Well, I just think that certain music, film, whatever, is only destined to find a small audience. Yes, most of the time we're going to find ourselves attracted to this "small stuff" because it tends to be more thoughful, interesting, well crafted...but it's also not promoted anywhere near as hard as the McArtist stuff. Not these days, where everything is tied to what the progit margin will be. I think the most interesting take on this came from Steven Spielberg, he said at one point that it was difficult for him to choose projects that might be more interesting to him because so many people's livelihood depended upon what he chose to get involved with. That's quite a bit of pressure to live under I would say. I think for the big label, brand name artists it sort of becomes this monster that they have to continue to feed. It's no longer 4 guys and some instruments as much as we'd like to think that. Now of course record companies, for example, just manufacture pop stars. Film companies would rather manufacture a sequel that has profit potential than develop an interesting and unique project. It doesn't mean that we have to suffer all the shite that spills forth from the corporate greed goodiebox though. It is interesting to see Pearl Jam dropping the major label backing. 

You know, people always complain that guys like David should be more popular but if he got to say, U2 status in the rock world, he may not make the same sort of records he made. There would have been a machine to feed, a corporate greedbox to fill with cash. This way, he is who he is, and he made records that meant something to some people and maybe that meant something more to him. It's seems a bit cleaner way to have passed through the world.

                                                                   Reg