[acid-jazz] O Brother; USA Today on Music Biz Woes

From: Steven Catanzaro (stevencatanzaro@sprintmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 21:27:55 CEST

  • Next message: Eric Abdullateef: "Re: [acid-jazz] O Brother; USA Today on Music Biz Woes"

    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

    ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C20C8C.6B227410
    Content-Type: text/plain;
            charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    The USA Today has a front page story on the woes of the music business. =
    This, coupled with our thread on "quality" music last week, has got me =
    thinking. (Potentially dangerous, I know...)

    RANT WARNING *********** U.S. RIGHT WING REACTIONARY RANT TO FOLLOW =
    *********** RANT WARNING

    USA Today's full page ad (I mean article) on behalf of the vested =
    interests in the music business has got me up in arms. I know that many =
    of my left-wing friends imagine that as an unabashed, unrepentant =
    supporter of GW Bush I should want to see the "status quo" maintained. =
    But a "conservative" approach towards business is actually a misnomer. =
    What many conservatives want is a dynamic free market where wealth is =
    created by innovative entrepeneurs. What we hate to see is static =
    bureacracy, especially one that spews out one wrong-headed, inefficient =
    idea after another and stifles all attempts at reform.=20

    The handful of conglomerates that have a stranglehold on the record =
    business are just such a bureacracy. In my judgment, record business =
    status quo is a worthy target for right-wing scorn. (Not to mention, =
    most of the fat-cat players in the rec. business are Dem or Green party =
    supporters anyway!)

    Now, to the article. First, the headline is a misnomer. It says the =
    "music biz" is in trouble, when what it should really say is the =
    "recording" business is in trouble, and that's not necessarily bad for =
    music.=20

    The recording business has been bad for musicians since its outset. Bad =
    for musicians, when Mozart died penniless and Paul McCartney is a =
    billionaire?=20

    Of course. Long before video killed the radio star, recorded music was a =
    threat to musicians. Back in the day, any venue that aspired to provide =
    music of some type had to hire musicians. Venue owners soon realized =
    that pre-recorded music was much more predictable, and cheaper, than =
    live musicians. As recording and playback quality increased, the =
    opportunities for working musicians to ply their trade decreased. =
    Everyone reading this has been to a restaurant, wedding, church service, =
    etc. where there was plenty of music, maybe even a vocalist or two, but =
    nary a musician in sight.=20

    Even such music-dependant sites as Las Vegas and Broadway have paired =
    back. It is not uncommon to see a CD player in a venue that was once =
    occupied by a 30 piece ensemble, or, to see 2 or 3 keyboard players =
    covering, via sampling and playback technology, the parts that 10-15 =
    musicians used to handle.

    What the recording business has done in the past 80 or so years is =
    enabled a small minority of musicians to be virtually omnipresent =
    everywhere music is needed. Yes, you could have your sister's cousin =
    sing at your wedding, but you could also have Celine Dion! Yes, you =
    could go to your local university and watch a young pianist perform an =
    all-Chopin program, but you could also enjoy Arthur Rubenstein playing =
    Chopin from the comfort of your own sofa. And, if you need to take a =
    bathroom break, simply hit the "pause" button on your remote control, =
    and the Maestro will politely wait for you to return to your seat. =
    "Could you take it from the top again, Artie?" Gone forever are the days =
    when the John Phillip Sousa band could get 2,500 to attend a Tuesday =
    eveining concert in a town of 3,000. Where else could you hear a =
    thrilling sound like that?

    It was probably easy to predict that the record business would not be =
    controlled by musicians, who, in the main, are not the best or sharpest =
    business people around. So, the production, sale, and distribution of =
    records fell to music business executives. Many of the most prominent of =
    these types of people have actually bragged about their "tin ears" and =
    stunning lack of musical aptitude. But it seems, at least this observer, =
    that their "tin ear" extends beyond far beyond music.=20

    For instance, many top music business executives have become the =
    personification of greed. Take for instance Miles Copeland, the =
    brash-talking former head of I.R.S. records, now riding atop his Ark 21 =
    label. Copeland once wrote an "open letter" to L.A's Music Connection =
    magazine, berating consumers for their lack of knowledge as to how the =
    business really works.

    When faced with criticism that the record companies routinely take a cut =
    that would make a pimp blush (try .93 cents on the dollar) he trotted =
    out the well-worn saw that the great majority of commercial releases =
    lose money. Of course, this is technically true, but only when such =
    business "necessities" as Copeland's Chataeau Marouatte castle in =
    France, where he holds an annual 2-week "songwriters bootcamp," are =
    factored in.*

    In fact, the record business is rife with the kind of waste that would =
    make Reagan-era pentagon officials stand up and take notice. The bills =
    for these extravagences are ultimately applied to the artist's tab, and =
    while one would think the musician would know better by now, this does =
    not appear to be the case. A few days ago, drummer/producer Ahmir ?love =
    Thompson of the Roots described the creation process behind D'Angelo's =
    lauded second album, "Voodoo;"

    "We started in late '96... [the album was released in January 2000]. We =
    would go to Electric Lady [recording studio] everyday... I have an =
    amazing concert archive collection. We'd sit down and watch it for =
    hours... eat popcorn... and then jam... you know, after watching =
    Parliament Funkadelic..."

    Sounds like a fun way to create an album, except when one realizes that =
    Electric Lady studio is one of the most prestigious, and expensive, =
    shrines to itself the recording business has yet created. Presumably, =
    D'Angelo is one of the extremely rare musicians who will never have to =
    worry about money. Still, one wonders if he wouldn't have been wiser to =
    eat popcorn, watch concert videos, and jam in his basement, and then go =
    to Electric Lady only when ready to push the record button.=20

    With overhead like this, and with robbing Peter to pay Paul a uniform =
    industry practice, is it any wonder that so many commercial releases =
    lose money? That so many once-vaunted artists are roaming the streets =
    looking for any gig they can get? How many "Behind The Music" or "Where =
    Are They Now" episodes do artists need to see before they learn that =
    history can teach us something?

    Now, the USA today reports that the record business fell off 1.2% in =
    2001. Perhaps this could've been chalked up to the soft economy, even =
    though it was the first loss since Soundscan started tracking sales in =
    1991. But during the first quarter of 2002, with most economic =
    indicators UP, the recording business has fallen 8.3% since the dismal =
    2001! That's enough to get anyone's attention, even a man who lives in a =
    castle.

    So, the blame game begins. With one =
    shoot-itself-in-the-foot-in-its-mouth scapegoat after another, the =
    record business blames consumers, radio, and the artists.

    The consumers, what with their crafty digital duplication techniques, =
    must be foiled. So, we hear that Celine Dion's newest offering has a =
    protection scheme which means it cannot be played in a computer's disk =
    drive. Problem is, if you own a new i-mac and pop her disc in, not only =
    can't you play the disc, but the machine shuts down and you can't get =
    the door open without sending it out for repairs. While this may or may =
    not serve you right for despoiling your i-mac with soft-pop fodder, it =
    is just the kind of wrong-headed move that is going to make consumers =
    feel even more justified in pirating tracks.=20

    In addition, the recording industry is using its massive legal apparatus =
    to go after file-sharing servers. They successfuly forced Napster into =
    bankruptcy. Now they're going after Audiogalaxy. But everytime they =
    squash one, 5 others pop up, and many of these are headquartered in =
    places where US copyright law does not obtain. So, this is another =
    futile waste of time which does nothing but inconvenience music fans, =
    who now have to spend an additonal, oh, 20 minutes, finding, installing, =
    and learning how to use a different free file-sharing program.

    The silver lining in the USA Today article is the success of the "O =
    Brother Where Art Thou" soundtrack, an album that was a breakout hit =
    despite receiving virtually no commercial radio airplay, and not fitting =
    into any of the machine programmed playlists. Alan Light, former editor =
    of SPIN magazine, says "There is good music out there.... you have to =
    find it yourself. Look at O Brother."

    O Brother indeed. Light seems to forget that "O Brother Where Art Thou" =
    was not exactly an underground creation, but the soundtrack album to a =
    highly visible Hollywood movie! You didn't have to look too hard to find =
    "O Brother."

    What O Brother did show was this. People will respond to music that =
    isn't sung by a 17 year old version of Jon Benet Ramsey. They will =
    respond to music that doesn't sound much like what they are getting from =
    MTV, VH1, TNN, or the various Clear Channel outlets. In fact, they'll =
    respond to music even if they don't know what the artists look like =
    (George Clooney isn't really one of the Soggy Bottom Boys, is he?)

    But to do that, they need to hear it. The demise of the record business =
    will, contrary to the USA Today article, probably be the best thing for =
    the music business, as we might get some really "Clear Channels" once =
    and for all. The record business as-is is thorughly corrupt; it's the =
    reason a singer playing the piano in the 21'st century (Alicia "Keys") =
    is actually regarded as something of a novelty.=20

    In America, there are still alot of ways for a musician to make enough =
    money to support his or her art habit. And there will be even more once =
    the record business of today is washed away. The reality is, a musician =
    can make a damn respectable living playing 250-500 seat gigs 200 nites a =
    year, selling 20 thousand CD's, as well as a few t-shirts, bumper =
    stickers and the like.

    That is, so long as 93 cents of their hard-earned dollar (before taxes) =
    doesn't have to be coughed up to pay for an army of apprachniks, not to =
    mention those all-imporant French chateaus. =20

    *************************************************************************=
    *********************************************

    *Maybe Copeland would argue that his Chateau was not paid for by the =
    record company, but was a personal expense he was entitled to as a =
    succesful businessman. True, perhaps, but one wonders if his personal =
    salary as a music executive contributed to the note on those digs. And, =
    one further wonders if he would've been able to afford such a castle if =
    the musicians got 50% on the sale of their art. And finally, one wonders =
    if a man needs a castle to be truly happy....

      =20

        =20

    ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C20C8C.6B227410
    Content-Type: text/html;
            charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
    <HTML><HEAD>
    <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
    http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
    <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3502.4856" name=3DGENERATOR>
    <STYLE></STYLE>
    </HEAD>
    <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The USA Today has&nbsp;a front page =
    story on the=20
    woes of the music business. This, coupled with our thread&nbsp;on =
    "quality"=20
    music last week, has got me thinking. (Potentially dangerous, I=20
    know...)</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>RANT WARNING *********** U.S. RIGHT =
    WING=20
    REACTIONARY RANT TO FOLLOW *********** RANT WARNING</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>USA Today's full page ad (I mean =
    article) on behalf=20
    of the vested interests in the music business has got me up in arms. I =
    know that=20
    many of my left-wing friends&nbsp;imagine that as an unabashed, =
    unrepentant=20
    supporter of GW Bush I should&nbsp;want to see the "status quo" =
    maintained.=20
    But&nbsp;a&nbsp;"conservative" approach towards business is actually a =
    misnomer.=20
    What many conservatives&nbsp;want is a dynamic free market where wealth =
    is=20
    created by innovative entrepeneurs. What we hate to see is static =
    bureacracy,=20
    especially one that&nbsp;spews out one wrong-headed, inefficient idea =
    after=20
    another and stifles all attempts at reform. </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The handful of conglomerates that have =
    a=20
    stranglehold on the record business are just such a bureacracy.&nbsp;In =
    my=20
    judgment,&nbsp;record business status quo is a worthy target =
    for&nbsp;right-wing=20
    scorn. (Not to mention, most of the fat-cat players in the rec. business =

    are&nbsp;Dem or Green party supporters anyway!)</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Now, to the article. First, the =
    headline is a=20
    misnomer. It says the "music biz" is in trouble, when what it should =
    really say=20
    is the "recording" business is in trouble, and that's not necessarily =
    bad for=20
    music. </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The recording business has been bad for =
    musicians=20
    since its outset. Bad for musicians, when Mozart died penniless and Paul =

    McCartney is a billionaire? </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Of course. Long before video killed the =
    radio star,=20
    recorded music&nbsp;was a threat to musicians. Back in the day, any =
    venue that=20
    aspired to provide music of some type had to hire musicians. Venue =
    owners soon=20
    realized that pre-recorded music was much more predictable, and cheaper, =
    than=20
    live musicians. As recording and playback quality increased,=20
    the&nbsp;opportunities for working musicians to ply their trade =
    decreased. =20
    Everyone reading this has been to a restaurant, wedding, church service, =
    etc.=20
    where there was plenty of music, maybe even a vocalist or two, but nary =
    a=20
    musician in sight. </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Even such music-dependant sites as Las =
    Vegas and=20
    Broadway have paired back. It is not uncommon to see a CD player in a =
    venue that=20
    was once occupied by a 30 piece ensemble, or, to see 2 or 3 keyboard =
    players=20
    covering, via sampling and playback technology, the parts that 10-15 =
    musicians=20
    used to handle.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What the recording business has done in =
    the past 80=20
    or so years is enabled a small minority of musicians to be virtually =
    omnipresent=20
    everywhere music is needed. Yes, you could have your sister's cousin =
    sing at=20
    your wedding, but you could also have Celine Dion! Yes, you could go to =
    your=20
    local university and watch a young pianist perform an all-Chopin =
    program, but=20
    you could also enjoy Arthur Rubenstein playing Chopin from the comfort =
    of your=20
    own sofa. And, if you need to take a bathroom break, simply hit the =
    "pause"=20
    button on your remote control, and the Maestro will politely wait for =
    you to=20
    return to your seat. "Could you take it from the top again, Artie?" Gone =
    forever=20
    are the days when the John Phillip Sousa band could get 2,500 to attend =
    a=20
    Tuesday eveining concert in a town of 3,000. Where else could you hear a =

    thrilling sound like that?</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It was probably easy to predict that =
    the record=20
    business would not be controlled by musicians, who, in the main, are not =
    the=20
    best or sharpest business people around. So, the production, sale, and=20
    distribution of records fell to music business executives. Many of the =
    most=20
    prominent of these types of people have actually bragged about their =
    "tin ears"=20
    and stunning lack of musical aptitude. But it seems, at least this =
    observer,=20
    that their "tin ear" extends beyond far beyond music. </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For instance, many top music business=20
    executives&nbsp;have become the personification of greed. Take for =
    instance=20
    Miles Copeland, the brash-talking former head of I.R.S. records, =
    now&nbsp;riding=20
    atop his Ark 21 label. Copeland&nbsp;once wrote an "open letter" =
    to&nbsp;L.A's=20
    Music Connection magazine, berating consumers for their lack of =
    knowledge as to=20
    how the business really works.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>When faced with criticism that the =
    record companies=20
    routinely take a cut that would make a pimp blush (try .93 cents on the =
    dollar)=20
    </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>he trotted out the well-worn saw that =
    the great=20
    majority of commercial releases lose money. Of course, this is =
    technically true,=20
    but only when such business&nbsp;"necessities" as Copeland's=20
    Chataeau&nbsp;Marouatte castle in France, where he holds an annual =
    2-week=20
    "songwriters bootcamp," are factored in.*</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In fact, the record business is rife =
    with the kind=20
    of waste that would make Reagan-era pentagon officials stand up =
    and&nbsp;take=20
    notice. The bills for these extravagences are&nbsp;ultimately applied to =
    the=20
    artist's tab, and while one would think the musician would know better =
    by now,=20
    this does not appear to be the case. A few days ago, drummer/producer =
    Ahmir=20
    ?love Thompson of the Roots described the creation process behind =
    D'Angelo's=20
    lauded second album, "Voodoo;"</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"We started in late '96... [the album =
    was released=20
    in January 2000]. We would go to Electric Lady [recording studio] =
    everyday... I=20
    have an amazing concert archive collection. We'd sit down and watch it =
    for=20
    hours... eat popcorn... and then jam... you know, after watching =
    Parliament=20
    Funkadelic..."</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sounds like a fun way to create an =
    album, except=20
    when one realizes that Electric Lady studio is one of the most =
    prestigious, and=20
    expensive, shrines to itself the recording business has yet created. =
    Presumably,=20
    D'Angelo is one of the extremely rare musicians who will never have to =
    worry=20
    about money. Still, one wonders if he wouldn't have been wiser to eat =
    popcorn,=20
    watch concert videos, and jam in his basement, and then go to Electric=20
    Lady&nbsp;only when ready to push the record button. </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>With overhead like this, and with =
    robbing Peter to=20
    pay Paul a uniform industry practice, is it any wonder that so many =
    commercial=20
    releases lose money? That so many once-vaunted artists are roaming the =
    streets=20
    looking for any gig they can get? How many "Behind The Music" or "Where =
    Are They=20
    Now" episodes do artists need to see before they learn that history can =
    teach us=20
    something?</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Now, the USA today reports that the =
    record=20
    business&nbsp;fell off 1.2% in 2001.&nbsp;Perhaps this could've been =
    chalked up=20
    to the soft&nbsp;economy, even though it was the first loss since =
    Soundscan=20
    started tracking sales in 1991. But&nbsp;during the first quarter of =
    2002,=20
    with&nbsp;most economic indicators UP, the recording business =
    has&nbsp;fallen=20
    8.3% since the dismal 2001! That's enough to get anyone's attention, =
    even a man=20
    who lives in a castle.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So, the blame game begins.&nbsp;With=20
    one&nbsp;shoot-itself-in-the-foot-in-its-mouth scapegoat after another, =
    the=20
    record business blames consumers, radio, and the artists.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The consumers, what with their crafty =
    digital=20
    duplication techniques, must be foiled. So, we hear that Celine=20
    Dion's&nbsp;newest offering has a protection scheme which means it =
    cannot be=20
    played in a computer's disk drive. Problem is, if you own a =
    new&nbsp;i-mac and=20
    pop her&nbsp;disc in,&nbsp;not only can't you play the disc,&nbsp;but =
    the=20
    machine shuts down and you can't get the door open without sending it =
    out for=20
    repairs. While this may or may not serve you right for despoiling your =
    i-mac=20
    with soft-pop fodder, it is just the kind of wrong-headed move that is =
    going to=20
    make consumers feel even more justified in pirating =
    tracks.&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In addition, the recording industry is =
    using its=20
    massive legal apparatus to&nbsp;go after file-sharing servers.=20
    They&nbsp;successfuly forced Napster into bankruptcy. Now they're going =
    after=20
    Audiogalaxy. But everytime they squash one, 5 others&nbsp;pop up, and =
    many of=20
    these are headquartered in places where US copyright law does not =
    obtain. So,=20
    this&nbsp;is another futile waste of time which does nothing but =
    inconvenience=20
    music fans, who now have to spend an additonal, oh, 20 minutes, finding, =

    installing, and learning how to use a different free file-sharing=20
    program.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The silver lining in the USA Today =
    article is the=20
    success of the "O Brother Where Art Thou" soundtrack, an album that was =
    a=20
    breakout hit despite receiving virtually no commercial radio airplay, =
    and not=20
    fitting into any of the machine programmed playlists. Alan Light, former =
    editor=20
    of SPIN magazine, says "There is good music out there.... you have to =
    find it=20
    yourself. Look at O Brother."</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>O Brother indeed. Light seems to forget =
    that "O=20
    Brother Where Art Thou" was not exactly an underground creation, but the =

    soundtrack album to a highly visible Hollywood movie! You didn't have to =
    look=20
    too hard to&nbsp;find "O Brother."</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What O Brother did show was this. =
    People will=20
    respond to music that isn't&nbsp;sung by a 17 year old version of Jon =
    Benet=20
    Ramsey. They will respond to music that doesn't sound much =
    like&nbsp;what they=20
    are getting from MTV, VH1, TNN, or the various Clear Channel outlets. In =
    fact,=20
    they'll respond to music even if they don't know what the artists look =
    like=20
    (George Clooney isn't really one of the Soggy Bottom Boys, is =
    he?)</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>But to do that, they need to hear it. =
    The demise of=20
    the record business will, contrary to the USA Today article, probably be =
    the=20
    best thing for the music business, as we might get some really "Clear =
    Channels"=20
    once and for all. The record business as-is is thorughly corrupt; it's =
    the=20
    reason a singer playing the piano in the 21'st century (Alicia "Keys") =
    is=20
    actually regarded as something of a novelty. </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In America, there&nbsp;are still alot =
    of ways for a=20
    musician to make enough money to support his or her art habit. And there =
    will be=20
    even more once the record business of today is washed away. The reality =
    is, a=20
    musician can make a damn&nbsp;respectable living playing 250-500 seat =
    gigs 200=20
    nites a year, selling 20 thousand CD's, as well as a few&nbsp;t-shirts, =
    bumper=20
    stickers and the like.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That is, so long as 93 cents of their =
    hard-earned=20
    dollar (before taxes) doesn't have to be coughed up to pay for an army =
    of=20
    apprachniks, not to mention those all-imporant French chateaus.=20
    &nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
    size=3D2>****************************************************************=
    ******************************************************</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>*Maybe Copeland would argue that his =
    Chateau was=20
    not paid for by the record company, but was a personal expense he was =
    entitled=20
    to as a succesful businessman. True, perhaps, but one wonders if his =
    personal=20
    salary as a&nbsp;music executive contributed to the&nbsp;note on those =
    digs.=20
    And, one further wonders if he would've been able to afford such a =
    castle if the=20
    musicians got 50% on the sale of their art. And finally, one wonders if =
    a man=20
    needs a castle to be truly happy....</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

    ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C20C8C.6B227410--



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 21:39:54 CEST