Re: new distribution

["Mark R. Leaman" <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>]

>This is definitely the truth
Keets:

What is true about the article comes from the lack of new, exciting music. But the reasons are not as stated, but instead a retreat to safety (if you will) in the face of people stealing. When the labels feel threatened, they are more likely not to take chances...and this is the case currently. It's easy to see this, given the timing when music started going sour coincides with major downloading. Consider the 60's, the days of wine and roses for the industry, when Columbia and RCA had Classical and Jazz labels which lost money but the labels felt the music should be available.
Once again, The Beatles MIGHT have been signed under today's market conditions, but certainly The Who would not have been. Too much of a risk. Those who want there to be no more worthy music should just keep putting down the labels while downloading the music they and only they made available.
          "To announce that there must be no criticism of the 
               president, or that we are to stand by the president 
                 right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, 
                    but is morally treasonable to the American public." 
                             President Theodore Roosevelt, Republican                                              Cheers             ML
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup