I have been conducting my own little survey for the past 2 years, and I have yet to find a single person under the age of 25 who doesn't engage in filesharing of some sort. Not all of them use p2p services, as some of them don't have high speed internet. But they do trade mp3s with friends, copy cds from each other and so on.
And these aren't delinquents. At least not all of them. Some are honors students. Some are church goers. Hell, a couple of them come off like something out of Little House on the Prairie.
"When you see someone moving to "shut up the mob", you might want to listen more closely to the mob, because they are probably saying something that is a little more true than anyone wants you to know about."
That is the most beautifully ironic thing that I have ever seen on this site.
But one last thing before I go back to working. The whole 'rock star' thing isn't necessarily as wonderful as you are making it out to be.
Paul Westerberg was once asked if he was bitter about the fact that he never quite became a rock star, while later indie artists like Kurt Cobain did become rock stars.
His response?
"What did it get him? Oh yeah, I wish that was me!"
"Thom Yorke pees all over the record industry now, the same industry that turned him from a likely 3rd rate Cambridge professor into a rock star. Without the industry he so disdains, he wouldn't have the luxury (and the millions) to thumb his nose at them."
So let me get this straight, you think that if Thom had never been signed, he would not be saying bad things about the industry?
"The idea to bring the artists to talk to Joel is pretty pointless, at best an attempt at face saving for the "free music" people, who are attempting to put a brave face on two (three if you consider Ms Thomas losing twice) very significant court rulings, plus the whole mess of TPB."
It's about the disconnect between the RIAA's rhetoric and the reality of the situation.
If the RIAA would just be honest about the whole matter and say "we are doing this not for musicians, but for shareholders" then there would be no point, I agree. I for one would find such honesty refreshing and amusing. But that would probably be considered a PR disaster.
"That Mike feels the need to highlight these posts in another thread to me is just like having a scarlet X painted on my house. Basically, we are being bullied out the door,silenced by someone who doesn't want to face up to the idea that not everyone thinks that free music is good for artists, song writers, producers, studio musicians, and all sorts of other people who make the music that the vast majority of people listen to and enjoy every day."
Oh, poor you. For god sake, it is Mike's bandwidth and servers that you are using. It is his site. The fact that you are here is due solely to his success in making such a popular site.
If you don't like it, go away. You could even MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN BLOG! It takes about 5 minutes to set one up using Fantastico. There you would have all the freedom and anonymity you could want.
Of course, no one would ever read it, but that sure as hell isn't Mike's fault.
"I'm not sure that's entirely true. Decent recording equipment is relatively easy to buy and even top-of-the-line stuff is *extremely* cheap to rent nowadays. Garage Band comes with every mac and, while far from perfect, is an impressive little piece of software -- and programs like Reason, Logic, certain versions of Cubase and lots of VLC machines are well within the reach of anyone who saves a bit of money."
Not really arguing with you, but there are many free alternatives to these programs that do the job just fine.
Most of the advantages of the more expensive software packages (assuming there are any) are related to things like convenience (or in the case of ProTools, compatibility with other studios, so they can take their files and go whenever it is convenient and open them up someplace else without having to go through the tedium of importing audio files and whatnot).
In terms of sound quality, free hosts like Audacity or Kristal Audio Engine work the same way that expensive hosts like Samplitude work. Then there are the dirt cheap alternatives like Reaper or Cantabile or Energy XT. All of them do the job just fine. If the Beatles in 1967 were stuck on an island with any of these and some microphones they would have been in hog heaven.
The same goes for signal processors and virtual instruments. In some cases, the freeware alternatives are quite striking. One great example is Xhip: a software synthesizer that hands down sounds better than many very expensive alternatives.
All of these things and about 5000 others can be found with a bit of research at http://www.kvraudio.com
This is a great time to be a recording musician. Don't let the naysayers fool you.
Obscure musician X never gets on the radio, and no one gives a shit about him, what with the Backstreet Boys and Christina Aguillera and whatnot being so ubiquitous and cool and all.
Then, one day, little shit P buys his c.d. used for a buck and thinks that it is the coolest thing ever. He shares it via p2p, burns cds for everyone he knows, and generally goes on an infringing spree.
Now, Obscure musician X makes no money off of any of this. But suddenly people all over the world are talking about him. When he plays shows, some people who see his name in the paper might even know who he is.
