I've posted this before on some smaller boards just to collect opinions on this subject, also was searching for this thread on this forum, and I found nothing So I appologie if this thread already exist, I'll be mora careful in the future, but now any way this what meant to say.
Believe it or not, today music is nothing but industry. Just like food industry, car industry or any other. Music has lost its meaning long time ago; today music is just another way to make a lot of money in short time. Today music is about good look, hit songs, videos, tours, etc. You probably still don?t have a clue what I want to say, so here you go:
A painter?s expressing himself through his paintings, a sculptor?s expressing himself through his sculptures, and a musician should do his expressing through music. Huge number of mainstream bands (or artists) is just puppets in hands of some good manager. That manager knows what?s necessary for success, that?s good look, hit songs, video on MTV etc. Does that mean that a less attractive man (woman) can?t be a musician just because of his (her) look? Just be realistic for a second and think, there is whole bunch of horny stupid teenagers who likes Evanescence just because Amy?s beauty. I?m not trying to say that EV is building its success on Amy?s look; I?m just trying to say that such cases exist. Just ask yourself: ?Would I like EV less if Amy?s ugly?? of course NO, because real EV fan likes them because of their musical creativity, an Amy?s angelic voice! For example the world?s idol (singing contest) Kurt Nilsen has been discriminated because of his look, is that normal? He has so powerful voice, but in the end he won just because the audience was crazy about him. Man just wanted to be a singer not photo model if you know what I mean. So now here we are in situation where you have 5-10 mainstream bands (less quality more good look) and whole bunch of underground bands that are playing some small gigs. In case you did know it Nickelback has also been discriminated by Roadrunner records. So what happened to good old emotional music, where musician builds a part of himself into his songs? Should I or anyone else stop practicing music just because I?m not good looking like I don?t know Enrique Iglesias? (I?m not saying that I?m some freak, I?m not that is just an example). I just wanted to see if you people around here are having the same opinion on this subject.

I would describe it as a combination of both. We have access to everything from totally uncompromising independent artists to pure pop creations. I listen to some groups/artists that I don't even know what they look like. I don't care how hot a female singer looks--I separate the music from the image, and if the music doesn't stand on its own, I don't listen to it.

Maybe the advent of the music video created this condition. While it created an extra dimension for musicians to express their visions, I think it also made image more important.

I'd say a little of both, too.

It really depends on what kind of music you're talking about, though. I'd say the majority of mainstream music is all about industry, making money. That's why it's mainstream - certain "artists" will do anything to look good, be noticed, and make money, and labels/companies see that, and are willing to go all out, to spend more money in order to make it heard everywhere. Few of it is actually about the art, about the feeling and meaning inside.

But there is so much more out there, where the artists are in it only because they love music, and express themselves through it. They aren't in it for the money or popularity, and many of the top labels might not want a band/musician without the kind of drive for the superficial stuff.

I'm just speculating, though.

i also think it depends on the kind of music...it is a little bit of both

i think its a little bit of both too. it depends on the artist....J Lo, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake i think rely a lot on their physical apperance to get attention for themselves,and flashy video clips and they do anything to get attention when people dont pay attention to them...ie Janet Jackson at that footy thing. but their are bands that i havent even seen a picture of that i like because of their music.An aussie band - Killing Heidi, sold more then 1 million copies of their first album....i think, and were very popular, then their second album came out and they sold 35,000 copies, and i remember Ella Hooper , the singer , say that she was over the moon at this because she knew that 35,000 people bought her album because they loved her music and not because it was the cool thing to do...i dont think she cared about the money or the fame, she was just so excited that people bought her album because they wanted to and not because of hype.

So we all agree that its a little bit of both, but don't you think that is wrong that so real talents are getting wasted just because of their look?

You make an interesting point, because you are only liked as a musician if you look like one, act like one, and if the media accept your music. Pop idol i hate, and i think it's only a way to get viewers. like world idol, the winner did not fit a singer criteria, not because he couldn't sing, write music or produce (which is what we should be looking at) but what we look like, if singers are to fat they have to go on a diet, or if they are ugly they shouldn't get a record deal. People should get a career in music because they can sing and write music, not whether they wear skimpy clothes or look perfect.
i totally agree that music is just an industry and not an art.

I think it is very hard for people to accept you if you aren't good looking in the music industry-that's why so many mainstream acts are seemingly purely about that artists image and only about ten to twenty percent music. I think it's unfair to classify all mainstream music as mainly image though-there are probably quite a few musicians/singers out there who are good artists but can't help being beautiful or handsome (like Amy lol) and don't intend to show it off, but the media still has to elaborate on the artists look because that's all they're interested in. But there are artists out there who, because they realise a large portion of their fame is because they're good looking, milk it for all it's worth (*ahem*christinaaguilera*ahem*), and for them, I would say that their success in the music industry relies largely on their image. Although Christina does have a beautiful voice :D Sometimes I think that these mainstream pop/punk acts don't appreciate music or their own work as art-simply something they have to fulfil for their fans, or because they believe they have to do it. Either way, I think a lot of them should cut down their image in ther public eye-and focus on what they should be famous for-their music.

I voted Industry.

Because right now, it is about the industry. I dont think the RIAA personally cares about if uh... millions of people got their hands on what shouldn't have been released, IE: 'You' by Amy Lee. They're just doing this whole suing thing to punish and get the money back where it belongs.

I mean, if I were a rock star or some great musician, I wouldn't do it for the money. I'd do it for my enjoyment, or for the 'art'. Eventually, though, people would turn it into business, and it'd be outta my hands then. The record label and the entire industry takes over, runs my shows, etc.

the mainstream is an industry. its producing music and musicians on the assembly line. well, its art, in a way, but its mostly standing still. there is no progress in it. the only influences come from the outside, when indie bands become famous. their ideas get adopted, reproduced and sold out by the mainstream. again, its art, buts just a copy and not original.

but there is so much more music than the mainstream, espcially today with the power of the internet. it just doesn't jump right in your face because its hardly on mtv, radio etc. you have to look for yourself in the internet, "indie-friendly" mags, friends with interests in fancy music etc. invest some time in searching and i bet it wont be wasted.

but after all, i don't think the music of the mainstream isnt that bad - for "ordinary" people. everyone wants to listen to music, but not everyone wants to invest time to get what they really like. so, there is the mainstream - easy to enjoy and listen to, goes right into the ear etc. thats good for people who don't have the time for searching or just don't want to. dont forget, not everybody is as interested in music as most people around here are.

You make an interesting point, because you are only liked as a musician if you look like one, act like one, and if the media accept your music. Pop idol i hate, and i think it's only a way to get viewers. like world idol, the winner did not fit a singer criteria, not because he couldn't sing, write music or produce (which is what we should be looking at) but what we look like, if singers are to fat they have to go on a diet, or if they are ugly they shouldn't get a record deal. People should get a career in music because they can sing and write music, not whether they wear skimpy clothes or look perfect.
i totally agree that music is just an industry and not an art.

So we all agree about that.

Art?

Industry?

...

BANKRUPT!

a little bit of both, but there are still some groups that actually makes music out of love for it...
of course if you say britney, justin, christina, beyonce... those are not artists, those are puppets used only to entertain and pretend that they do play a part in the music bussiness...
i personally ignore them cause i know that only the good and real musicians are gonna be remembered...
now gilwellian does have a point, if the music bussiness was just about art then there wouldn´t be bussiness at all...

peace...

And i think its extremely easy to turn art, real music, into a business deal- with people trying to pay this and that, set up concerts, whatever...

Like with the Christian industry labeling Evanescence as Christian- but pulled them from their stores.

Because we live in an age of videos killing the radio star it seems rather obvious that looks are much more important to most record companies than pure talent. Aside from Lyle Lovitt and a few other less attractive artists most singers have to be the whole enchilida to be considered market worthy.
Doesn't AI have an age limit on those who can audition? What, a freaking 30 year old could not be talented or hot enough to be on their show. As far as I'm concerned talent knows no age limits. I am a much stronger singer at 30 than I was at 18. Beauty does fade,yes. However, with proper make-up and great lighting almost anyone can look great. Most 30 year olds aren't exactly sporting wrinkles yet anyway *sighs*.
These people(Amy included *shock*) don't just roll out of bed ready to face the camera. It takes hours of primping and styling to look just right. If they get a zit that trusty air brush or industrial strength concealer can make it disappear like magic.
Of course the industry has taken over. Gone are the days when just hearing a voice as clear and lovely as Patsy Cline's over the radio was spellbinding enough. Now it is necessary to see the performer looking like a million bucks in a 5 minute video to make those millions.
There are groups that still make music for the love of it but if they are not truly what the industry deems as marketable then they are not going to be as successful as artists who are the total package.

