MIXING.....THE DEATH OF MUSIC?

[QUINNY]

[quote="Mixmachine"]

The Disco mix was nothing else but the natural progression of the "Studio" mix that has existed almost since the beginning of the modern 'recording ' industry, producers, studio remixers and engineers are the inventors of the mix, for instance just about every 7" ever released to the Pop market is a reconstruction a re-edit or a remix of the original recording and producers many times "Shopped around" different mixes to radio and industry personalities until they settle on a particular final mix, (they did the same in the Discos era) this different versions were produced in the Studio by the original creators and producers to better the chances of getting a hit, Disco DJs (because of their dance floor expertise) only expanded on this concept which has been taken to bizarre heights with the introduction of Digital equipment..

Ermm, until the Disco remix came into being, all records were fairly neutral mixes. i.e. they weren't mixed with any particular market in mind. 7" singles were merely edited from the album version. I never saw a remix 7" single released after an initial 7" had been put out, prior to the advent of Disco mixes, did you? It was in the early '80s that a 12" containing various mixes of the same track, actually came to the fore. There may have been a few prior to that, but I can't remember any off hand.

[Mixmachine]

="QUINNY
Ermm, until the Disco remix came into being, all records were fairly neutral mixes. i.e. they weren't mixed with any particular market in mind.

the way I see it all 7" releases were edited for the POP masses and AM radio, a distintive "market" in my book, the more musically incline rock heads shoppers wanted nothing but the original full length Album version, No edits, just like we did in the disco era with the original 12" release, which were a re-working of the Album version, one step further in the remixing progression..

7" singles were merely edited from the album version. I never saw a remix 7" single released after an initial 7" had been put out, prior to the advent of Disco mixes, did you?

So editing is not part of re-constructing process? Many top 40 7" rock music had different studio mixes especially created to sell singles as many times it was difficult to produced a short single by just 'editing', I don't remember any examples either as it is time consuming to look and compare now even if I had both versions, but I remember interviews were musicians/producers talk about different version for the 7" market, which was hugely profitable and immensely important.here is one you mention before, this was done for the 7" market only by the studio, who knows how many others are out there..

[markydefad]

Q,

Back in the day--if Walter Gibbons, for example, did a remix of a record---you could at least recognize the song after his remix....that's not the case anymore. :evil: :evil: :evil:

They used to enhance the original recording with additional breaks and more percussion, etc. Now they strip search it down to a vocal track and totally add everything else. If ya liked the original song you heard on the radio--don't bother to buy the remix--cause you will not recognize the song you liked. It's not there. Maybe a three word phrase from that record is gonna be repeated 85 times--but that's all. The DJ has added his generic synth pattern and totally reconfigured it into dreck. Still they dance to it. :evil: :o :x :-? :roll: :P

[QUINNY]

Marky & MixM: Can't you guys see that today's 'dreck' is a natural progression from the 12" Disco mix of 30 years ago. It was the 12" Disco mix that showed the way to go for all subsequent dance records. The 12" Disco mix was a deliberate reworking into something completely different from the original structure.

I personally can't quite see the fine divide between what was done 30 years ago and today being that fine.

7" records were 7" records. They were what were played on radio and what we bought in the shops. Ever since the 7" was invented they were a standard format. They weren't specially made for radio.

[remicks]

****

This thread is loaded!

..... I'd be willing to bet that 99.9 % of musicaians hope that when they perform it'll be to a full house . A hit record is the same concept .
I can't think of any artist that hit it big ..and then went running for the hills decrying ..."No, I didn't want my records to be popular "

Cat Stevens turned his back on it all .. ... but even that wasn't until long after he's milked it dry and to this day I bet he has direct deposit for those tainted money royalty checks ......


****

[buckaroo]

The one great thing about the music business is that you never know what might just happen to be a big hit. That's what spurs on so many musicians. The possibility of becoming rich and famous, because thousands/hundreds of thousands of people suddenly get turned on by what you've done.

On this very rare occaision Quinny, I have to disagree with ya. I saw an interview with Clive Davis on TV once, in which he said that when he first heard the version of Prince's "I Feel For you" which was done for Chaka Kahn, he instantly knew it would be a hit. This was despite the fact that she couldn't get arrested as far as sales went after her first LP. About two of them flopped in a row. I've got an interview with her on tape of the John Walsh show, in which she says she didn't even like the song, the raps in it, or the production. And, the stutter at the beginning of the song happened by accident because someone left their finger on the sampler too long :-?

