JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Poll: Taylor Swift

Taylor's a Star,
she's earned every bit of her success.
one song at a time
one day at a time
one fan at a time

It's not just about who's the best singer

Marc,

Thank you for her story! That is what I'm talking about! And I know you have done that more than twice! I also read your Yes Virginia post.

Some must think that one day there was no such and such artist, and the next, a bunch of suits grab them off the streets and makes them a star. Man! I's sure all the suits would love for that to happen!

"So" much time and work is put into any artist or songwriter that succeeds in the music business. I have one friend I went ot High School with back in the late 60's through 71. His band got signed by a major label after much playing out and marketing themselves. Just as their even harder work continued, and was about to get some more radio play in Philly and New York from some sales, their A&R Rep who signed them got fired, and the replacement brought his own projects to the top half of the priority list. (A month prior, I was asked to try out for keys for his band, and made it, but then was X'd when the other writers in the band found out I also wrote,,,,(same night,,,fifteen minutes of being in the band!). His band played on with the original keys player, (not sure what the problem was), but they continued to play everywhere, all the time. Two years later, lady hard work paid off again when they got signed to yet another BIG label. Again,,,radio play was just starting up in Philly and New York, (testing stations) and as bad luck would have it,,,,"that" A&R guy jumped ship to another label, who dealt with another genre. There was an article about all this in the major papers in Philly and South Jersey.

Now, that was years ago, right? Well, my friend had kept up playing, and got signed to an Indie label, (Wiz Records, out of LA, a Sony created company, I believe). They won't be a mainstream band, (for age/marketable reasons). But they play The new Cavern in Liverpool every year or two, and are soon to open for Badfinger, and other such acts. Their having good minor music business success, and having Fun and making a living. ALL from very hard work over the years.

If they were affected and didn't make it big by two A&R reps job shifting, then "making it big" takes many steps and to have everything and everybody stay on the same page. THEN, it would up to the masses, with them already having a fan base, relative to that time of course. If that band was young and in today's market now, they would have had all the internet marketing too, and who knows? Maybe those reps wouldn't have had such an impact when not being their reps anymore. ???

Yeah,,,,,I know some nay sayers on just about anything. This area has been named by one sports caster, (forget his name), as having a "Nervous Negativity". Our sports teams for the VERY most part don't win championships. The Phillies recently the exception. So, no matter how good things look, there will be those that are waiting for the roof to come crashing in. And some actually make that happen by being negative. (fast to call things and people crap, in other words). So, that must be the case for those around here that might say that more than good things. It's just an way of thinking to begin with.

I think there is more to learn from by going over what was done that worked. (A business model to follow), if wanting to get into, or learn about the business of music. Some seem to need to mention one general blanket term, as if there is no merit attached to that given artist. ?????

There's always a story behind the scenes. And hard work, no matter the form of song, production and performance. We, as fellow music people could respect those at any level, for any reason they are there. If the nay-sayers had better business skills or songs or chops, and would eventually "make it big", then they would have to hear about others not doing the work calling ?them" crap. I wonder how that would then go over? Got to think about and respect the "person" who has earned their lofty position.

Got to take time to read the story and get to know the person who is now a star. I recall how The Beatles were laughed at by some, saying all kinds of things about they are just a hairdo. They did not know they were the hardest working band in history. Played more hours a week than the slots in Atlantic City! For years they did one nighters throughout many countries. Then, they settled in Germany at that one place, but played like it was a double full time job,,,,days and nights! Eating on stage!

There's always many facts behind the stars. Hard working cold facts.

Thanks Marc for this exchange!

JD

Mark,
Forget about tearing down anybody & forget about whether to love Taylor or not. Yes people are free to choose, but what are the choices?

Do you really believe that people can't be and aren't manipulated every ticking minute? You must have taken the Blue pill.

PS - I voted yes....

Just by the fact that she stirs up so much controversy in spite of being pretty benign as an artist AND a human being speaks volumes.

People get manipulated at a certain level about everything. No one, with any amount of money, can manipulate millions of people to buy more than one song or unit by an artist. Period. If they could, then the music business would be bigger than oil or the arms industry, or government. Billy Ray Cyrus would have had more than one hit. (If you could make people buy things that easily, why couldn't Coca-Cola and Bill Cosby sell the new Coke?) No, the argument doesn't wash. There is, of course, manipulation in sales, but it works mostly in promotion and has little effect on repeat customers and loyal fans. And without repeat customers and loyal fans, you wouldn't have stars selling at Taylor's level.

No, instead, one could argue against capitalism itself, and that, I beleive, is at the root of many of the allegations that popular music is all manipulation. I find such arguments assume the worst of people, seem elitist, and are, at the core, cynical

Mike,

I think you are wonderful but people being manipulated? Yeah. For about 30 seconds. Mike Dunbar has it absoultely right. You can tweak the consumer's interest for a few minutes with anything. But they have the attention span of a gnat. And if you don't keep giving them something they are interested in, they are GONE faster than you can imagine.

I always go back to the Jessica Simpson model. A few years ago they had Jessica Simpson, BEAUTIFUL, Hollywood actress, in all the tabloids, did movies, Dukes of Hazzard, and did a country record. She had her 15 minutes. That is money and manipulation. There was nothing that KEPT attention. That is actually the RULE rather than the exception. Package a product, throw it out there and it fails. Two out of ten succeed.And that is out of the thousands shooting for that same slot.

And I keep going over this again and again, EVERY MAJOR ACT THAT IS OUT THERE HAVE THE SAME PROMOTION MONEY!

That is the difference in what Taylor Swift has done and all the others have not. She has done something that has taken it past the "flash in the pan" aspect.

What many writers have such a problem with is that it is not what they would write or think should be commerical. Gonna have to get over that. It Is what is commerical and probably what we are all doing is not. "Adapt or die" a very wise sage once said.

John, you are right. They laughed at the Beatles. And "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" was not the greatest of intellectual statements.
Elvis, Garth, you name it, people always have their detractors. Taylor has her's. Unfortunately, the most detractors that I see her get are from writers and people in the music industry, angry because it didn't happen to them.

MAB

The only thing that surprises me about this poll is that you found eight people (15%) to say that Taylor DOESN'T have that "star quality".

Kevin

Some of the notions being kicked around here are not mutually exclusive....

I believe the model that an artist has to show some success before he/she will be pushed from somewhat or regionally popular to massively popular.

I believe also that, by and large, the public can't be fooled twice.

I certainly believe they can be manipulated on a large scale once though.

My model - if I was young and trying to break in - would be:

Work my tail off (like Taylor did) to get noticed by someone big enough to push me.

Let them manipulate people to their heart's extent to get me mass exposure.

Make real sure I had a good second act, third act, etc.....because the only thing folks like as much as building someone up is knocking them back down

Scott

Scott, you are articulating my position exactly. the thing people leave out, though, is what it takes BEFORE the money arrives. Taylor's dad is wealthy and made his money in the investment business. Does anyone think, for a minute, that he would have put so much money into his daughter's career if he didn't honestly believe she had the quality it took to return the investment? That he would risk, not only his money, but his professional reputation on it? Who thinks he made the decision without getting the counseling of music professionals in whom he trusted? Who thinks any other investors would have done the same?

Poppycock!

Now, if folks want to say that the capitalist sytstem is wrong for music, we'll have that discussion (maybe on another website LOL). But if folks think that there is ANY upside for a capitalist to invest in a product that they believe the buying public will think is inferior, uh uh.

Thankyou!
Yeah commercials run about 30 to 60 seconds don't they?

PS - No more threads about Taylor Swift, I think we get enough of her

Any arguement that suggests I buy or listen to music that is forced on me is frankly insulting. I will listen to what is offered, even if the selections are limited, but I decide if I like it or not. Nobody else. Certain people would give the impression that we are not intelligent enough to make up our own minds, while they act as if they are the only ones with a discerning ear.

When I do feel the offerings are limited, my intelligence tells me to search the Internet, go to the MP3 forum of Just Plain Folks , or go to an obscure night club and seek out the music I want to hear. But if I hear it on Top 40 radio, and I happen to like it, it's because, in the words of Brian Austin Whitney, it moves me.

I still think it's those eyes.

Greg

Yes that's because you indulge in pop music and pop culture society as much as a kid and think like a 13 year old
Now of course you don't. That's what we all keep forgetting about.
I, me, us, Like we're the main demographic target, we are what they are concerned about.

Isnt it strange to those who vote no she already is a star

Taylor I wouldn't know your music from a hole in the ground, but you've OBVIOUSLY done SOMETHING right, so RUN with it babe!

