No, that wasn't a rap attack. I think most "Alternative" is pretty unoriginal, too.
And some rap is quite clever.
I think the music industry in general has dumbed down the public in general by trying to force-feed us artists that they think will sell because they fit a certain "formula".
I like the current industry offerings about as much as I like cable and phone promotions.
I agree there is good music out there, and astute, discerning listeners, as well.
But seriously, would you really compare the amount of mediocrity in the old-school music biz to that of today? It's not even close.
Here's a little history lesson for you:
Studio time cost a fortune back then. Only a handful could afford it. That's how the title "Producer" gained so much status. A Producer was someone who already had a lot of money and used it, risked it, to create records, because of his/her passion for music. They booked studios, hired musicians, and writers, and arrangers. Producers had know their stuff because it was their money on the line.
Studio time is free now. So-called "producers" don't need and don't use money to make music, just the opposite..they are trying to use Music to make money. As far as talent and ability, there is no threshold, no innate filter, as there was in the past.
If you could eat a piece of apple pie or go out and pick apples and bake a pie, which would you do?
If you could sit by a fire and keep warm or go out and chop wood, which would you do?
There are a lot of people trying to eat the pie, feel the warmth (e.g. make money off music) without picking the apples, and developing the chops. Trying to be Master Electricians without going thru the apprenticeship phase.
Not everybody. But astronomically more people than before, because of the accessibility factor.
A simple analogy for yesterday's vs. today's music business:
From 1950 to 1980 a total of about 4,500 people went on professional singing auditions in Boston, MA. (a guess)
In 2009, over 5000 auditioned in a single two day period! (at American Idol tryouts)
And by rule, they had to be non-professionals!
Imagine having to sit thru all of those auditions...
..and that is what the music industry is like for me, nowadays. I get MySpace messages asking me to check stuff out. I get stopped walking along the beach. I don't even want to be bothered anymore, because the odds of it being good are so miniscule.
I'm sure there's good stuff out there, but I have no idea where to look.
He assumes his product is "art". That's a very common misconception. There are tons of photographs out there. Some are art. Most aren't. Likewise with songs.
Also assumes that anyone who wants should have a God-given right to make money in the music industry, yet calls American Idol successes "grotesque". Talk about convoluted thinking! That is straight backwards! If anything, those AI kids who were born with baby faces and amazing voices have God's blessing to choose music as a career.
On top of everything else (this time I am assuming) he calls himself "DJ" so perhaps his first foray into the music biz was trying to make money spinning other peoples, uhhmmm, "art", without compensating them or even getting permission.
Ahhhh, humans. Thank you, Lord for giving me tolerance and a sense of humor.
Upon tracking down one of your "repeated studies" which you cite as proof of your point, it turns out not to be a study at all, but actually a legal paper.
Legal papers put forth ARGUMENTS. They are completely unscientific and deliberately ignore any evidence contrary to the predetermined conclusion. 50% of arguments are shot down by the judge, and even those that are accepted are not considered facts, they are just precedents.
Studies do just the opposite. They set up test conditions vs. known or verifiable facts. A well-conducted study automatically precludes the possibility of false conclusions. A study of the fashion industry which followed basic scientific principles, would include measuring how much innovation occurred with and without the rampant copying.
Science deals in reality.
Law is about the power of persuasion.
Your proof is like stating that X=45.
Here is the link to your proof, and it is very clear why YOU didn't provide the link.
In the abstract of the document, the authors state:
"We argue that the fashion industry counter-intuitively operates within a low-IP equilibrium in which copying does not deter innovation and may actually promote it."
Nothing but opinion. "OJ was framed"