Look out! The Internet's gonna change music!

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/music/2005-03-09-internet-jukebox_x.htm

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:03 (twenty years ago)

Music fans reach for the stars
With infinite capacity and far-flung communication links, the Internet has opened a universe of options to music enthusiasts.
By Edna Gundersen, USA TODAY

At first glance, it's a small world. The same ubiquitous hits that define pop radio also top the rankings of online tracks purchased at legitimate networks and those downloaded from unauthorized sites.

But peer into the depths of cyberspace and a big-bang picture unfolds. The stockpile is boundless, a boom in availability that could change buyer habits. Fan forums are spontaneously sprouting around artists and trends, from teen girls touting Incubus, Green Day and little-known emo heartthrobs at Xanga.com to hip-hop buffs advocating regional acts at Down-South.com.

It's a phenomenon the music business has yet to capitalize on, though some legitimate services are starting to court these cyber junkies.

Most of the action, however, remains outside industry confines. While paid downloads skyrocketed to 140.9 million tracks in 2004 from 19.2 million in the last half of 2003 (no earlier figures are available), unauthorized file-sharing dwarfs purchases. Since mid-2003, 19 billion peer-to-peer transactions have occurred, predominantly current hits.

But new sounds and new bands are emerging from Web cabals, a blow to radio and labels used to setting the agenda.

According to Big Champagne Media Measurement, a technology and market research company specializing in online media and peer-to-peer (P2P) networks in particular, countless computer users are stalking the unknown, downloading, congregating, critiquing, trading and ultimately playing a role in what penetrates the mainstream.

"We're seeing a clear and consistent pattern of some acts being championed by online communities and later embraced by traditional media outlets," says Big Champagne co-founder and CEO Eric Garland.

"Nothing works like word of mouth, and online word of mouth is a great big megaphone," Garland says.

"Instead of being able to tell two or three friends, you have entire Web rings of like-minded people quick to pass along recommendations."

Stars bubble up

That's causing a democratic shift, as more phenomena filter up and fans elect their own stars rather than accept the dictates of radio or MTV.

John Mayer's rise benefited from feverish swapping of mp3 files, the modern equivalent of tape-trading. Norah Jones reached Big Champagne's top 10 before she got significant airplay. The O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Garden State soundtracks popped at Champagne months before cracking Billboard.

Garland is convinced that every known piece of recorded music is available online, and that growing awareness of the inventory is gradually changing consumer habits.

"It's a celestial jukebox, a virtually limitless library," he says. "In one retail outlet, you have a few hundred titles at most. On the Internet, there are tens of millions."

And for every type of music in cyberspace, you're likely to find a fan base.

"The Web is a great breeder of music communities, which are exploding but are incredibly niched," says Big Champagne co-founder Joe Fleischer.

"You'll find aggressive polka communities and bluegrass trading communities, whatever interests you," he says. "Purevolume.com does a great job of nurturing a community that allows fans to communicate about underground punk, emo and hardcore that may one day be the mainstream."

Power to 'make and break'

Caleb Cattivera, 21, of Harrisburg, Ill., finds all the new music he craves on purevolume.com, where struggling bands post free files for sampling.

"The smallest band in the smallest town can put their music there," he says. "I'll browse that Web site all day looking for interesting bands to promote. There's a whole underground of great music, and 95% of it's better than what's on MTV, where bands play for money because they don't have anything left to prove. The kids underground or starting on indie labels are sleeping on floors, touring in vans and playing their butts off."

He's one of 24 reviewers for AbsolutePunk.net, which draws 6 million hits daily and more than casual glances from record companies. Cattivera, who helped St. Louis band SoTheySay get signed to Fearless Records, knows he has clout.

"A big record executive told me, 'You have the power to make and break bands on that site.' And I think it's true, because kids trust our opinions."

Rising acts Taking Back Sunday and My Chemical Romance started at purevolume, as did buzzed-about cult acts Brand New and Fall Out Boy. Cattivera also sees breakout potential in screamo band Saosin. Whether his personal favorites He Is Legend or I Can Make a Mess Like Nobody's Business ever make the chart isn't vital.