[RetroRuss]

Q,

In this instance I have to disagree with you. I don't think mixing has killed music. I do agree that live music (and consequently musicians) has suffered but at the end of the day producers, DJ's, bedroom based remixers create music that punters want to listen to and be entertained and dance to.

I also don't agree that all dance music (I assume that's what we're talking about) sounds the same. Yes a lot of house music has the same BPM, with bass drum and hi-hat back drop, garage has it's own distinctive style and hip-hop usually takes the same 'cut beats' but it isn't the same. I don't think today's house record producer thinks "Now how am I going to make the DJ's life easier" when he cuts a track - his thought is I am going to make the best dance record ever....and if that's not his first thought then he shouldn't be doing it.

Many people will argue that Disco music from BITD sounded the same. I personally think these are the same people who enjoy a good bop to Agadoo and the Birdy song, i.e. musically challenged - who consume music's version of McDonalds.

I spent a lot of last week in Greece with a 'Premier League' House DJ - talking about this very issue. Basically he takes selected cuts of Disco music and dusts it down, plays around with it and creates a sound today's audience wants. He is keeping the music we love alive and, as I have learned from my own experience, this younger crowd come and look for the 'mother lode' of music. Today's 'disco'/club crowd, expect their music to be seamlessly mixed from one track to another, to have the same beat and to create a vibe and atmosphere.

Styles changes, technology changes, attitudes and expectations and hell, even the drugs change!! Mixing is part of this and is, in the eyes, of many, including me - progress.

RR

[QUINNY]

RR: Thought you'd been AWOL. Haven't been able to listen to the show the past few weeks 'cos the server's been down.

If you read my posts you'll see that I haven't actually dissed all new music.....so we can agree to some extent.

Although a disco music lover, I'm very worried that dance music in all its guises hasn't been terribly good for the progression of music per se. It might be that music has nowhere else to go and all the great innovation has already been mapped out, 'cos even Classical Music and Jazz have been going through the dumbing down process lately.

[RetroRuss]

RR: Thought you'd been AWOL. Haven't been able to listen to the show the past few weeks 'cos the server's been down.

I've been on the lovely Island of Skiathos in Greece for the past month living my 'other' life.....which involves no Internet connection. I think there have been issues at the station, hopefully back Thursday night - 6pm to 8pm, playing the set I performed in a club over there.

Although a disco music lover, I'm very worried that dance music in all its guises hasn't been terribly good for the progression of music per se. It might be that music has nowhere else to go and all the great innovation has already been mapped out, 'cos even Classical Music and Jazz have been going through the dumbing down process lately.

I do ask the same question to be honest - that there is no real 'innovation' in all music - just rehashes of old stuff. However there are some genres I really enjoy and feel are fresh- particularly Gospel House, Latino House, Funky House and Acid Jazz, which still continue to innovate by combining elements of old skool with new.

ps, in possession of the CD's now of our launch night and I'll burn them off for you.

[QUINNY]

I'm bumping this to the top so that some of our newer (younger) members can add to the debate (which was one of the better ones IMO).

[canadiantire]

Since I am new to this forum…and younger, I will try to express my thoughts on the subject to the best that I can.


Part I of my answer:

The classic rules for lazy mixing, requires precisely what you describe above (i.e.: constant tempo, a certain BPM/certain feel/certain rhythm track to gain acceptance). That kind of exploit can be done by almost anyone with a little practice.

A weak DJ with a narrow musical taste and a selfish attitude can do more harm to music variety than just mixing by itself. This is easy to do with today's dance rhythms.

When this is the case, you are right. It is a nuisance to music diversity.

On the other hand, I can swear that I’ve been part of some clubs where there was no limit to the musical diversity. These places were no less than official “disco/dance” clubs in which the DJ could actually “feel” the crowd’s mood and pull them wherever he wanted.

This is where I’ve heard and discovered Bootsy’s Rubber Band next to Donna Summer, The Clash, The Beatles and the underground-cult-dance floor-hypnotic-tribal “La Gata”.

All this admirably blended.

Part II

For a long time I thought that the years were catching up on me and I was having a narrower mind. I’ve also been told that I am sedated in the seventies/eighties.

As the years are going by, my musical taste has changed but I can’t seem to fit in the new mentality of the “fast-food-style-dance-music”.