Maybe not you Greg but either there are a lot of folk out there with horrifing taste in music or they listen to what they believe is trendy at the time and with age and maturity later on wonder why the heck they ever liked the stuff they once listened too.


JMO

Cheers

Of course she's a star what competition did she have?
I just listened to the Brits and it was woeful.......

The local newspaper music critic who is not a sixteen year old girl gave Taylor a good review of the opening concert in her new tour. He mentioned a lot of glitz, but said she did several songs solo with her acoustic guitar and pulled it off just fine. The crowd went wild.

As a Geezer & a Swift Fan, I'll expand upon Colin's Statements. Sean Daly's the St. Pete Times' Music Critic (& a Damn Fine One, IMHO)...

Here's Daly's opening Sentence for a Review headed "Taylor Swiftly Wows" in this AM's Tribune:

TAMPA--In the very first show of her very first headlining tour of the United States, pop princess Taylor Swift could've honked a tuba with her left nostril for two hours and the sold-out crowd of teen girls still would have shrieked and swooned as if the St Pete Times Forum were handing out free unicorns at the door.

OK..here comes 5 Quick "Reasons It's Too-Early to Hate Taylor Swift"..from Daly's "Swift Judgement" Article in the "Weekender" Supplement, (where 16 TS Headshots make up the Cover this issue):

1) Her voice is thin, but at least it's hers.
2) She has the best diary in the whole 9th Grade.
3) She's the music biz's brightest hope for a comeback.
4) She gives rock stars a good name.
5) Her songs are really bleepin' catchy.

He embellishes all 5 points in his story...but I'll pull only a few of his observations from the Last One:

"Swift is only 2 albums old, but she could already release a greatest-hits disc--and it would be good. "Tim McGraw", "Our Song", Teardrops On My Guitar", "White Horse", "Love Story", "You Belong With Me". Her best, and most deceptively smart track is called "Hey Steven", which slyly captures a passing unrequited flirtation. It's not overblown, too hyper, too sad. Instead it sweetly captures a warm blink of time, like that July romance at Camp Weetamoo when you were 12."

Daly's in his mid-30's, I'll guess..knows his stuff.

I'm old-enough to have met & talked-briefly with Shania Twain..when she was first-arrived in NashCity & was "Shania-WHO"... I'm wishin' Taylor tons of success..& maybe an even Happier Ending...when the Buzz Wears Down.

Best Wishes,
Stan

I am puzzled why Taylor Swift gets all this acclaim. There must be hundreds if not thousands out there who are just as good if not better at writing and performing in a similar way to her. A star should be extremely talented, unique and way head and shoulders above the rest not just a carbon copy and a poor one at that of what has been done before. It is a sad reflection of the times that so many people with average or very limited talent get to sing karaoke on TV progs and are hailed as international mega stars.

Big Jim,

I am a fan of hers. i think the thing we need to keep in mind is that the industry and those in it, don't have the final say so on who is or isn't a star. The viewing, listening and buying audience makes that decision. The suits in the business can force feed us all they want. But if someone catches the public's attention, it doesn't matter.

The public doesn't evaluate music as we do. They either like it or they don't and often have no good explanation why or why not. Also, her audience is the generation behind us and they hear music differently than we do.

My parents never liked Elvis, the Beatles, the Stones or any of the iconic groups of the era. But, they were/are the icons of their time...and beyond. It was the young folks of the era (people your age and mine!) who made them the mega-stars. just like the younger ones are making Taylor, Lady gagGa, etc. stars today. Today, we represent the equivalent of our parents when we were teens. they didn't like our music as many parents today don't like their kids' music. It's the normal cycle.

To today's kids, Taylor Swift and Lady GaGa are just as talented as out heroes were. We might disagree, as did most of our parents with us.

Have good one, Jim!

Alan

Hi Al Have to agree and disagree at the same time. Yes today's music is not as good as yesterdays is a proven argument and lots fall into that trap. The difference nowadays is that there is more music around now and it is more accessible than ever so the cream should be on top. It clearly does not work that way. More manufactured third class acts are making it big time than ever before. It seems that the public will accept anything. I have puzzled over this question for a while now and frankly cannot think why it happens. Generally everything is of a poorer standard nowadays. Everything, not just music is on the decline. Behaviour, self discipline, respect for others, manners, quality of workmanship have all nose dived. Reality TV celebs and mediocre pop stars have taken over and are throwing the truly talented people out of business. We have now reached a point where people cannot tell crap from talent. Rather than admit this we go along with it. We who should know better should at least be honest with ourselves if not with others.