"It's just exciting to discover bands like that and spread the word," he says.

Unlike iTunes or Napster, enthusiast sites place community above commerce, earning credibility and loyalty that are crucial to luring youth dollars. That's one of the sticky challenges facing an industry that alienated downloaders with steep CD prices and piracy lawsuits.

The war against file-sharers continues. On March 29, the Supreme Court will hear the entertainment industry's appeal to overturn lower-court decisions that found file-sharing networks Grokster and Morpheus not liable for copyright infringement.

If the industry prevails, many users may opt to forsake file-sharing for legitimate download sites. Despite any chilling effect, the downloading revolution is unlikely to stall.

Users ahead of the game

"Certainly, copyright infringement and piracy are problems," Fleischer says. "But the very nature of computing is peer-to-peer, and no matter what happens, this type of activity will continue and grow. The lawsuits had an impact and made people aware that risk was involved. Now users are more secretive and 10 or 20 steps ahead (of the security measures)."

The industry's traditional structure has all but lost such consumers as Matt Brown, a Pasadena, Calif., ninth-grader who shuns the airwaves, seldom frequents record stores and distrusts directives from mainstream sources.

"I listen to friends," he says. "Or I pick up tips on the Internet. I go to purevolume.com and find out what other people listen to. I found a lot of cool bands that way. Then I list my favorites on MySpace.com."

Brown, 15, has an iPod with 2,777 songs, mostly indie rock, hardcore, emo and screamo, including tunes by Stutterfly, Armor for Sleep, Starlight Run and Avenged Sevenfold, hardly top 40 climbers.

A former Kazaa regular, he now pays for tracks, though he occasionally returns to illicit sites, "because iTunes doesn't always have the greatest selection and doesn't have all the best underground bands."

Ethan Mantel, 16, of Los Angeles, relies on friends and online forums for guidance on techno, rock and rap acts.

His favorites are Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jack Johnson, and Beastie Boys, but through the Net grapevine he has found Disney tunes and alt-popster Donavon Frankenreiter.

He sees little need to visit record stores except "to check out used CDs or if someone gives me a gift certificate," he says. "It's definitely easier to find music online."

Harnessing Web energy

"One of the major challenges the labels have now is trying to figure out how to expose people to new music," says Inside Digital Media president Phil Leigh.

"Obviously the Internet does that. The Internet is the most logical successor to support new music now that radio is losing clout," Leigh says. "The industry has to figure out how to harness it."

It's trying. Members of subscription service Rhapsody can now share playlists, enabling fans to spread fresh discoveries. Napster has a similar feature using e-mail and instant messages. Grouper, a new list-sharing service, taps into similar sources.

But supply hasn't matched demand. Label-backed sites have black holes (no Beatles for sale, for instance) and very little vintage or fringe fare available, in contrast to the file-sharing universe.

There, the rarest of the rare is a few mouse clicks away, with no need to exhume vinyl artifacts, troll used record shops or leaf through catalogs.

Skilled at reaching a wide audience, major labels haven't learned how to serve rabid niche fans, who learned to serve themselves, says Fleischer.

To live long and prosper, the digital galaxy may demand compromise from both users and the industry, says former Grokster CEO Wayne Rosso, who will introduce P2P system Mashboxx.com in April.

Music's thrill-seeking cybernauts, "all want something for nothing, and the free lunch is going to end someday," he says.

As for labels, "they're used to people adapting to them, and now they have to adjust to users' behavior. They just don't understand the user," Russo says. "The industry is fairly myopic and still thinks in terms of units. We look at traffic, and there's a big difference. Nothing is stopping the massive file-sharing that's going on. Let's face it. It's cool. It's fun. And everyone seems pretty fearless."

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:04 (twenty years ago)

This is making me SO HAPPY right now I can't even describe it. Well, that and a writer actually describing M.I.A. as "internet music" elsewhere.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:08 (twenty years ago)

"screamo"?