Now I have to ask, why would any musician be against this kind of infringing? Would he really be better off if it had never taken place?
"And the only people that feel copyright should be abolished are those with little or no tallent to create for themselves. Those who feel "entitled" to everything for free..."
Well I certainly don't think that copyright should be abolished, nor do I think that this is TechDirt's 'official' position.
But I do think that copyright is out of control today, specifically (in the US) because of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA. In it's current form it seems far less beneficial to artists than it is to lawyers.
And I don't think this because I have 'little or no talent to create for' myself. To the contrary, I make my living selling my talent, both in the form of royalty free samples, and music licensing. I am very definitely what one would refer to as a 'content provider'. Nor am I one of 'those who feel "entitled" to everything for free...'
No, I think that copyright law is out of control because that is my rational conclusion based on what I have read. The only content providers that it really benefits in today's world are the ones that have a staff of attorneys on retainer. A great example of the stupidity that can occur is Robert Fripp's struggles with EMI (Yes this is in the UK, not the US, but Fripp's ability to express himself, along with his long career, draw attention to what is clearly an international problem).
What galls is the cavalier approach to copyright ownership of someone other than EMI. It’s a little too rich to punish punters for illegal downloads of EMI copyright material when EMI are themselves guilty of copyright violation. The response, many months ago, of the EMI lawyer (the one who also said shit happens! get over it) effectively told us I’ve done my best! we’ve told them to take it down! This isn’t quite good enough when making publicly available the copyright material of others. How bad do EMI management systems have to be that the company has no power of control over its licensing to download companies?
This shit happens all of the time. It is why so many former signed artists are going off on their own despite the fact that it involves them in business matters that they would just as soon ignore. But the problem is that when they just let the businessmen take care of these things, they get screwed
I have never seen so many implausible drunken analogies.
But seriously, why do so many people have so much trouble distinguishing between these positions:
1. Recorded music is free because I want it to be and so fuck the RIAA.
2. Recorded music is free due to vast technological forces beyond anyone's control, so people who make it had better figure out how to adapt.
Almost every single naysayer that comes to this site tries to ignore point 2, and pretend that everything said here is really just window dressing for point 1. Usually they are really fucking rude while doing this.
It's a childish debating tactic which takes what could be an interesting forum and turns it into a huge sophomoric mud pit.
"When you're a nobody that makes music no one wants to listen to, the decision to give it away for free becomes an easy one. Hilarity arises when you try to pretend like that decision was arrived at via some altruistic higher principle and becomes something akin to a guy who can't get laid telling everyone he's not promiscuous like them and is proudly waiting for marriage."
When you are a nobody that rants on and on about stuff no one wants to listen to, the decision not to have your own blog is an easy one. Hilarity arises when you try to pretend that the decision was arrived at via some altruistic higher principle (like, say, "defending artists' right to be paid") and becomes akin to a guy who can't get laid telling everyone that he's not promiscuous because all of those freeloading hippie chicks 'just want stuff for free'.
That is sort of like saying "since shoplifting can't be stopped, you should just give up".
No.
It is not remotely like it.
There has never been anything like widespread acceptance of shoplifting.
Sharing songs illegally has been the norm since it became possible with cassette tapes. It used to be called making a mix tape. Mix tapes became a huge part of American culture overnight. And the RIAA fought it every bit as hard as they are fighting filesharing.
But the really big difference is that shoplifting is stoppable. It takes place in public, and there are many very old and mundane security techniques for dealing with it.
Even if you stop or slow down filesharing, which I sincerely doubt anyone can do, how are you going to stop people from burning cds? How are you going to stop kids from getting together and trading mp3s?
How the fuck would anyone even know if their filesharing prevention techniques were working?
I wouldn't want to be pedantic, so I won't jump on your misuse of the word 'linguistic', but when one is talking about people being sued in court, the legal definitions of the terms used is rather important, no?
And no one has ever said that what this guy did isn't illegal. Mike has said time and again that he was an foolish for not settling this case. Mike has never ever tried to justify such things.
But again, let us say that this guy is indeed a 'punk thief'. Let us say that Mike himself has joined in the chorus of those who say, over and over again, 'Filesharers are punk thieves'. What does that help? How does that stop the millions of other 'punk thieves'?