I saw Taylor perform in Austin, TX last night. I really enjoyed the concert. She was charismatic and adorable. Didn't notice any pitch issues. Fans loved her. Her screaming fans were louder than the music.

TV shows don't really do her justice. I suggest folks experience her concert before passing judgement. Otherwise you're just just blowing air on something you know nothing about.

Was she lip syncing?

There are the musicians and there are the stars. Two different animals. Some very good musicians are not music stars. Some music stars are not very good musicians. We'd like all the music stars to be very good musicians. So as it seems logical . But life and reality are beyond human logic. Millions of fans love Taylor. You're all trying to find logic behind love. Love doesn't care about logic and reasons. Love doesn't need to nor can't be explained. Love happens. And endures when there's some kind of truth in the mix.

So love is deaf as well as blind.

You know what they say? Women's first sexual organs are their ears. But I'd sure bet men are deaf when it comes to loving. Blind, well, she's cute enough ...

I sure agree with Big Jim about reality TV. They don't have to pay actors. Thanks Jerry Springer.

Questions for the Big Machine that manipulates all people except us:

-Why do you choose mediocre acts to promote? Why not pick a really good one and make even more money? Does crap sell better than quality? Why? Big Machine, did you make things that way...or did you learn this before you started advertising mediocre acts?

-If you promote a quality act, does that make you Good? Or are you Evil because you're still brainwashing people, only with quality this time?

-After I get my brain washed, can I pay a little more and get it dried as well?

Robert Johnson, Leadbelly, Bill Monroe, and "The British Envasion" brainwashed me.

I bet Taylor never planned on building her fan base from highly talented and skilled musicians, singers, songwriters, producers, music critics and industry insiders. She was probably smart enough to know that there aren't enough of them, they usually get their music for free and the general public could care less what they think.

Sometimes we forget that the entertainment industry is about entertainment not art. People want someone to help them feel the way they want to feel. Taylor does that for a lot of young teenage girls. If teenage girls like you teenage boys will buy you. If teenage boys like how you look all the better.

I hated disco but I danced to a lot of it because that's where the girls were and I happened to like girls better then the guys who liked the same music I did. Was Rod Stewart the best singer in those days? I don't think so but Jeff Beck played guitar for him? hmmm? Maybe he recognized Star Quality?

There are some very talented writers, musicians, producers... working with Taylor Swift and I haven't heard any of them complaining.

A great number of fans are being entertained by her so she must be a great entertainer.

That is the measure of her Star Quality!!!

Are Mick Jagger, Neil Young and even Hank Junior for that matter world class singers???

Who cares? The consumer gets to decide what they find entertaining.

I find it kind of funny when people say well he or she just did so and so and that's why they were successful.

So why don't you do the same thing???

Is she the only one who sent out friend requests on MySpace?

That is a good question Mark. I have pondered this very question for years. I think I have the answer. As I have said numerous times we have been bombarded with so much crap that we have become to accept it as the norm. Think about it...the public will buy any old crap and will follow the fashion regardless. This has been going on for centuries. Recently though things have nosed dived and standards have dropped...not just in music but in everything. We buy junk food cause we are too stupid or lazy to cook proper meals. Everything is mass produced disposable crap. If it is not worn out in a short space of times then it is made unfashionable so we have to buy the latest model.
The Suits are not interested in promoting great music or searching out real talent..they are only interestaed in making money. If you can make plenty money from exploiting third rate acts then why bother looking for real talent. TV is now producing some of the poorest quality programs ever. We are too lazy to turn to a decent prog or switch it off.
What gets me really angry is that when I draw folks attention to this I am branded as a moaner and negative person.
It is because I love music so much...as much if not more than Mike Caro....that I say these things. We should all wake up and smell the coffee...call a spade a spade and be honest with ourselves and others. When a thing is crap there is no point in saying it is not just because millions buy it. We are frightened to admit that most of us are stupid and gullible. Perhaps I should just not say anything and just think that people are stupid and deserve what they get. But silly me thinks that if enough like minded people actually bucked the system and spoke out then things would have to change. Perhaps it is just me that is stupid.

