on PTI's post and the merit/problems of mp3:
You are dead right about having to "trawl" through rubbish on a site like mp3.com. compiling a collection of 50 good songs takes hours. but its a bit like being an amatuer A&R man myself really, insofar as I have to make a quick decision about what songs are good (and will keep me entertained in my car) and which ones arent - I try to look beyond production to the actual songs/performances. Its actually a sort of hobby for me. Maybe I should analyze my decision making process and post it here, so that songwriters can see what someone (like me) looks for in a new song - I certainly realise that all the cliches are true (like "dont start with a 60 second intro" and stuff like that).
on the topic of the money "not being in music any more" - I think this is true for a recording artist- and here's why:
record companies are finding it increasingly risky to foster talent and promote it worldwide; its more competitive and expensive.
so they have to reduce risks to ensure a profit. A side point is that you are competing with older music which is still being re-issued on CD, which was not the case so much 30 years ago.
This means they wont take a chance on someone who is ugly, they wont take a chance on a big band (who might break up before the profits roll in), they wont take a chance on something "too" avant garde.
Its so bad that its actually risky taking a chance on someone talented, because the talent you build up could go on to sue you and work for a competitor (George Micheal).
I think that the logical consequence is that a record company is really interested in pairing a talented performer who looks beautiful along with slick songwriters. Its happened in Country, and its increasingly happening in mainstream music (britney, the spice girls)- so who makes the record money? Songwriters, Marketers and the singers who develop "staying power" (Kylie)
Sorry to harp on about this - I think its interesting!!
AndrewR
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/371/dead_mans_corner.html