't buy music. Most teens aren't even aware that MP3s can be bought! I have had guitar students who believe this. It makes much more sense to go after the older demographic who want to buy physical product/limited editions.

The industry will never be completely eroded. There will always be need for marketing/promotion. I forecast that labels will simply merge with PR companies to ensure that they still exist in some form or another. Yes, the internet is a wonderful deomcratic tool for getting your music out there, but how can you sell it when nobody knows about it?

But please, none of this "it's because the music is shitty" argument. It's crap. chuckaducci is completely on the money with this.
[Edited 3/7/09 11:54am]

guitarslinger44 said:

Yes I find a lot of good music everywhere, granted i usually skip urban contemporary music stations,...so in a way i will agree that urban conteporary right now is not my bag. It used to be.
When i'm driving around town if i switch to urban contemporary it wont be too long till i change the station. I chalk it up to my age, that i out grew it, because it seems to speak to a much younger crowd than me.
Heck of all the radio DJ on earth, why do urban contemporary DJ's get on my nerves so quickly!
The DJ's alone are a great reason for me not to tune in.
"Biggg Boyyy in the Housseeeee! whuahh whuahh"

Just try a very simple thing: Compile a list of artists with mainstream appeal/success (not obscure indie artists) who you consider to make quality music who became huge since 2000. Then do the same for the 1980s. I bet the results will be shocking.

(Btw, my own list for the 2000s: The White Stripes, Scissor Sisters, The Killers, Amy MacDonald. For me, you can put the rest in a trashcan and throw it down the Niagara falls.)

EmancipationLover said:

No way. We're all wrong and Chucci and Mong are right.
We're all dying for the Christina Milian discography, for the Best Of Rihanna, for Young Joc's greatest hits and for the Danity Kane reunion.
Don't you see? Its BETTER that fewer artists are playing real instruments and learning real music.
Its BETTER that music has been reduced to a 3:20 limitation with no changes, no bridges and no musical instrument solos
Its BETTER that the standard has been lowered so much so to the point that damn near anybody can make a hit record and all you have to do is convince people; after all, having people believe you are great is much better and much easier than actually being great.[/sarcasm]
Seriously, there have been some good artists to come out of the recent years but they are few and far between when it comes to mass media exposure. The focus has been on style over substance for quite some time now. Its almost impossible for a woman to get noticed in the music biz these days if she's not pretty and YOUNG and since there's no need for seasoned musicians to be out front, there's no need to have anyone over 25 in the business as a performer. Remember when American Idol started out and they had that age limit? Well, its real to the industry because they care more about selling image than music. Music is actually more segregated and compartmentalized than its ever been. As 728Huey said, its all "product" now. The refer to it as that because they have no personal connections to it.
People like Chucci would argue that a McDonald's burger tastes as good as a Morton's steak and claim all of our tastes buds are just old for not seeing it his way.
(btw, great post Huey)

BlaqueKnight said:

No. I'm one of those people who in the midst of a debate, prefer the opposing side of the argument to thoroughly back up their claims.



And I never said that you did. I took you to task for saying the back catalog was the "bread and butter" for the music industry. That's absurd. And I'm still waiting for you to qualify your opinion that today's music sucks compared to whenever you thought it didn't.



Show me where I said:

a. all new music is great
b. everybody loves the current output


What I've been saying all along was:

a. pop music (charts, radio, Grammys,) has a history of praising the down right godawful and the out right amazing. It has ALWAYS been a place where shitty music can thrive amongst/despite great music. History backs me up - the Billboard charts, radio, NARAS, RIAA and all of their bedfellows, have always championed music of a lesser quality alongside quality music.

b. you cannot say that music today is shittier than music of yesterday - nobody is qualified to make that statement. Nobody has listened to every single album from a period when they think music was better and compared them to every single album released when they think otherwise. There isn't a person on Earth equipped to make that statement.

c. musicians who are in it to win it - and what I mean by that is musicians who make art for the sake of art - who have integrity - who aren't swayed by the chimerics of fame and fortune - will ultimately survive any music industry upheaval.

guitarslinger44 said:

I notice that all 3 country tracks share one huge weakness: The bass has been pushed to the background during the final mixing of those tracks OR were never used at all.

If you want to convince me to take any style of country more seriously, play some Jerry Reed! That man was funky (whenever he felt like it):

http://www.youtube.com/wa...BeBQJHhIj4

http://www.youtube.com/wa...7GyLr7Cz2g

728huey said:

You didn't understand my post, Huey, cos you're preaching to the choir when you make that statement. I said the same thing, dude.

And the rest of your post was well thought out and written, but really doesn't add or subtract from anybody's argument.

However...