I'm not trying to be glib (for once), but what it comes down to is: one man's crap is another man's fertilizer.

We are up to our necks in fertilizer.....problem is nothing grows.

When I write songs these days, I often find myself thinking in terms of Taylor's songs. I admire her songwriting, and style. While she is not the greatest singer, she does fine on her recordings. I like her intelligence and moxie. She has certainly managed her career well. She is a smart, fine young lady.

Tom

Big Jim, this is my point: the public likes what they like, and what makes it "good" to them is not the notion of "quality" you believe should run the game. The Big Machine is not lazy...it WOULD hunt down the highest quality acts if that would sell more. The purpose of any business is to be profitable...that's a given. So they promote what they believe will sell.

I don't believe the Big Machine is the problem, nor is brainwashing.

Which reminds me...if I get brainwashed, will I lose my Dirty Mind?

Mark,

Have you seen those jeans the kids are wearing now that look like they are mud stained even when they are clean. Maybe you could get a mind like that and then even if you get brainwashed it will still look dirty.

Have you ever noticed that the people who are brainwashed seam happier then the people who know the Wizard of Oz is just a little bald guy behind a curtain?

I've been decent but not great for years now I wish someone would brainwash everyone into thinking I was a star!

Ignorance is bliss!

I guess all that leaves then is musically dopey people Especially from age 8-18 in this era.

They don't have the sense to go find this great quality music that is out there somewhere, and to demand it! So much so that it makes the charts, radio, news, and we all hear about it.

Or The labels know where it is and find it but Unbelievably GREAT music doesn't sell so they don't bother to try to sell it?

Which is it?

I'm 100% with Jim on this, we BUY what we are told to buy, especially when we are YOUNG!
Hmmm lets see should I buy what I saw on TV 100 times today or something that I have NEVER seen or heard of before at all?

I think the first thing is to define what is unbelievably great music.
Can that be done? Great? According to who, or is it whom?

The fact that you guys are still talking about Taylor is testament to her "Star Quality"

Hi Bill Old Buddy

Nah I'm not even thinking about Taylor Swift anymore, what I'm thinking about is how GREAT music used to be able to be sold in large quantities, very large.

If it was as Mark says years ago then we would have had a much harder time finding some really great music "musically"
Ya know what ever you like or think is great is great! So that's wonderful. But if you wanted to have more choice and expand and explore.

When you can turn on a radio everyday and you here musicians like the ones that reside in artists like The Allman Brothers or YES or Genesis, Steely Dan, Chicago, Earth Wind & Fire, Zeppelin Floyd and COUNTLESS countless others.
Then the labels are exposing you to really great music, that is also really really popular.

If it was done before why can't it be done again? It can't because that kind of music is dead accept for Guitar Hero and some kids who's parents' and grandparents turn them on to it.

It just seems like we are making it out be be where the kids choose? Well the Beatles were GREAT and they were also rammed down my throat! Thank God!

I am thinking about the silly records I used to buy and show off to my jealous friends cuase they did not have them and the crazy fashionable clothes I used to wear. I THOUGHT I looked cool...but really looked like a dork....I may add that all the other kids were dressed the same way. The were just like me. They were discerning individuals, had minds of their own, NEVER respnded to peer pressure, had excellent taste in everything and could make informed judgments based on experience. Advertising and conditioning had nothing to do with it.

IN A PIGS EYE.

Yeah, I still completely disagree. In a friendly way, mind you. But I really do disagree.

It's true we only buy what we see, but we sure don't buy what we're told to buy...not even kids do that. Who buys something they don't like?

When I was a kid, I bought lots of 45s. I bought Nilsson's "Coconut", but I didn't buy Chuck Berry's "My Ding-a-Ling". I didn't even buy anything by The Archies, and they weren't half bad. There were plenty of well-advertised songs that I wouldn't have taken home for free.

My kids are the first to tell me what they think is good or what sucks on the radio...so if someone is telling them what to buy, they're sure not obeying.

I agree that you do need promotion to make a sale...but it sure doesn't guarantee a sale.

We could say "they only promote crap, but if they promoted quality, then people wouldn't buy crap"...but I don't buy that either, because I just don't expect a sales-driven business to also be a self-regulating quality control business. They only promote what they believe is most likely to sell, and quality is in the eye of the buyer.