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:13 (twenty years ago)

Find threads from I Love Music, containing screamo.
89 results found

I clearly need to read ILM more avidly.


Alba (Alba), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:14 (twenty years ago)

you're English, aren't you? that shit's big among 16-year-old Americans who talk suspiciously like publicists

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:17 (twenty years ago)

woah, Matt Brown likes some shitty music. i mean, i like some shitty music, but i don't go shouting about it on USA Today. he should try to keep his head beneath the parapet, or else pretend he likes some better bands.

are Blood Brothers screamo? they scream a lot, but they don't sound like any of the other bands which get lumped into that category, all of whom tend to be unified by their general shittiness. Blood Brothers rule.

Lee F# (fsharp), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:19 (twenty years ago)

I like Blood Brothers too but I do think they tend to be lumped under "screamo," yes.

but dude! people are gonna download music! can you believe this shit?!

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:22 (twenty years ago)

i don't buy this whole thing about how people's computers can magically be connected together across the world to share music. i remember taking my Amiga around a friend's house and linking them up physically to play full screen Spy vs Spy, but this whole 'internet' and 'downloading' business - it doesn't wash with me. i will still get my music on good ol' tape cassette from Our Price.

It's cool. It's fun. And everyone seems pretty fearless.

yeah, that sounds like me. cool, fun, fearless. awesome.

Lee F# (fsharp), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:32 (twenty years ago)

but Lee, they're gonna create stars--like John Mayer and Norah Jones, the most Net-identified musicians of all time! and hit albums, like the O Brother soundtrack, whose success wasn't in any way a reaction to . . . I can't go on, the world's turning upside down. [[reaches for cold compress and aspirin, lies down]]

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:33 (twenty years ago)

Edna Gunderson is seriously "with it." I mean, the internet? Who knew?

Lingbertt, Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:39 (twenty years ago)

UK iTunes music store top 10:

1.Oh My God-Kaiser Chiefs
2.Dakota-Stereophonics
3.Rich Girl-Gwen Stefani & Eve
4.An Honest Mistake-The Bravery
5.Over and Over-Nelly & Tim McGraw
6.They-Jem
7.California-Phantom Planet
8.Galvanize-The Chemical Brothers
9.Let Me Love You-Mario
10.Oh My God-Kaiser Chiefs

this is what the children of tomorrow are listening to. these are the stars of the digital furutre. Kaiser Cheifs are so good they're in there twice with the same song.

Lee F# (fsharp), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:41 (twenty years ago)

does that list sound as dire as I suspect? don't know all those songs, like the Chems one a tiny bit but no more, Mario and Nelly/Tim are rub.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:44 (twenty years ago)

the Jem track is alright

Sven Bastard (blueski), Thursday, 10 March 2005 10:49 (twenty years ago)

i am lucky enough to have heard every song on that list, and if you gave each one a score out of ten and added them up, the total would struggle to get higher than 20.

10 for Nelly and McGraw, obv.

Lee F# (fsharp), Thursday, 10 March 2005 11:11 (twenty years ago)

"I don't understand this kind of music at all."

Buddy Rich, pp me (nostudium), Thursday, 10 March 2005 11:16 (twenty years ago)

1.Oh My God-Kaiser Chiefs 4/10
2.Dakota-Stereophonics 4/10
3.Rich Girl-Gwen Stefani & Eve 6/10
4.An Honest Mistake-The Bravery 6/10
5.Over and Over-Nelly & Tim McGraw 0/10
6.They-Jem 7/10
7.California-Phantom Planet not heard
8.Galvanize-The Chemical Brothers 6/10
9.Let Me Love You-Mario not heard
10.Oh My God-Kaiser Chiefs let's say this is 'I Predict A Riot' in which case 6/10

Sven Bastard (blueski), Thursday, 10 March 2005 11:36 (twenty years ago)

good lord that seems generous. surely 6 out of 10 means that a song is good, just not very good. the Bravery song is a cast-iron 3, even if you quite like it.

