> On another note, I've noticed -- over the past year or so -- an apologetic 
> mindset forming here on Audities, people posting stuff like "Duffy's voice 
> is kind of weak but it's not bad" or "the new Matthew
> Sweet songs are pretty OK, all thing considered", etc.
>
> Wow. Does anyone have standards anymore, or is merely "ok" good enough 
> when it comes to music these days?


Considering that those posts weren't ringing endorsements - more like 
announcements that an album was out from someone - yeah, I think Auditeers 
still have standards. We've never agreed on everything, and for my money 
people don't post enough, even if it is informational and not judgmental. 
I'd rather read that Matthew Sweet comment and know that there's an album to 
check out than have the (apparently underwhelmed) person not even bother to 
post.

But you completely missed Stewart's point. The PussyDolls tanked because 
they were vapid. It was the record exec who thought they'd sell on their 
looks, not the consumers. The general public seemed to see through that one 
and walked away.

But kErRy, you can't really be shocked that in record exec minds, looks 
trump physical talent...can you? (Granted, in your prog world hot pants is 
never enough - I'm talking about the more commercially simple music formats)

Stop being a curmudgeon and suggest a band we should all listen to.

b