Yes, I'm aware that labels make money from licensing and make oodles of money from licensing old tunes, but you know, I sound like a broken record right now, I'm just waiting for somebody to explain to me how back catalogs have now become the bread and butter for the industry. But I cannot imagine labels making most of their money by utilizing their back catalogs - folks just show me the numbers to make a believer out of me - is that too much to ask?

chuckaducci said:

Who cares about charts? YOU are the one talking all of this chart mess, not me. If you have taken the time to learn music, you know quality when you hear it. The general public had a better sense of this prior to their conditioning by the industry to lower the bar. There was at one point this little thing called BALANCE. People knew there was shitty music being praised but there was enough of a balance of good, well produced music floating around among the regular rotation that it didn't matter. Now, the shitty music rules the airwaves and there's more payola than anything else.


Yes, I can. Its a GENERAL statement. You are playing semantics. If you have to rationalize music into being good then chances are its NOT.


This is not always true either. They will always be able to make and play music but it doesn't mean they will always be able to make money from playing music. Supply and demand, contact, reputation, etc. Too many factors go into that.

chuckaducci said:

No one said that they are NOW. You change your statements like a chameleon, dude. READ, READ, READ.
It WAS a huge revenue for the industry before aggressive marketing became the standard. Don't they teach reading comprehension anymore?
And YES, its too much to ask because no one cares what you believe. nobody is going to research your answers for you.

BlaqueKnight said:

Hmmm. In your attempt at sarcasm (you suck at it) I think I picked up on some good music qualifiers for you:

a. it must have real instruments (whatever that means)
b. artist must be "learning real music" (and whatever that means)
c. music must be longer than 3:20
d. must have changes
e. must have a bridge(s)
f. must have musical solos

Why?



Focus on the good ones or make good music yourself and then quit yer bellyachin! You sound like a school yard bitch from all the complaining you're doing about the dearth of great, new music.



Not true. It's ALWAYS been mostly about style. Cough:cough:disco:cough:cough!!



There are probably as many fugly chicks in the game today as there were in yesterday's game. You cannot support most of these absurd claims and you know it.



No, you most thickheaded one. Mong and I are saying McDonald's burgers, as popular as they are, have ALWAYS been of a lesser quality than Morton's steak. What we can't figure out is why you are now just complaining about it!

Most of this post of yours was garbage, BK. You will cut off your nose to despite your face in a debate and you make generalizations that you cannot possibly qualify. However, I'm really interested in how you qualify good music now.

You know...alot of this mess can be settled right now if BK puts his money where his mouth is and explain to us:

a. what is good music
b. when was this good music produced
c. when did good music end
d. why did it end
e. who ended it
f. how did it end

And judging by his good music qualifiers (real instruments, real music, song length, solos, bridges, chordal progressions or "changes") to then:

a. compare his "good music" to today's "bad music"
b. contrast his "good music" to today's "bad music"
c. identify "bad music"

Until then, I don't know what else I can say. I would like for this nebulous era of bad music to be thoroughly examined with the era of good music. I'm willing to bet nobody is willing or able to provide the information.

Oh lawd almighty...I didn't call you a bitch. I said you sound like one. I think you're mostly angry because I'm calling you out on your absurd claims and you can't produce not one thing to back them up. Instead of you now providing us with a detailed explanation of what constitutes good and bad music, you're basically challenging me to an internet duel...because of my e-thugging. Because I can back up my opinions in a clear, calm fashion. Because I'm opinionated. Because you don't like the style of my posts. Now you feel like you've "lost" this debate and now you must resort to e-violence while making an e-threat. Get a grip, BK - because you're e-losing it.

I'll get a grip too. If BK still wants to answer the question posed in outline form I posted earlier, that's still cool with me. This is an interesting topic!

As for putting effort into my craft instead of e-thugging and perfecting the sacred art of e-condescension, check my post count. You will see that Chuckaducci does spend his time elsewhere....in the studio....making hit records....saving the music industry....J/K!!!!

EDIT: spellcheck
[Edited 3/7/09 16:54pm]

Mong said:

You know you and chuck are completely right. I mean what the hell were
we thinking. I mean we must be kidding ourselves. The supremes suck, EWF sucks,
sly and the family stone sucks, stevie wonder sucks. We should be embracing
this new wave of internet music and this great new wave of artists like
lil wayne, T.I, day 26, lil webbie, soulja boy, lil mama, and the pussycat
dolls. Like i said before for every indie arie and alicia keys you find
there are 20 shit artists to every one good one like indie arie.