The last example of this kind was: Crazy Frog, which did a good job to ruin the credibility of some dance classics.

It’s getting easier for me to number the dance songs that came on the market in the past years, which had a certain amount of “spirit”.

During the passed years, I’ve came across some excellent “revamped” disco hits or other ones built around samples of such hits.

Don’t get me wrong. I find that there are still some good and genuine productions but they are rather “dispersed”.

The homogeneity in the actual dance style seems to slowly erode my taste for the kind.


But no!

Mixing is not the death of music.


- Marcus

[discokicks]

I remember finding this original topic when I first landed on discomusic.com a few years ago. At that time, I remember smoke coming out of my ears at Quinny's insinuation that creating a perfect blend of uninterrupted segue of dance heaven was somehow bad for musical ingenuity. What could possibly be so wrong with someone skillfully providing the right blend of tunes consistently over the course of a few hours with reduced trainwrecks?

I've always reverted back to this discussion since then and have to say that, particularly in the past 3 or 4 years of reviewing and studying current dance releases, I see the monster that's been created. The DJs and their fans (and the corporate music system) dominate clubland these days. True dance acts and original creators of new sounds are no longer welcomed in the mix and struggle for any recognition. Remixes of pop music rule the charts with the kids all asking the universal question "who's doing the remix?"

But didn't disco really come about because of an underground movement that wanted something other than what pop radio had to offer? Here we are now with DJs (and techie wizards) dictating, moulding and re-creating music to fit into a specific formula for mixing and dancing. Even at the beginning of the 21st century, the dancefloor still relied upon true dance artists to supply the majority of tunes to fill the night but lately, everything is digitally re-shaped to be available in 128bpm form...hiphop, ballads, jazz, country and rock. Nothing is safe from this conveyor belt of mainstream demand taking its musical ingredients to its homogenized form.

I have to admit that some of it is okay to dance to but the bland, uninspired quality and lack of invention is very obvious. Eventually, music reproduction will be a lost industry for making money and perhaps then, the art of making music will be back in the hands of creative artists.

[STEPHEN L FREEMAN]

I remember finding this original topic when I first landed on discomusic.com a few years ago. At that time, I remember smoke coming out of my ears at Quinny's insinuation that creating a perfect blend of uninterrupted segue of dance heaven was somehow bad for musical ingenuity. What could possibly be so wrong with someone skillfully providing the right blend of tunes consistently over the course of a few hours with reduced trainwrecks?

I've always reverted back to this discussion since then and have to say that, particularly in the past 3 or 4 years of reviewing and studying current dance releases, I see the monster that's been created. The DJs and their fans (and the corporate music system) dominate clubland these days. True dance acts and original creators of new sounds are no longer welcomed in the mix and struggle for any recognition. Remixes of pop music rule the charts with the kids all asking the universal question "who's doing the remix?"

But didn't disco really come about because of an underground movement that wanted something other than what pop radio had to offer? Here we are now with DJs (and techie wizards) dictating, moulding and re-creating music to fit into a specific formula for mixing and dancing. Even at the beginning of the 21st century, the dancefloor still relied upon true dance artists to supply the majority of tunes to fill the night but lately, everything is digitally re-shaped to be available in 128bpm form...hiphop, ballads, jazz, country and rock. Nothing is safe from this conveyor belt of mainstream demand taking its musical ingredients to its homogenized form.

I have to admit that some of it is okay to dance to but the bland, uninspired quality and lack of invention is very obvious. Eventually, music reproduction will be a lost industry for making money and perhaps then, the art of making music will be back in the hands of creative artists.

"AMEN" to that!

When I've talked to the younger, or current DJ's, I make no apologies for my lack of enthusiasm for the simplified task that mixing has been reduced to. Basically, if you have some semblance of rhythm, and can count to 32 (though I'm all-to-often surprised at how many "DJ"'s don't, and can't...), you can master the task of continuous music. Yet, the accomplishment remains little more than just that...continuous music.

Honestly, I don't mean to sound like some old Disco-geezer, that bemoans the old days. But mixing orchestral productions - without the assistance of digital drums, or extended intros, needing a basic knowledge of music theory, chord progression, verse/chorus structure, mathematics, 2 copies of everything, and a damn good command of the pitch control (lest your strings sound like a choir of drunken mosquitos) - during that 1st decade of the Disco DJ, mixing was an art-form. One in which you laid melody on-top-of melody, to create a transition from one piece of music, to the next.

