You can't just look at one of the factors in seclusion.  The economy was
booming in the late 90's, so people had money to burn on CDs that were
less compelling.  You can't just look at sales and determine how good the
music was that year.

But if you have a bad economy, and music is not grabbing people's
attention, they won't buy it.

I'm not saying that there's NO good music.  But I really feel we're
suffering a relapse of the hair metal days, before Kurt & co. descended
to rescue us.  Or a recurrence of the disco era, when most rock records
had two good tracks and 8 helpings of filler, until new wave saved our
butts (ears?).

Or maybe it was simply the improving economy that permitted the record
companies to deviate from the norm in both instances . . .

Hmmm . . .

g



On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:00:05 -0500 audities-owner@smoe.org writes:
> > 1)  The economy sucks.  People don't have the disposable income they
are
> > accustomed to, so they're not spending money on anything like they
used
> > to.
> 
> i'll buy that.
> 
> > 2)  The music sucks.
> 
> but i won't buy that. if you're going to argue that the industry is 
> tanking because it's making bad music, then you're going to have to 
> be prepared to argue that when the industry was soaring, it was 
> making good music.  which means you're going to have to argue that 
> the greatest music ever made was made in the late 1990s, 'cause more 
> records -- way more records -- were sold in that era than at any 
> time before or since.  you're going to have to further argue that, 
> even though music sucks in 2003, it sucked that much more in 1966 or 
> 1967 or 1977 or 1984 or (pick your favorite year), because a lot 
> more albums are being sold in 2003 than were sold in any of those 
> years.
> 
> i have a funny feeling that's not where you were trying to go.
> 


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com