I'm taking time off from composing a cantata in Bb minor for school for this post so y'all better appreciate it:

BlaqueKnight said:

Nope. I'm pretty sure that labels do make money off old stuff. But this is definitely absurd:




And when I ask you to point me in the right direction - to give me charts or figures to back up this claim, you offer up:



...and then get pissed off when I doubt your veracity! If labels aren't readily giving up that information, how in the world do YOU know?




Sure I did! I said "Anybody who thinks music today is worse than before has their head up their ass!" Then I provided links to Billboard's Hot 100 charts that display number one songs awarded to "bad music" and "good music" as well since 1960. Bada boom, bada bing.



Sure I demanded internet proof from you. You made a statement that demanded you provide the burden of proof. That's how debates or discussion progress, isn't it? Also, I'm not in this to "win." I am in this to offer up a cogent and articulated opinion. Some people don't like my posting style. But I yam what I yam.



You know that I'm going to call you out on what I think is bullshit. You and I both know that you won't answer my questions because you are incapable of doing so. You are stating opinions that you want readers to take at face value. I am not one of those readers. Worst of all, instead of you engaging in a serious discussion about music, when someone takes you to task about your opinions, you become e-violent. I'll pose my questions to you again, for the sake of a great discussion:

a. what is good music
b. when was this good music produced
c. when did good music end
d. why did it end
e. who ended it
f. how did it end

And judging by his good music qualifiers (real instruments, real music, song length, solos, bridges, chordal progressions or "changes") to then:


a. identify today's "bad music"
b. compare yesterday's "good music" to today's "bad music" and "good music"
c. contrast yesterday's "good music" to today's "bad music" and "good music"


Humor me, BK. Most of y'all in this thread are complaining about a pandemic case of bad music. Let's have a go at it. Let's talk about this. Let's sort this out. Let's seriously discuss the merits of all of today's music and compare it to whenever anybody thinks it was good.

On a side note, I distinctly remember BK championing the merits of Ryan Leslie and J.Holliday. How does he reconcile his good music qualifiers with the music of these two artists? Surely Ryan Leslie's album isn't filled with instrumental solos, songs with two or more chord progressions or songs with considerable time lengths. I'm pretty sure he didn't record his album 100% live, with 100% live instrumentation and without any loops.




Aw, that's cute! Did your Sunday school teacher tell you that? If you won't answer any of my questions, please answer this: what makes your ears better than the teenager next door consistently pumping Rihanna?

phunkdaddy said:

Where do y'all get this shit from? And I can't tell you who will be considered legendary recording artists in the future but I'm pretty sure that instead of focusing on the pop tart charters you listed, you could focus on:

And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead
Shogu Tokumaru
Blonde Redhead
Van Hunt
Antony & The Johnsons
Final Fantasy
Andrew Bird
Vikter Duplaix
Neko Case
El Perro Del Mar
k-os
Musiq Soulchild
Bilal
Raphael Saadiq
Neko Case
Joshua Redman
Roy Hargrove
D'Angelo
The Mars Volta
Sufjan Stevens
Radiohead
Missy Elliott
Bjork
Sigur Ros
Rufus Wainwright
Me'shell Ndegeocello
Outkast
Jon Brion
Danny Elfman
Kanye West
Brian Wilson
Elliott Smith
Jill Scott
Janelle Monae
Steve Spacek
John McLaughlin
Anthony Hamilton
Al Green


...cos you know, all of these cats suck and either refuse to or haven't released interesting, good music this decade. Y'all need to get it together!

EDIT: I forgot to add Hamilton and Green to my list. Shame on me.
[Edited 3/7/09 22:11pm]

chuckaducci said:

Dude Al green is a legendary artist that is talked about all the time
on the org. Am i missing something here? Jill Scott and Anthony Hamilton are
often talked about. Van Hunt is a new artist that i and other orgers talk
about often. Now i don't know of all the artists you have listed but all of
them put together couldn't hold a candle to earth, wind, & fire. You can't put
al green on that list because he's old school. And what's new about raphael
sadiiq. His career dates back to 1987 or 1988.

Missy Elliott you have got to be fucking kidding me.

TonyVanDam said:

GREAT call! I love me some Jerry Reed!

I'll give you that there isn't tons of bass in the Brad Paisley or Garth Brooks tunes (they're definitely more guitar-centric and as such, the guitars end up louder in the mix), but the Jamey Johnson one has a decent amount of bass (I listen to the album in my car quite a bit). Dunno what you're listening on, but that might have a bit to do with it.

phunkdaddy said:

Fool. I've worked in the industry so I know what I'm on about. I'm not slating classic acts like Stevie...could you point out where I've done that? I will guarantee you that the ratio of crap to good acts will be the same these days as it was in the 60s. It's so easy to look through rose tinted glasses at a previous decade and forget the crap that was also permeating the airwaves in that era.

Alicia Keys is shit by the way. Bad example to quote.