Lee F# (fsharp), Thursday, 10 March 2005 12:03 (twenty years ago)

Wow, USA Today, tough target.

bingo, Thursday, 10 March 2005 12:18 (twenty years ago)

I presume articles like these are to tell older people exactly what is going on before they die.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 March 2005 13:54 (twenty years ago)

Tomorrow's Kids Get Everything You Didn't

Sven Bastard (blueski), Thursday, 10 March 2005 13:57 (twenty years ago)

I wonder what they were like in the late sixties.

"Ha Ha, Today's Teens Having Sex With Birth Control While You Had Electroshock Therapy To Prevent You From Fiddling With Yourself"

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 March 2005 13:59 (twenty years ago)

I presume articles like these are to tell older people exactly what is going on before they die.

It's to tell IT & business professionals what's going ahn in the woild while they're doing business in the lavatory (& the sports section is AWOL).

David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:04 (twenty years ago)

Timeliness is next to Godliness in journalism, making this writer God - in 1998. God can time travel, you see.

Anyway, M.I.A. is totally "internet music." "Arular" is practically part of the hipster ether, and it's not even out yet. Plus, how many people actually bought "Piracy Funds Terrorism" vs. downloaded it? Maybe more than the number of people who bought that shitty Dangermouse goof, but still.

Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

I miss buying singles. Even cd singles. with extra tracks and remixes. how come the record companies didn't know that if they stopped selling singles in record stores that people would get them elsewhere? that was pretty dumb. i mean, yeah, you can get some singles still of chart-topping stuff, but stores used to be full of them.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:39 (twenty years ago)

when i was a kid, you could go to caldor or the record store and look at the top 40 list and just ask for a single by number. like ordering a sandwich or chinese food! i wish you could still do that.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:42 (twenty years ago)

California-Phantom Planet

Isn't this like 4 years old? Strange.

sleep (sleep), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:36 (twenty years ago)

come with me to dee Casbah and we vill make beautiful internet music together, mwah mwah mwah . . .

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 20:11 (twenty years ago)

what's strange about it? it's the theme to the oc

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 10 March 2005 21:44 (twenty years ago)

I'm with you, bingo. Considering USA Today's reader base (and considerable profit margin), ridiculing this article seems more than a bit silly. Not to mention overtly bloggy/alt-weeklyish.

Mr Deeds (Mr Deeds), Thursday, 10 March 2005 21:46 (twenty years ago)

go take a bath

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 10 March 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

this means we won.

donut debonair (donut), Thursday, 10 March 2005 21:49 (twenty years ago)

I'm not defending the article, which is weak. I'm just saying that mocking something written for people who obviously don't spend their entire lives on the Internet obsessing about music seems equally weak. Of course, being employed by the company that owns USA Today, I am obviously a card-carrying sellout.

Mr Deeds (Mr Deeds), Thursday, 10 March 2005 22:01 (twenty years ago)

with no need to exhume vinyl artifacts, troll used record shops or leaf through catalogs.

Yeah, isn't that a drag. If I could just plug my finger into my USB port and have the tines interface with the capillaries, I'd have no need to troll the refrigerator for leftovers.

Anyway, WIRED owns the style, filling years worth of mag subscriptions with this type of stuff in the early Nineties. Maybe it still does. "Ten applications Nikola Tesla would think of for the Internet if he were still alive!" "The commode of tomorrow will be able to diagnose if you have infectious disease, including AIDS or Ebola!" A favorite, from a sci-fi writer put forward as a sage: "Soon the music-playing computer will be a furoshiki, a kind of rag the Japanese take everywhere with them and use to wipe their asses." From someone in the MIT media lab: "We will grow computing/entertainment consoles like cabbages, instead of assembling them." Or, "Americans are demanding more and more consumer advertising over content." And, "The young inherently understand computer better than the old. It is like they have an extra chromosome for this capacity and all it entails. To compete or try to withstand them is as if you, the chimpanzee, were trying to win against the intellect of Einstein. They will always be several steps ahead of you."

