Music industry spends big money on very few artists, because that's what it takes nowadays to get things heard above the rumble. I read somewhere Brian's post who says that the vast majority of albums released each year - with a promotion budget - goes simply nowhere (less than 1000 copies, I think he said).

So the choice is rather limited for the audience. Once an artist has been signed, he or she'd better sell his songs if he/she doesn't want to get out of business for life. That explains why risks and artistic experimentation are kept to a minimum.

Mike C., Stevie Wonder is HUGE. Songs in the Key of Life is truly a masterpiece. But I wonder what he'd do now if he were 18 and a commercial career to start. Would he be as magnificently revolutionary or would he play safer? And what sort of success would he get, depending on his decision?

I think each generation is able to produce musical geniuses, which means that there are some young ones right now who have the talent to do as huge as the Beatles or Stevie. But I also think our times - economic considerations here - don't give them the opportunity to exploit their full potential. They have to be very careful, they're not free to deliver their goods fully, so they may record songs a wee bit conventional. I think it's true in all sorts of businesses right now. Very talented people everywhere with a leash on their creativity, frightened to lose their jobs.

I agree, Swift's album is nowhere near Songs in the Key of Life, I'm not deaf. But that Swift girl could go further if only provided the opportunity, that's what I think from what I can see and hear.



"Honey, I know, I know, I know times are changin' / It's time we all reach out 4 something new" (Prince)

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Yann-Causeret/113543418669413?ref=nf