Even the challenge of transitioning from one genre of Dance music, to another, has been all-but eliminated from the profession. And though that can be seen as a good thing to many, I personally enjoyed finding ways to jump that hurdle. It was just one of the characteristics of DJing that separated the Men from the boys, so to speak.

Of course, there's the most fundamental element required, for achieving what I consider to be, "Pro Status" for a DJ... The instinct of/talent for "Crowd Control". An accomplishment that grew, increasingly more difficult, the smaller the crowd was. Thankfully, that remains an intrinsic ability, wherein, you've either got it, or you don't.

[BrunoRepublic]

I haven't been clubbing in years, so I'll admit to ignorance in that venue. However, based on what I hear getting released, things seem much more interesting now than in the mid-90s when I stopped going out. Not only was that the point where any attempt to use song-like structures was abandoned, it also marked (at least as far as I could determine) the start of the era where every DJ wanted to make a name for themselves. They did so by playing a VERY narrow range of music, thus giving them an instantly recognizable sound. Given that this was the point where the cost of creating the stuff began to really fall, there was never any shortage of material, as if every DJ had dozens of acts creating custom tracks or remixes specifically for them. Of course, this resulted in an entire evening of music that all sounded exactly the same. The drugs must have been absolutely amazing for people to get off on this stuff. Listening to it sober was torture. This also coincided with every dance track being clearly designed as DJ fodder, and not at all suited to listening in isolation, e.g. painfully drawn-out 4-minute intros and outros... whether this was to allow for loooonnng crossfades or just give amateur DJs a lot of time to get the beats matched, I couldn't say.

The ultimate example of this was when some friends took me out to a mini-rave to hear "Psy-Trance". Now, I certainly have nothing against electronic dance music, but this stuff really did all sound the same. All the same tempo, the same sounds, and since there was no melody, even the same note (I think it was G). Not only could I not tell where one track ended and the next began... I could not tell when one DJ's set ended and the next started! The sole exception was toward the end of the evening when something came on that had a bit of a melodic refrain. Turns out this was the monster-over-the-top-epic-track with which that particular DJ was closing out his set.

I don't listen to a lot of contemporary stuff, but it seems to me that from what I hear, there are a lot more interesting things going on now than there was 15 years ago. At least it doesn't all sound the same. But is anyone actually spinning it? Or are we still in the era of DJs only playing their own personal flavour to the exclusion of all else?

[Disco Funk]

I have to disagree, it wasn't mixing that killed the music. It was pure economics. As time went on, musicianship and creativity has slowly been stripped away until all that's left are a bunch of bytes on a PC generating our current hits. People don't even need to spend time trying to sing anymore, they can just be auto-tuned.

Mixing was just an evolution in club music, creating a continuous dance at a particular BPM, stringing seamlessly different songs. But it really only sounds good if you have variety. I mean, 2 hours straight of the same sounding groove would be really boring. It's good to mix some West Coast, with East Coast, with African, and Latin. Keep the people guessing what you'll throw at them next, but keeping the energy up.

Sorry, I didn't read through the whole thread, so I'm not replying to any particular person's argument. But I do believe that music has gone down hill because of dollars and cents, rather than the pitch control on a turntable.

Disco Funk

[discopsycho]

I think both sides of this argument are valid. On the one hand, the mix, defined as continuous beats, has created the homogenization of sounds, tempo, style, and structure. On the other, it didn't necessarily have to be that way, as creativity can still be attained within certain parameters, and there are examples of this (I'm not even going to try to give examples, since that's another discussion).

I have to say, I rarely go out anymore, and it really doesn't have much to do with age. I hate the music. It's a continuous string of remixes of songs from "artists" who don't do dance music. And as if that isn't bad enough, the DJs seem to rely on the same remixers (Moto Blanco and David Guetta come to mind), which means even songs from a disparate group of artists remixed from different styles of music, all sound the same. And really, do I want to dance to a remix of a Jonas Brothers' song? The answer would be an emphatic "No!"

As far as mixing skills, last Christmas some friends requested some mix cds from me as a present with current dance music. So, I downloaded a bunch of tunes, most of which I had never heard, burned them onto cd, and began to mix. I did it while I was watching tv with my partner. I'd mix in a song, watch tv for 5-6 minutes, cue up the next song, and mix in at the outro. Like I said, most of these songs I had never heard before, but the structure of the songs are all so similar, I didn't need to. This is not bragging, I'm not saying I have mad skillz, it's just that one doesn't need them now. And now with computer programs that are increasingly being used in clubs, I imagine it takes even less skill.