In a friendly way Mark....have a look at TV adverts aimed at kids ....THEN tell me TRUTHFULLY they do not buy overpriced crap. To a lesser degree the same applies to adults. Why should music be any different. It is a scientific fact that at least 10% of the population are tone deaf. After watching AI I maintain it is at least 99.9% but I also maintain that the general public with only a few exceptions have a narrow disposable taste in music caused by only listening to such a narrow mix being put in front of them by the media and pressure by their peers to blindly follow.
As a famous showman once said "There is a sucker born every minute"

The more sheep the more BAAAAs.....

PS Nobody will admit that they are easily lead....but we all are. Why do you think politicians get elected.

Sure they buy overpriced crap. But they have to LIKE it to keep buying it. If they don't like it, they'll never buy it again.

It's not "suckers" who keep buying Taylor Swift albums...it's fans. Taylor Swift is what they genuinely like, like it or not.

If you took three times the promotion money spent on Taylor, and split it up equally between me and you and Mike, right now in 2010...Taylor Swift would still outsell the three of us. People keep buying her because they keep liking her.

Hey Mark that is an experiment I would love to take part in....I bet you we would do far better than you think we could.
It would prove on an even playing field that hype works and we ARE better performers and songwriters than her.

Again, I don't disagree with your tastes...I disagree with your entire premise--it's not "better" that sells, it's what people like that sells.

I think Mozart is "better" than Lou Reed...but I have more Lou Reed records than Mozart records because I'd usually rather hear Lou.

Yep crap sells and it proves that people generally are sheepishly ignorant who like to buy crap.
If that was not the case Macdonalds would be crapping themselves and the record companies would not spend zillions hyping thier crap.

Yes if you like something you like it and it's great to you. I work with kids here who very gifted and they range from 10 - 16 I have a Taylor Swift "freak" on my hands and last weak when i played her the Indigo Girls for the first time she was literally stunned at how far better they were then Taylor in every single possible regard imaginable accept records sales.

So kids especially ones who are open minded and musically inclined can KNOW the difference. No exposure to such music whatsoever, it's not there fault.

-------

Outselling US yes I agree, but first lets take away one HUGE factor, NO VISUAL EXPOSURE. No pics no TV..OR Taylor has too do my song and they need to promote it has they would hers.
Now she's headed to the movies why? Cause she's an actress?

Do you really truly believe that "image & constant exposure has nothing to do with sales in this world?

This is not an attempt to take anything away from Taylor Swift at all, but to think that we don't buy as advertised as a Country is plain insane
The persons with more MONEY and juice WINS plain and simple.

And nobody in the music industry CARES about what anyone of us think at ALL as we are OLD lol... That's why these threads are pretty senseless.

Again put "YES" on the radio and they had 2 HUGE HITS? WHY??????
Put Instrumentals on the radio and they were HUGE hits WHY????
Jazz & diverse blends of music HITS why????

EXPOSURE! then the bonus of being great music by anyone and every ones standards, the key is "Like it it or Not"

Nope, and never said so...I've been saying that the money for the constant exposure goes to those who can bring back the most return on investment, and that the acts who get this money are picked for appeal rather than quality...however we want to define quality.


And I've also been saying that promotion money is not spent to educate the masses--it's spent to get the biggest return. There are some obscure acts I really feel are top quality, but I'd be insane to spend millions promoting them...for a business, the money is better spent on acts that appeal to the public.

I'm saying people can be influenced, but only so far. We're not idiots. We genuinely like the music we choose to purchase, even if advertising turned us on to it.



But WHY was all that music getting exposure, and why isn't it now? Here is where we think differently. You think it's because there were smarter, braver people in the industry who decided the music was so good that they were going to finance it no matter what. But I think it's because they believed it would sell...because if it didn't, those brave people would lose their jobs. I think those same brave people also released some pretty lousy stuff that ALSO sold very well, or at least was supposed to.

I'll say it again: businesses exist to make profit. The more they make, the more successful they are. The money goes to the most likely to SLAM DUNK that return on investment. Right now, Lady Gaga is a slam dunk, and Stevie Wonder is not. Oh he'll sell records, and he'll get some promotion money for sure...but there's no way he'd get the same amount of promotion as Lady Gaga.

I don't think the business model of promotion has changed nearly as much as public tastes have changed.

Now don't you be getting mad at me Mike Caro...I still love ya!