Every single person under the age of 20 that I have asked (and I have asked dozens of them, from all walks of life) thinks that filesharing is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Without exception. This attitude is becoming the ethical norm.
Condemn it all you want, but these condemnations won't stop it. They won't even slow it down.
"This is a very accurate statement. BUT leaves out the fact that by choosing not to agree to pay for someone's work does not entitle you to have enjoy the benefits of that work."
Why do I bother? I don't know, but.....
Let's concede that people who do the evil filesharing thing with copyrighted music are bad, bad, bad. They are evil and deserve censure and ridicule.
What do we do about them?
If anyone believes that what the RIAA is doing with these lawsuits is going to deter filesharing, I have to ask: how can it work when the federal government, with resources that dwarf those of the RIAA, has been putting people in jail for marijuana possession for many years with absolutely no effect on the availability of said substance?
So, if filesharing can't be stopped, what should be done about it (other than bitching about it anonymously on someone else's website)?
"No, it isn't entirely new, or there wouldn't be a discussion. It uses the character(s) of the original book, plus all the setup from the original book to situate and define those character(s).
It isn't entirely new, it's just the continuing adventures of Holden. If the book was written with different character names, would it be the same book? Nope, because the author would have to first establish all about Holden. Quite a different story when you look at it that way."
So Homer's estate should have been able to stop Aeschylus from writing the Oresteia? or Euripides and Sophocles from writing their respective plays about Elektra?
"So, Mark Guertin was likely using a copyrighted recording of a copyrighted arrangement. Sigh."
That last part is extremely doubtful. Wagners orchestrational ability was a good part of what he was famous for. Making a new arrangement of a famous Wagner piece would raise lots of eyebrows in the conservative world of 'classical' music.
Just for the sake of being exact, the copyright form used for the music is form PA. The copyright for the recording is form SR.
I, for one, will happily refer to the entire music industry as moronic. I think, however, that Mike is much more circumspect.
But as for 'the big times', they mean little to people who actually care about music.
When he died in 1945, Anton Webern was an obscure figure with not a single hit to his name. At the same time, Kay Kyser was popular as hell, with songs in the hit parade and a career in radio and film as well.
Today, Kay Kyser is an embarrassing footnote in the history of jazz, while Anton Webern is one of the most influential figures in 20th century music.
The 'big times' are mostly for teenagers who actually give a shit about whoever happens to be the celebrity of the week.
"If you are spending you time checking out the bodies of underaged girls, I think you have bigger problems than the music business."
Well she did have her picture taken with her shirt off. In Vanity Fair even. So I am pretty damn sure both her dad and her record company were OK with it, though there appears to have been some backlash.
But touche. That's what I get for talking to an idiot.
"Tee-hee. If you think Hannah Montana is the entire music business, then you need to take some lessons."
No, she isn't the whole industry, but she is the ideal: lots of money from all kinds of crossover merchandise, and a tween audience that spends their parents money on junk much more freely than they will ever spend their own money once they get to college.
"Go pull the top 100 in each category, and start figuring it out."
I Gotta Feeling
The Black Eyed Peas
Bilge.
Best I Ever Had
Drake
Bilge
Knock You Down
Keri Hilson Featuring Kanye West & Ne-Yo
I have heard less annoying uses of autotune on 12 year old kid's MySpace pages.
You Belong With Me
Taylor Swift
Hannah Montana with a nicer body. The music is almost more annoying, though.
Use Somebody
Kings Of Leon
They are cute, but completely forgettable. I give them a 2 and a half.
Fire Burning
Sean Kingston
Ow.
Boom Boom Pow
The Black Eyed Peas
Because they are just that good, right?
BILGE!
Sorry, if looking at the top 10 is that painful, going through the top 100 would definitely make me have to pull a Van Gogh.
"the music business is big, wide, and full of talented people, most of which you probably know but don't want to admit."
Not at all. I admit that many of the recording engineers are very talented at making marginally gifted teenagers sound much better than they will ever sound in concert.
"Part of Mike's view on the world is to cut down, cut out, and wipe out the record labels."
Don't you get tired of spouting these childish and inane mis-characterizations of other people's words?
Obviously not.
"In essence, it is to return the entire music business to the DIY stage."