[discokicks]

As far as mixing skills, last Christmas some friends requested some mix cds from me as a present with current dance music. So, I downloaded a bunch of tunes, most of which I had never heard, burned them onto cd, and began to mix. I did it while I was watching tv with my partner. I'd mix in a song, watch tv for 5-6 minutes, cue up the next song, and mix in at the outro. Like I said, most of these songs I had never heard before, but the structure of the songs are all so similar, I didn't need to. .

lol...I'll do dishes or sweep floors, laundry...water plants!

I mix cds for a fitness instructor but I find that I have to force myself to do them because there's very little challenge to them and the songs themselves don't give me that euphoric rise that I used to get. I don't think it's age because when I do come across something unique, I will get that familiar sense of excitement.

It's a continuous string of remixes of songs from "artists" who don't do dance music. !"

That's it in a nutshell for me as far as current dance music is concerned...artists who don't have their hearts set on the dancer and the dancefloor because for me and all the others past and present who needed that "once-in-a-lifetime feeling that returns every week", it's all about dancing and forgetting about the complexities of life.

Music has been reduced to a solid product in a disposable form. It's something that can be twisted, re-shaped and played with. It's become a musical Lego...not something to dazzle over and respect but something to take apart with this look-what-I-can-do attitude.

[canadiantire]

I like to read about this thread mainly because it explores different avenues.

When I give this question a rational thought, I can find many arguments to compare the early years of mixing against the present time.

But back to the basic question, I think mixing is NOT responsible for the death of music.

Like you guys described it, the music has become (with a few exceptions) a customer product with a very short life cycle.

It is something that can be taken without paying, something you can bring with you simply everywhere, it's taken for granted by the late generations and because of this, the market has responded to provide a re-heated product, just to make a quick profit by short term marketing.

Since the money is not into selling a 128kbps song at $0.99 a piece which will be endlessly replicated anyway, the industry tries to squeeze the lemon where the juice is left.

To some extent, the cinema industry is facing the same issue.

Many examples can prove this hunger for $$, one of them being the astronomical prices of popular artist concerts and their derivative products.

The spirit behind music has gone away and has been altered over the years.

Is my sadness driven by nostalgia?

[mrbmarco]

What type of music did mixing kill??? Disco Music??? Pop Music??? Country Music??? Classic Rock??? I think MP3 files did more harm than mixing.

[Jay Negron]

I agree with Nicky. It was standard practice to play hit tracks ONCE in the course of an evening of dancing--at least in the discos of San Francisco. I can't speak for other cities.

And, you couldn't "request" anything at Trocadero. There were people hired to keep "requesters" out of the DJ booth. It was the realm of the DJ--he chose the music--you danced or didn't depending on on your reactions to his choices.

I think other cities may have had a more egalitarian "tell the DJ what to play" vibe. Maybe? Just guessin'.

At Troc, it was like the old line in the Smith-Barney commercials, where John Houseman imperiously sneered....The DJ "EARNED IT"--i.e., the right to play what he wanted. We were happy to follow his lead. If ya didn't dig it, you could leave.

Absolutely!!! The ONLY way I would repeat a song during the night was if it was a brand spankin new 'Day 1' HOTTT jam that screamed to be played again!!!
I remember doing that only a few times with a few songs....."Love Hangover"..."Ten Percent"......"Hot Shot"......"That's Where The Happy People Go"

[Jay Negron]

7" records were 7" records. They were what were played on radio and what we bought in the shops. Ever since the 7" was invented they were a standard format. They weren't specially made for radio.

Motown used to remix their 45s from the LP versions specifically for Top 40 radio.
Had nothing to do with length. (although some were shortened)
Look at the LP version compared with the 45 of "Tears Of A Clown" by Smokey Robinson & The Miracles as an example.

[Jay Negron]

Mixing didn't kill the music.

I blame the record companies of '78-'79.
Also the Media of that era.

Record Companies:
When I was DJing from '74 to '78 there was all different types of music to play.
In '78 (post-Saturday Night Fever) there was a push from the record companies to 'cookie-cut' the music.
Everyone was copying the latest hit, the latest trend.
Everyone was making huge money and everyone wanted their share.