TonyVanDam said:

thank you!!! I talked to this girl who was in a Rap video and she said she got paid more than the actual rapper with a contract and single. And all she did was show up and look good

chuckaducci said:

That's a pretty good list. I'm sure the org has had threads on all of them too.

Cinnie said:

The fact that no one mentions RYAN ADAMS the artist of the decade, who clearly blows everyone away because HE PUTS OUT MUSIC, he doesnt do 1-2 albums that are cool and then bitch and blog on his website about the industry and does nothing to change the climate. Ryan Adams has had 20 releases in a 7 year span and thats not even including the "bootlegs" of albums that he pulled back. Im tired of hearing about artists who cut one album like a ...say Arcade Fire and then everyone jumps on them as the best thing ever and then the band does nothing ever again, that to me isnt changing anything. One Word for everyone RECORD, you wanna change things RECORD.

Cinnie said:

Then surely those who have posted threads on all of these artists cannot bemoan the lack of contemporary good music. And anybody who's hip to the game should quickly realize that was a very, very short list.

Mong said:

Perfectly said. I could not agree with you more, Mong.

Lastdecember, the problem I have with Ryan Adams is that you have to weed through five albums to get to one good one. His prolificacy is actually a hindrance, in my opinion, so I would caution such a prolific artist who has been blessed with creating large amounts of material quickly to use some form of discretion and not churn out mediocre albums alongside brilliant albums. But I hear you on Adams - I really dug Jacksonville City Nights. And I thought the Arcade Fire were vastly over rated as well.

chuckaducci said:[quote]

Cinnie said:

But thats the thing with Ryan Adams thats good, he lets YOU the listener do the "weeding out" he doesnt hold back, he doesnt posts clips on his myspace page and then never puts the shit out, thats my other complaint about this "so called" great music on the web "tale". So if you find 5 good songs from Ryan someone else might find 35. Elton John was once quoted as saying "some artists need to push the edit button sometimes" he soon recanted that in saying that CD's themselves were too long (talking of 80 minute ones) he said artists should shorten them and put more out, as opposed to a 80 minute thought in one shot. It may seem like a moot point to some, but i would want 2 40 minute albums over a 6 month period from an artist, then a one shot, one recording 80 minute cd over a 3-4 year period.

lastdecember said:

That's an interesting take. Let me ask you this:

Do you think if more artists focused on producing solid albums that had ten, well written yet radio friendly songs on it, they could sell entire albums as opposed to singles? It seems like Adams is shooting himself in the foot - he's releasing so many albums that are definitely not all entirely well done so people now have to buy/download/swap singles instead of an entire piece of work. But here's the thing: I think an artist who already has an established fan base has the luxury of producing anything they want - loyal fans will eat it up: b-sides, demos, hit singles, experiments, false starts, alternate endings and all.

But I also think a new artist who doesn't have an established fan base MUST produce a record that is well written throughout and do it consistently before he can release whatever he wants - I'm not really sure if I have thought this stance out entirely but I'm certainly leaning towards it.

chuckaducci said:

I think NOW of all times artists that want to stay around, have to do it Old school and my fear, well not really fear, more feeling, is that the new crop is lazy, for the most part. I mean Ryan has an established Fan base that will sell him 50-100,000 albums, may not seem like much, but it brings in income, and if we all agree that charts dont matter, why do we frown on that number? Also, he built that fanbase, it wasnt given to him by magic or a talent show or a magazine spread or a court case, he earned it, by recording day and night, with bands, solo, on others albums, everywhere. Very similar to what Norah Jones does and how she built her base right here in NYC, and i know because i saw her 25 times before she even had a deal, when she was selling demos at the gigs. And my challenge to people on Norah Jones is when you mention her they think shes done 3 albums, but they forget all the work with others and guest spots and recording under other names. I mean since 2000 her output besides her 3 solo albums is

Wax Poetics (member.lead vocals) 1 album
Peter Malick Group (3 albums Lead vocals)
El Madmo (rock/punk band, vocalist,guitar) 1 album
Little Willies (lead voccals piano) 1 album (second on the way)

also guest spots with Ryan Adams,Willie Nelson,Dolly Partion,herbie Hancock,Charlie Hunter,Dirty Dozen Brass Band etc..

So this is what artists have to do, its old school, build your base, play shows and get music OUT for your base to consume, not just posting blogs and clips of songs that they cannot take and make their own.

And the thing is that Ryan and Norah and some others have always been doing this, once they got a deal and signed they still did not conform to schedules, they didnt EDit themselves. I mean this year Ryan Adams has a new studio album planned and recorded and another album with the "cardinals" and a Box set of songs not released due. This is the way to do it.