It's going there whether you like it or not. The only exceptions to this rule will be the handful of megastars making tween-consumed pablum, like Hannah Montana. Face it, Hannah Montana is the shining face of what is left of the music industry.
Or is Hannah Montana an example of the 'nice fresh music' that you 'enjoy on a regular basis' 'without having to be a detective'?
On the post: New Study States The Obvious: Kids Download A Lot Of Music
And yet, the British live in what is fast becoming a bona fide police state.
Hmmmm...
On the post: New Study States The Obvious: Kids Download A Lot Of Music
I have been conducting my own little survey for the past 2 years, and I have yet to find a single person under the age of 25 who doesn't engage in filesharing of some sort. Not all of them use p2p services, as some of them don't have high speed internet. But they do trade mp3s with friends, copy cds from each other and so on.
And these aren't delinquents. At least not all of them. Some are honors students. Some are church goers. Hell, a couple of them come off like something out of Little House on the Prairie.
This battle has been lost.
On the post: Why Are RIAA Supporters So Scared Of What Actual Musicians Think?
That is the most beautifully ironic thing that I have ever seen on this site.
But one last thing before I go back to working. The whole 'rock star' thing isn't necessarily as wonderful as you are making it out to be.
Paul Westerberg was once asked if he was bitter about the fact that he never quite became a rock star, while later indie artists like Kurt Cobain did become rock stars.
His response?
"What did it get him? Oh yeah, I wish that was me!"
On the post: Why Are RIAA Supporters So Scared Of What Actual Musicians Think?
So let me get this straight, you think that if Thom had never been signed, he would not be saying bad things about the industry?
"The idea to bring the artists to talk to Joel is pretty pointless, at best an attempt at face saving for the "free music" people, who are attempting to put a brave face on two (three if you consider Ms Thomas losing twice) very significant court rulings, plus the whole mess of TPB."
It's about the disconnect between the RIAA's rhetoric and the reality of the situation.
If the RIAA would just be honest about the whole matter and say "we are doing this not for musicians, but for shareholders" then there would be no point, I agree. I for one would find such honesty refreshing and amusing. But that would probably be considered a PR disaster.
"That Mike feels the need to highlight these posts in another thread to me is just like having a scarlet X painted on my house. Basically, we are being bullied out the door,silenced by someone who doesn't want to face up to the idea that not everyone thinks that free music is good for artists, song writers, producers, studio musicians, and all sorts of other people who make the music that the vast majority of people listen to and enjoy every day."
Oh, poor you. For god sake, it is Mike's bandwidth and servers that you are using. It is his site. The fact that you are here is due solely to his success in making such a popular site.
If you don't like it, go away. You could even MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN BLOG! It takes about 5 minutes to set one up using Fantastico. There you would have all the freedom and anonymity you could want.
Of course, no one would ever read it, but that sure as hell isn't Mike's fault.
On the post: Why Are RIAA Supporters So Scared Of What Actual Musicians Think?
Not really arguing with you, but there are many free alternatives to these programs that do the job just fine.
Most of the advantages of the more expensive software packages (assuming there are any) are related to things like convenience (or in the case of ProTools, compatibility with other studios, so they can take their files and go whenever it is convenient and open them up someplace else without having to go through the tedium of importing audio files and whatnot).
In terms of sound quality, free hosts like Audacity or Kristal Audio Engine work the same way that expensive hosts like Samplitude work. Then there are the dirt cheap alternatives like Reaper or Cantabile or Energy XT. All of them do the job just fine. If the Beatles in 1967 were stuck on an island with any of these and some microphones they would have been in hog heaven.
The same goes for signal processors and virtual instruments. In some cases, the freeware alternatives are quite striking. One great example is Xhip: a software synthesizer that hands down sounds better than many very expensive alternatives.
All of these things and about 5000 others can be found with a bit of research at http://www.kvraudio.com
This is a great time to be a recording musician. Don't let the naysayers fool you.
On the post: Musician: Any Aspiring Musician Should Download As Much Music As He Can
Obscure musician X never gets on the radio, and no one gives a shit about him, what with the Backstreet Boys and Christina Aguillera and whatnot being so ubiquitous and cool and all.
Then, one day, little shit P buys his c.d. used for a buck and thinks that it is the coolest thing ever. He shares it via p2p, burns cds for everyone he knows, and generally goes on an infringing spree.
Now, Obscure musician X makes no money off of any of this. But suddenly people all over the world are talking about him. When he plays shows, some people who see his name in the paper might even know who he is.
Now I have to ask, why would any musician be against this kind of infringing? Would he really be better off if it had never taken place?
Just asking....
On the post: No, A Jury In A Trial Is Not A Representative Sample Of Views On Copyright
Well I certainly don't think that copyright should be abolished, nor do I think that this is TechDirt's 'official' position.
But I do think that copyright is out of control today, specifically (in the US) because of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA. In it's current form it seems far less beneficial to artists than it is to lawyers.
And I don't think this because I have 'little or no talent to create for' myself. To the contrary, I make my living selling my talent, both in the form of royalty free samples, and music licensing. I am very definitely what one would refer to as a 'content provider'. Nor am I one of 'those who feel "entitled" to everything for free...'
No, I think that copyright law is out of control because that is my rational conclusion based on what I have read. The only content providers that it really benefits in today's world are the ones that have a staff of attorneys on retainer. A great example of the stupidity that can occur is Robert Fripp's struggles with EMI (Yes this is in the UK, not the US, but Fripp's ability to express himself, along with his long career, draw attention to what is clearly an international problem).
This shit happens all of the time. It is why so many former signed artists are going off on their own despite the fact that it involves them in business matters that they would just as soon ignore. But the problem is that when they just let the businessmen take care of these things, they get screwed
On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid
I have never seen so many implausible drunken analogies.
But seriously, why do so many people have so much trouble distinguishing between these positions:
1. Recorded music is free because I want it to be and so fuck the RIAA.
2. Recorded music is free due to vast technological forces beyond anyone's control, so people who make it had better figure out how to adapt.
Almost every single naysayer that comes to this site tries to ignore point 2, and pretend that everything said here is really just window dressing for point 1. Usually they are really fucking rude while doing this.
It's a childish debating tactic which takes what could be an interesting forum and turns it into a huge sophomoric mud pit.
On the post: Project EquillibRIAA: Putting Joel Tenenbaum In Touch With The Musicians In Question
Well, that just about says it all.
On the post: Correcting A Few 'Facts' From The RIAA... For Which We Feel We Deserve Payment
When you are a nobody that rants on and on about stuff no one wants to listen to, the decision not to have your own blog is an easy one. Hilarity arises when you try to pretend that the decision was arrived at via some altruistic higher principle (like, say, "defending artists' right to be paid") and becomes akin to a guy who can't get laid telling everyone that he's not promiscuous because all of those freeloading hippie chicks 'just want stuff for free'.
On the post: Correcting A Few 'Facts' From The RIAA... For Which We Feel We Deserve Payment
No.
It is not remotely like it.
There has never been anything like widespread acceptance of shoplifting.
Sharing songs illegally has been the norm since it became possible with cassette tapes. It used to be called making a mix tape. Mix tapes became a huge part of American culture overnight. And the RIAA fought it every bit as hard as they are fighting filesharing.
But the really big difference is that shoplifting is stoppable. It takes place in public, and there are many very old and mundane security techniques for dealing with it.
Even if you stop or slow down filesharing, which I sincerely doubt anyone can do, how are you going to stop people from burning cds? How are you going to stop kids from getting together and trading mp3s?
How the fuck would anyone even know if their filesharing prevention techniques were working?
You've lost. Deal with it.
On the post: Correcting A Few 'Facts' From The RIAA... For Which We Feel We Deserve Payment
I wouldn't want to be pedantic, so I won't jump on your misuse of the word 'linguistic', but when one is talking about people being sued in court, the legal definitions of the terms used is rather important, no?
And no one has ever said that what this guy did isn't illegal. Mike has said time and again that he was an foolish for not settling this case. Mike has never ever tried to justify such things.
But again, let us say that this guy is indeed a 'punk thief'. Let us say that Mike himself has joined in the chorus of those who say, over and over again, 'Filesharers are punk thieves'. What does that help? How does that stop the millions of other 'punk thieves'?
Every single person under the age of 20 that I have asked (and I have asked dozens of them, from all walks of life) thinks that filesharing is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Without exception. This attitude is becoming the ethical norm.