Everyone has pretty much already mentioned what I was going to say so I'll take a different approach.

With rap music, it's the genre that's looked down upon the most. Simply cause of these wanna-be "pimps" and they Cadillacs, them rims, girls, jewelry, $, etc., nah mean? That's industry.

But underground rap is more of art than industry. Some of it's fun, some of it's beef, and some of it is just messages. Like Dead Prez. Messages about racism still being strong in America. It's like this in all genres. You'll have indie artists (or those signed to either small labels or major labels who don't know how to use the artist, even if they're signed - ie Ali Vegas and many others) who do it for the love of the music, while other artists may have love for the music but are not as passionate about it as they are with the fame and fortune.

But in rap music, both mainstream and underground there's beef. Which leads to stupid things. Lloyd of Murder Inc. - that may be the only reason he got signed. Cause his name is Lloyd (since Murder Inc. and G-Unit have had that thing going for awhile now..), and G-Unit has a member named Lloyd Banks. He can't sing. That good at all. I haven't heard his stuff much but that's what people say. It's ridiculous arguing over this shit, but rap is different, and sometimes it's actually cool. This is more of industry as it draws the attention of many people (most recently I'd say it was the Jay-Z/Nas beef besides Murder Inc./G-Unit)..but sometimes it really is just beef. You know what I mean? (I need to go get some sleep..)

Basically, there's both ignorant and concious music in all genres for the most part.

britney, hilary and singers from shows like american idol make up the "industry" part of music these days but then theres real artists, like evanescence, who put their heart and soul into their lyrics (that they actually write!!!). so yes, theres abit of both, and there always will be.

In my opinion it seems to be that it changes as popularity grows. For an example i shall use Thursday. When they were still quite an underground band their music was very aggressive, full of screams, fitting the hardcore/post hardcore style they were known to be. When "War all the time" was released it was an obviously radio aimed album, much softer in the approach and completely different from what they had been known for. Although this could be put down merely to artistic growth, I think it's more that they began thinking monetarily.
A lot of artists are in the industry for the music, and they refuse to change their style or look to sell records. Consequently a lot of these bands never get a chance at the big time, they're always an underground band with little recognition. I think that music today is a combination of both art and industry, depending where in the musical world you look

I think music's both art and industry. There will always be sellouts, and there will always be artists who pour their entire lives into their music. Nothing can change that.

Art lives, industry sells.

There will always be music that moves you, touches you, whatever. However, it will not always be popular, it may not appeal to the mass media, but if you are looking for it, it will most definetly be there. Just go to a local coffee shop on talent night. Sure there is a lot of stuff that may make you want to vomit, but there may just be one band or single artist that moves you, and speaks to you on a more personal level. Whether it's just beautiful music to your ears, or it touches you on a more personal level, it's an art.

A lot of music these days is based on what sells, and what sells is what most 13 year old kids are buying, unfortunetly. Which is why a lot of artists usually conform to such music eventually, which is about as sad as it gets. :/

I had to vote Industry, coz it's even called 'The Music Industry'.... so well, its sadly an industry, and it should never have happened, but it did, thought it's still a lil bit of both, but its more industry than anything...

the mainstream is an industry. its producing music and musicians on the assembly line. well, its art, in a way, but its mostly standing still. there is no progress in it. the only influences come from the outside, when indie bands become famous. their ideas get adopted, reproduced and sold out by the mainstream. again, its art, buts just a copy and not original.

but there is so much more music than the mainstream, espcially today with the power of the internet. it just doesn't jump right in your face because its hardly on mtv, radio etc. you have to look for yourself in the internet, "indie-friendly" mags, friends with interests in fancy music etc. invest some time in searching and i bet it wont be wasted.

you brought up pretty much what I was intending to say. Even the industry stuff though, I consider an art...then again, I see art in most things that average people do not. Even this cube that I look at as I type, there's art in that...the shape of the buttons, the smoothness of the frame of the screen. Anything people make can be considered as art....as long as it speaks out a part of them. The person that created my monitor could've seen more aesthetic beauty in this than some others, and therefore believed that it would sell more. Yes, that is industry, but it can in a way be considered art as well.

