What's really interesting about the article is how the accounting for the recent
growth in the music biz directly mirrors the way the financial markets have
bloomed since '95-96. The article shows through statistics that a handful of
acts/records are responsible for the growth . . and it is well known that the
unbelievable year-over-year gains recently in the stock market are traceable to
the few large companies that make up the upper tiers of the Fortune 500. The
buying frenzy doesn't translate to the broader world of smaller companies, who
have languished . . . and in the music business, it certainly doesn't seem like
the indies are thriving.
Does this parallel say something about general trends in the 90s as we bring the
decade to a close? Will we remember these years as boring ones, where culture
went for the safe bet and innovation suffocated? Will we prefer the 80s, where
the ethic of consumption at least sparked some reactionary movements in the
arts, keeping things interesting? Or the 70s, when music was at war with itself?
JJM
np: Shaver, "Victory". Nothin' like a little sangin' about Juh-heezus before I
start an evening of beer and loud guitars.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: passenger side <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, March 19, 1999 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Clip: Flushed with Success(LONG)
>>The difference these days
>> is that when it comes to being broke these musicians are not alone. They
>> have company: record industry executives.
>
>While I have great sympathy for anybody who gets dumped
>from a job they've come to consider their livelihood, that's
>about the funniest thing I've read in quite a long time. I
>don't know who'd get a bigger laugh out of it: one friend
>who got dumped from a label exec job and comfortably
>took a whole year shopping for a new job or my guitarist
>whose late '60s junker is pissing transmission fluid all over
>the place.
>Maybe it's all relative . . . or something.
>Tom Smith
>
>