Condemn it all you want, but these condemnations won't stop it. They won't even slow it down.
On the post: Correcting A Few 'Facts' From The RIAA... For Which We Feel We Deserve Payment
Why do I bother? I don't know, but.....
Let's concede that people who do the evil filesharing thing with copyrighted music are bad, bad, bad. They are evil and deserve censure and ridicule.
What do we do about them?
If anyone believes that what the RIAA is doing with these lawsuits is going to deter filesharing, I have to ask: how can it work when the federal government, with resources that dwarf those of the RIAA, has been putting people in jail for marijuana possession for many years with absolutely no effect on the availability of said substance?
So, if filesharing can't be stopped, what should be done about it (other than bitching about it anonymously on someone else's website)?
Seriously, WHAT??
On the post: This Is America... Why Are We Banning Books?
Why thank you!
:)
On the post: This Is America... Why Are We Banning Books?
It isn't entirely new, it's just the continuing adventures of Holden. If the book was written with different character names, would it be the same book? Nope, because the author would have to first establish all about Holden. Quite a different story when you look at it that way."
So Homer's estate should have been able to stop Aeschylus from writing the Oresteia? or Euripides and Sophocles from writing their respective plays about Elektra?
Yes, that would have made things much better.
On the post: Copyright Conundrum: Was 'Public Domain' Music Silenced On YouTube?
That last part is extremely doubtful. Wagners orchestrational ability was a good part of what he was famous for. Making a new arrangement of a famous Wagner piece would raise lots of eyebrows in the conservative world of 'classical' music.
Just for the sake of being exact, the copyright form used for the music is form PA. The copyright for the recording is form SR.
On the post: Don Bartlett Explains How Joe Pug Gave Away Free CDs To Connect With Fans
But as for 'the big times', they mean little to people who actually care about music.
When he died in 1945, Anton Webern was an obscure figure with not a single hit to his name. At the same time, Kay Kyser was popular as hell, with songs in the hit parade and a career in radio and film as well.
Today, Kay Kyser is an embarrassing footnote in the history of jazz, while Anton Webern is one of the most influential figures in 20th century music.
The 'big times' are mostly for teenagers who actually give a shit about whoever happens to be the celebrity of the week.
For adults, not so much.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
Well she did have her picture taken with her shirt off. In Vanity Fair even. So I am pretty damn sure both her dad and her record company were OK with it, though there appears to have been some backlash.
But touche. That's what I get for talking to an idiot.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
No, she isn't the whole industry, but she is the ideal: lots of money from all kinds of crossover merchandise, and a tween audience that spends their parents money on junk much more freely than they will ever spend their own money once they get to college.
"Go pull the top 100 in each category, and start figuring it out."
I Gotta Feeling
The Black Eyed Peas
Bilge.
Best I Ever Had
Drake
Bilge
Knock You Down
Keri Hilson Featuring Kanye West & Ne-Yo
I have heard less annoying uses of autotune on 12 year old kid's MySpace pages.
You Belong With Me
Taylor Swift
Hannah Montana with a nicer body. The music is almost more annoying, though.
Use Somebody
Kings Of Leon
They are cute, but completely forgettable. I give them a 2 and a half.
Fire Burning
Sean Kingston
Ow.
Boom Boom Pow
The Black Eyed Peas
Because they are just that good, right?
BILGE!
Sorry, if looking at the top 10 is that painful, going through the top 100 would definitely make me have to pull a Van Gogh.
"the music business is big, wide, and full of talented people, most of which you probably know but don't want to admit."
Not at all. I admit that many of the recording engineers are very talented at making marginally gifted teenagers sound much better than they will ever sound in concert.
On the post: Amanda Palmer Talks About Connecting With Fans: Fans WANT To Support Artists
Don't you get tired of spouting these childish and inane mis-characterizations of other people's words?
Obviously not.
"In essence, it is to return the entire music business to the DIY stage."
It's going there whether you like it or not. The only exceptions to this rule will be the handful of megastars making tween-consumed pablum, like Hannah Montana. Face it, Hannah Montana is the shining face of what is left of the music industry.
Or is Hannah Montana an example of the 'nice fresh music' that you 'enjoy on a regular basis' 'without having to be a detective'?
Next >>