There's art to everything, even the mainstream stuff, it took someone's ideas and shaped it into a form that would express what they desired to express, and there's art in that. Like Rev was saying, there's so much more than what's mainstream, and that is not necessarily directed towards industry, so the art is less tainted by "what will sell", and more of what that personally means to them.

Just my take on things.

it's really sad because music should be about art and expression but it's becoming very industrial basically because people need to make money and the public dont seem to like artistic music!

The fact of the matter is, labels are putting out what the people want. Right now, people want pop music, so you've got your Britney's and your Christina's. So the labels sign the people who they believe can do the best in the current market. The idea of publishing music was always to get it to a large amount of people, and it always will be. But that doesn't change the fact that most of the bands or artists you hear on the radio or on MTV probably do enjoy creating the music they do, touring, ect, so I do believe there's art in what's being made. Besides, pop songs are not as easy to craft as many people believe they would be.

Vote: a little of both.

i voted both.......but everyone already said what i was going to.
BUT im gonna make some examples.


ART:Bjork,Evanescence,Tori Amos,Lacuna Coil, Nightwish (haha all girls/girl-fronted.)

INDUSTREY:Britney Spears,Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, Jessica Simpson, Avril Lavigne


yeaaaaaaaaaah......well im off. g'bye all.

I would say it's about 80% Art, 20% Industry.

I don't really feel like getting into why, though I guess I could put up a fight through PM's if needed ;p

Is it just me or do people just list bands or artists they don't like and call them 'industry' or 'sellouts?' Because that's exactly what I'm getting from all this.

i voted both.......but everyone already said what i was going to.
BUT im gonna make some examples.


ART:Bjork,Evanescence,Tori Amos,Lacuna Coil, Nightwish (haha all girls/girl-fronted.)

INDUSTREY:Britney Spears,Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, Jessica Simpson, Avril Lavigne


yeaaaaaaaaaah......well im off. g'bye all.


I don't necessarily think so.

I think every single one of those groups/people started off with their own version of art. Yes, everyone's a critic. No, not everyone likes it. But it's what they created from their own heart. That is what I define as art.

Every one that's popular now has gone a little bit at least to industry...yes, that includes our beloved Evanescence. If they weren't going towards industry, Fallen wouldn't be in every CD store, and they may not be touring the nation. From what I've heard, if Amy had her way, Haunted would've been the next single instead of Everybody's Fool...but they sold out to what their record company wanted. The musical pair Latcho and Andrea that I heard several years ago at this little restaurant called Mama Mia's in Puerto Vallarta, they haven't gone industry. They have a CD out...but I bet not one person here knows exactly who I'm talking about.

Every one starts out artistic...some just end up more industry.

Without the industry to drive the artists, there will be no music.

Without artists for the industry to promote, there will be no music.

Some artists are mere industry creations, focused on a specific genre and group.

Some artists would rather starve than do that, but get lucky and find a label that will promote their sound and talent.

And then little Mary, in the church choir, sings her heart out, and gets more back from it than Mick Jagger ever made in millions.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.

Without the industry to drive the artists, there will be no music.

Without artists for the industry to promote, there will be no music.

Some artists are mere industry creations, focused on a specific genre and group.

Some artists would rather starve than do that, but get lucky and find a label that will promote their sound and talent.

And then little Mary, in the church choir, sings her heart out, and gets more back from it than Mick Jagger ever made in millions.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.
That's true. In music, industry and art depend on each other, however, one side definitely has an easier time with it all.

There are artists who make music purely for art, but very few can even make a living from it unless they are influenced in some way by the modern industry. And then there's artists that follow every trend, and become a teen idol and make millions. Who has an easier career? Forget who gets more satisfaction in the end from their career. Perhaps "little Mary" can sing her heart out and feel great about it, but Mick Jagger can feel just as great about himself with his bank account. There's musicians that care more about art than money; and there's also musicians that don't care as much about what they sing as long as the cash flows in.

Besides, pop songs are not as easy to craft as many people believe they would be.
That's true. All the filthy rich artists on TV, they didnt get there by doing nothing. They fought their way to the top from the very bottom. Perhaps they have easy lives that most people can only dream of, but no one started out that way, and don't think for a second that they didn't work for it. There's no such thing as easy money. You see pop singers and mainstream artists effortlessly making millions now; but they weren't like that their whole lives. Metallica, in the 1980s, lived in a small rehearsal roon for 2 years because they couldn't afford their own places. And I remember in an interview they said that a member of Anthrax (I think) had to lend them a small portable heater during the winter just so they don't freeze to death. Yes, they're effortlessly making millions now, but they also went through hardships most people can never face. The amount of success you get is directly proportional to the amount of work you put into your career, regardless of what you do.