These articles are great, in a manner of speaking, superb for people who achieve erection over lines like "The future is a great place to be because it's where we'll spend the rest of our lives" or similar.

George Smith, Thursday, 10 March 2005 22:03 (twenty years ago)

These articles are great, in a manner of speaking, superb for people who achieve erection over lines like "The future is a great place to be because it's where we'll spend the rest of our lives" or similar.

Hey, we're all Ed Wood fans here, aren't we?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 March 2005 22:31 (twenty years ago)

http://www.goldderby.com/NewImgs/pundents/EdnaGundersen.jpg
Edna Gundersen, pop music critic at USA Today, has been covering music for 25 years, first in Texas, next in Washington, D.C. (after joining the national newspaper in 1986) and, since 1991, in Los Angeles. Gundersen has covered the Grammys for 16 years with varying degrees of success in predicting winners, possibly because wishful thinking tends to interfere with accurate readings of the voting body's politics, cluelessness and bad taste. She's had far better luck bagging interviews with music's top guns, most recently Michael Jackson, Barbra Streisand, U2, Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney. High points in 2001 included interviews with Bob Dylan and George Harrison. Rock bottom? Covering 'N Sync's song-and-dance circus at the Rose Bowl.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 10 March 2005 22:39 (twenty years ago)

The vision of a DeRo/Gunderson lovechild...disturbs.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 March 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

You have to be an Ed Wood fan to live in the US of A. Even if you don't know it.

There will never be a need to develop a better interface for the computer than the keyboard. If left to themselves, the young -- because they are so adept with telecommunications technology and digital distribution -- will grow new lobes in the front of the brain.
The lobe will be an organic wireless transmitter to the central processor, transforming thought directly into instruction machine code.

And then one of them will write a computer virus that kills the rest of us swine. But you predicted that yesterday.

George Smith, Thursday, 10 March 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

*whistles idly*

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 March 2005 22:42 (twenty years ago)

I'm not defending the article, which is weak. I'm just saying that mocking something written for people who obviously don't spend their entire lives on the Internet obsessing about music seems equally weak.

. . . except that the people who don't spend their entire lives on the Internet obsessing about music have already read this story eighty times in the past six years.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 23:02 (twenty years ago)

or at the very least have had the chance to because this stuff has been written about so very very very often.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 10 March 2005 23:02 (twenty years ago)

Edna Gundersen?

http://www.4thegame.com/media/00/02/27/gudjohnsen_eidur_cfc_profile_2004.jpg

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 10 March 2005 23:04 (twenty years ago)

but dude! people are gonna download music! can you believe this shit?!

but dude! newspapers are gonna sometimes publish features on things you already know!?! can you believe this shit?!

fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, 11 March 2005 00:25 (twenty years ago)

Being in the daily newspaper business, I can tell you that we print the same stuff over and over and over partly because the cold fact is, most busy-bee Americans only read the paper three or four times a week. One of the other reasons, of course, is that some reporters/editors are less adept than others at generating original, timely new story ideas.

The vision of a DeRo/Gunderson lovechild...disturbs.
That made me laugh out loud.

Mr Deeds (Mr Deeds), Friday, 11 March 2005 01:01 (twenty years ago)

I can't see the point of ridiculing the article either, though that term "screamo" did seem terribly funny at first. It's the first time I've ever seen an article in such a well known publication portray the issue in that way, and I think it's good that it does.
Perhaps other people just have more time to read such things than I do.

xpost

Bimble... (Bimble...), Friday, 11 March 2005 01:14 (twenty years ago)

DIGRESSION:

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2005/03/10/inside-downloads-chemromanc.jpg

Jack White Lines (Don't Don't Do It)

Stupornaut (natepatrin), Friday, 11 March 2005 02:24 (twenty years ago)

He needs to eat some watercress or something.

RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Friday, 11 March 2005 03:58 (twenty years ago)

The whole problem here is Ms. Gunderson doesn't know who she's writing for, no doubt even most of USA Today's casual readers are slightly more familiar with downloading, the Internet, etc. than the seemingly laughable/clueless sections of the piece would suggest. Yet I know some mainstream music journalists, smart ones, who have been similiarly befuddled by recent developments. I think they've been waiting for some great new album -- oh, say u2 -- to blast out of the box and restore the natural order: millions of punters buying the prerecorded CDs that they -- the gatekeepers -- tell them to buy. (Somebody who should know better recently explained to me that Bono & company gave Apple a big boost w/their u2 iPod!) Perhaps unconsciously, Gunderson is addressing her peers in the music business not USA Today's "unsophisticated" readership.

lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Friday, 11 March 2005 11:15 (twenty years ago)

I think they've been waiting for some great new album -- oh, say u2 -- to blast out of the box and restore the natural order: millions of punters buying the prerecorded CDs that they -- the gatekeepers -- tell them to buy.

My god, is that really the mindset? How goofy.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 11 March 2005 13:39 (twenty years ago)

I shouldn't talk like such an inside dopester...don't know but SUSPECT that this is the attitude. I don't think the role of critic/music journalist has been suddenly invalidated but I do think it's changing fast and as a result a lot of journalists' heads are spinning around like Edna Gunderson's.

lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Friday, 11 March 2005 13:53 (twenty years ago)

Hahah! I'm sorry, that just makes me laugh -- wow, people might really think that way. Crazy. Let their heads spin, then.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 11 March 2005 13:55 (twenty years ago)

Not just journalists but whatever big-music "bizzers" are left, there are still people who secretly wish this downloading/Internet crap would just GO AWAY. It's like TS: Technology Vs. Rockism.

lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:01 (twenty years ago)

The whole problem here is Ms. Gunderson doesn't know who she's writing for

when the circulation of your own publication tops 2 million, perhaps you'll be able to make that argument convincingly. until then, i think you are flat-out wrong. (you may still be wrong then, but at least i might pay attention to the argument.)

fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

what's strange about it? it's the theme to the oc
-- j blount

Oh, I've never actually seen that. Well that explains it then.

sleep (sleep), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:20 (twenty years ago)

xpost
The circulation of my own publication right now is you, cuz...guess I didn't word that right. I don't read USA Today all that much, just the straight news stuff for statistics & sales figues, etc. Edna Gundersom seems like a fine reporter on those articles, suppose my point was that the article linked upstairs seem addressed to people who were pretty unfamiliar w/ the Internet/digital music etc and I GUESSED that most of those 2 million USAT readers are familar w/it.

lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:26 (twenty years ago)

"left to themselves, the young -- because they are so adept with telecommunications technology and digital distribution -- will grow new lobes in the front of the brain.
The lobe will be an organic wireless transmitter to the central processor, transforming thought directly into instruction machine code."

have you been watching Cronenberg movies lately?

latebloomer: damn cheapskate satanists (latebloomer), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:27 (twenty years ago)

lovebug -- i confess i don't have a strong clue what most of those 2 milion usat readers are familiar or not familiar with. but i take it for granted that the people who edit and write the paper have a really really good idea, otherwise 2 million people, or hotel managers, or whatever, wouldn't buy the thing every day. you've got to grant them that if nothing else. they're really fucking good at what they do.

fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:36 (twenty years ago)

I would grant them all that.
Actually I cited an article by Edna Gunderson ("Anyway You Spin It, the Music Biz Is In Trouble" USAT 5 June 2002)in the bibliography of my book. It helped support a key argument. This recent article seemed differnt. But I'm not on some nutty anti-USAT crusade here.
Gotta stop posting first thing in the morning.

lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:21 (twenty years ago)

two million people read USA Today? that's only a third as many who click on an obscure indie-punk website!

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:30 (twenty years ago)

also, lovebug starski's analysis seems pretty much right on, and if it isn't, it's smart and well written. nice.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:36 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.