This led to a glut of BS sounding music being released.

I remember Doug Riddick who was a First Generation DJ like myself doing promotion for Private Stock Records.
He came to Tropicalia with their latest release "Let's All Chant" Michael Zager Band. (Great Song BTW)
He wanted me to play it without listening to it first; He kept saying "See, it's easy to mix in--check the intro--put it on!"
I didn't spin that way; I had to listen to it first in the headphones before I played it.
But he told me that many DJs did.

Media:
After SNF came out the media's focus was on BIG & popular clubs; 54, Xenon, etc.
The focus WAS NOT on the music or the DJ.
They were more concerned about who's zoomin who & where.

This lead to many club owners opening up 'quick' clubs to make quick bucks; cashing in on the scene.
Almost every restaurant had to have a Disco built in.
They hired many inexperienced 'rookie' DJs who only knew they had to beat-match to be considered good AND play the Top 40 Disco jams to keep their job. They also played many BAD records because they mixed well BPM wise.

Top 40 Radio was not kind to Disco either.
They would play only the commercial hits over & over & over again.

If you were on the outside looking in at the time, Disco was Donna, KC, BeeGees, Thelma, etc.
Hook in The Stones, Rod Stewart, and mix all that with Funkytown, and you get what I mean.

Nobody on the outside knew about DJs: Walter Gibbons, David Mancuso, 'Pinky', 'Bacho', Bobby Viteritti, John Morales, Roy Thode, Tom Savarese, Eddie Rivera, Richie Rivera, Lary Sanders, Larry Levan, Nicky Siano, and countless others who entertained, took the crowd on an adventure, told a story, beat-matching & no-beat matching;

There was no major publicity about the Remixers who respected the music: Tom Moulton, Gibbons, Francois K., Levan, Bobby 'DJ', Tee Scott, and others.

The media was never interested about how the DJs and the Remixers went about their craft.
The record companies was only interested in the 'next' chart topper and how much money it can make them.

That's what killed the music back then.
But we have survived and TODAY we are still talkin about it, playing it, and maybe but maybe a new generation will come to love it as we did back then.

[Disco Funk]

I don't know if mp3s are totally to blame. People have been copying other music since the days of the cassette recorder. The only people who buy are the ones who are really moved by the music. The problem is so much of the music is filler. But filler albums aren't new, they trace way back. Most of those 60s Motown LPs I don't buy because there are some good tracks (i.e. the hits), then the rest sound like throw aways. The same went with pop music, when an album came out, they stick on the hit single with a bunch of garbage tunes. Eventually the LP became an 'art', and that's when it started to evolve, but then by the late 70s, music started going backwards again where you'd get an LP with one or two good songs and the rest was bland.
If anything, I think the record companies are happy with the download mentality, because they can cut out the middle men (i.e. the CD manufacturers) and in some cases, even cut out the retailers by selling mp3s directly. Today's music doesn't suffer from serious sound degradation when converted to mp3, but older music does.
I don't think calling all music today 'bad' is fair. I don't really follow rock or heavy metal or grunge, but my guess is that they're not suffering from the same blandness like the dance music has suffered.

In the end, it's all about dollars and cents, like I said. If you can cut the bottom line (i.e. musicians) and increase profits, that's where the companies will try to make their money. If they could sell people a pulsing tone that lasted for 3 minutes and everybody bought it because they liked it, they would. They could care less if it lacked any musical quality.

[STEPHEN L FREEMAN]

I like to read about this thread mainly because it explores different avenues.
When I give this question a rational thought, I can find many arguments to compare the early years of mixing against the present time.
But back to the basic question, I think mixing is NOT responsible for the death of music.
Like you guys described it, the music has become (with a few exceptions) a customer product with a very short life cycle.
It is something that can be taken without paying, something you can bring with you simply everywhere, it's taken for granted by the late generations and because of this, the market has responded to provide a re-heated product, just to make a quick profit by short term marketing.
Since the money is not into selling a 128kbps song at $0.99 a piece which will be endlessly replicated anyway, the industry tries to squeeze the lemon where the juice is left.
To some extent, the cinema industry is facing the same issue.
Many examples can prove this hunger for $$, one of them being the astronomical prices of popular artist concerts and their derivative products.
The spirit behind music has gone away and has been altered over the years.
Is my sadness driven by nostalgia?

bravo...
definitely bears repeating