A lot people call every mainstream artist a sellout. Many people think Metallica have become industry puppets since the release of Load and Reload. And the suing of Napster didn't make things any better for them. And then many old Metallica fans think they have turned their backs on their fans for the sake of fame and money. Here's a rude awakening, bands don't owe you shit! It's their band, they can do whatever the hell they want. Don't like their new style, don't like the fact that they're making millions because of their new style? Well, suck it up. I don't like sellouts. I don't want to listen to someone that doesn't give a crap about what they sing as long as they get paid. But it's not my business what a band decides to do. The bottom line is, a band doesn't owe its fans anything. Just like a fan doesn't owe a band anything. A band makes music, a fan listens to and enjoys their music; a band/fan relationship is as simple as that. Don't like a band, then don't listen to them. But don't insult them for being who they are. You can't imagine the amount of work it took for them to become the "talentless sellout" that you despise.

And for the record, if mainstream music is all industry and requires no effort whatsoever and gives you easy money, why aren't YOU making millions in a band??

The attitude of people into what is seen as alternative and rock music, metal etc etc, too often have a really bad attitude towards mainstream artists and here's me thinking it's all about acceptance and individuality etc etc Mainstream is what the most people listen to, an artist cannot help it if they appeal to many people! If you only appeal to a few people it doesn't matter how good you look, you still won't sell as many as an artist who appeals to tens of thousands.

Mainstream and industry go hand in hand because mainstream is what most people buy, therefore the most money can be made from it. The industry is attracted to the art (she says optimistically). *Sigh* if zee customer wants zee customer shall 'ave...

For centuaries man has been obsessed with the image of perfection...art has always been about beauty, human beauty...

The amount of success you get is directly proportional to the amount of work you put into your career, regardless of what you do.

So unless you make yourself less specialised...I have to disagree with this, obviously. I'm never going to buy punk rock - no matter how much any1 tries to sell it to me. That's what most ppl would say and think IMHO. Therefore, a band could work hard their whole lives and always be poor and relatively unsuccessful. No music genre is any better than another, they just vary in popularity.

Don't like a band, then don't listen to them. But don't insult them for being who they are.

Completely agree. Respect the artists! Amy Lee has an image she has created to associate (sell?) with her music, and Evanescene's music too. As MLE_Sol was saying (something close to at least so i echo :) ) So stop with the pop isn't worth nething and britteny(/christina/etc) stinks...if she's so bad how come she's so popular? Art is about touching people - it doesn't matter who or how it is produced. NE 1 remeber Eva Cassidy? She didn't want the fame...and after her death all her music sold really fast. She could have had it all, unless her death was the attraction to the music, like the old masters of art...*sighs*...and talent too, of course...

So unless you make yourself less specialised...I have to disagree with this, obviously. I'm never going to buy punk rock - no matter how much any1 tries to sell it to me. That's what most ppl would say and think IMHO. Therefore, a band could work hard their whole lives and always be poor and relatively unsuccessful. No music genre is any better than another, they just vary in popularity.
I guess that's true, hardworking people aren't always successful. However, successful people are always hardworking. Some people can acheive success more easily than others, maybe because of their natural talent or rich parents that could support them in what they do when they started off; but anyone that has any bit of success had to have put in a substantial amount of work to achieve it.

...exactly why all artist should be respected :)


Some people can acheive success more easily than others, maybe because of their natural talent or rich parents that could support them in what they do when they started off

Yeh, I guess so. *Wishes she was born into rich family...* There are still sacrifices to be made tho, and if you're lucky enough to be in that situation you have to carry that kind of criticism from others pointing out that you didn't have to fight from the bottom. Double-edged sword methinks.

Back to topic: art or industry?

I don't think it matters so long as people are getting something out of the music. Ultimately, perhaps, industry is a part of art. The desire for fame or to reach a lot of people is represented by the industry aspects which make that possible. What is the value of art if nobody appreciates it? Music is part art, part industry and part some other stuff IMHO, and has always been a part of many other things. Could it also be asked "music: art or worship?", or "music: art or entertainment?"...? Isn't music all of these combined?

...exactly why all artist should be respected :)



Yeh, I guess so. *Wishes she was born into rich family...* There are still sacrifices to be made tho, and if you're lucky enough to be in that situation you have to carry that kind of criticism from others pointing out that you didn't have to fight from the bottom. Double-edged sword methinks.

Back to topic: art or industry?

I don't think it matters so long as people are getting something out of the music. Ultimately, perhaps, industry is a part of art. The desire for fame or to reach a lot of people is represented by the industry aspects which make that possible. What is the value of art if nobody appreciates it? Music is part art, part industry and part some other stuff IMHO, and has always been a part of many other things. Could it also be asked "music: art or worship?", or "music: art or entertainment?"...? Isn't music all of these combined?
Wow, I never really thought about that. But now that I do, it makes sense. People make music for many many reasons, art, money, communication, entertainment, etc etc. Any song has all these parts to it. The so called "sellouts" like pop music are more focused on the money part; blues is more about expressing sad emotions; rock and metal about angry emotions; praise songs are about worship; techno and dance tracks are more about pure entertainment; but every song has all those parts to it.

:D so we're all right

:D so we're all right
Yea, I suppose that's true. Debate over! No side wins :p

mmmm I dunno...I'd say both sides wins.

So does no side or both sides win? Let the debates begin! hehehe ;)

mmmm I dunno...I'd say both sides wins.

So does no side or both sides win? Let the debates begin! hehehe ;)
Hmmmm, lets see...

Pessimist: Neither side wins! :mad:

Optimist: We all win!! WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! *HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGS* :D :D :D :D :D

I've posted this before on some smaller boards just to collect opinions on this subject, also was searching for this thread on this forum, and I found nothing So I appologie if this thread already exist, I'll be mora careful in the future, but now any way this what meant to say.
Believe it or not, today music is nothing but industry. Just like food industry, car industry or any other. Music has lost its meaning long time ago; today music is just another way to make a lot of money in short time. Today music is about good look, hit songs, videos, tours, etc. You probably still don?t have a clue what I want to say, so here you go:
A painter?s expressing himself through his paintings, a sculptor?s expressing himself through his sculptures, and a musician should do his expressing through music. Huge number of mainstream bands (or artists) is just puppets in hands of some good manager. That manager knows what?s necessary for success, that?s good look, hit songs, video on MTV etc. Does that mean that a less attractive man (woman) can?t be a musician just because of his (her) look? Just be realistic for a second and think, there is whole bunch of horny stupid teenagers who likes Evanescence just because Amy?s beauty. I?m not trying to say that EV is building its success on Amy?s look; I?m just trying to say that such cases exist. Just ask yourself: ?Would I like EV less if Amy?s ugly?? of course NO, because real EV fan likes them because of their musical creativity, an Amy?s angelic voice! For example the world?s idol (singing contest) Kurt Nilsen has been discriminated because of his look, is that normal? He has so powerful voice, but in the end he won just because the audience was crazy about him. Man just wanted to be a singer not photo model if you know what I mean. So now here we are in situation where you have 5-10 mainstream bands (less quality more good look) and whole bunch of underground bands that are playing some small gigs. In case you did know it Nickelback has also been discriminated by Roadrunner records. So what happened to good old emotional music, where musician builds a part of himself into his songs? Should I or anyone else stop practicing music just because I?m not good looking like I don?t know Enrique Iglesias? (I?m not saying that I?m some freak, I?m not that is just an example). I just wanted to see if you people around here are having the same opinion on this subject.

I not sure, there are some bands like Evanescence where it is alla bout the music. I can't stand manufactured bands, it must be constricting for them not to be able to have total frredom in their work. Alot of the music world is now about making money, which is wrong.

Yes, I agree that a lot of the music business is about money. Money isn't a
bad thing, don't get me wrong, but it's getting more and more common for a
band or artist to be all about making money. Artists like Eminem and Brittany
Spears are in it for the money, as you can see in the way they handle them
selves. I'm not saying they aren't talented, but they just are very superficial
in there motivation to make music. They make lyrics that are made to sell cds
and concert tickets, not just for the expression of their ideas and experiences
in reality. That's why bands like Evanescence get a lot of respect from me. :cool:

I know a lot of people share the same opinions, but it's getting annoying seeing the same things being said over and over again. Especially since most of those posts have little or no explanation, and only an opinion. Please don't post unless you have something worthwhile to contribute to a debate.


(I know, I'm a hypocrite, but I try) :p