But yes, I lament the current trend of not investing in artists for the long run. I think it is a result of the label's terrible response to internet downloading, and not shifting their profit models.

I can finally admit that this article is slightly tongue in cheek, as yes, I do listen to lots of other music besides top 40. And I am definitely a fan of indie labels who are reaching out with new technologies and new profit models. I think they are either A) forcing the Majors to change and/or B) Making the Majors irrelevant to some degree.

My primary worry is that with the new tech era that offers so much choice and access, we won't have any “classic” artists anymore. There is literally too much music to discover, and no one definitive source. This is good in a way, because it democratizes music so good bands with good work ethic can build a following without the help of a major. But in this day and age, how do thousands of people follow a new band through multiple albums? It's pretty difficult to keep their attention with so much noise out there.

I think what I'm trying to say is that a great song isn't necessarily proof that the person performing it is a great artist. A great artist might yield a “best of” album while an artist with a great song might be a “one hit wonder.” Therefore, when you define “best music” you have to separate the music from the artist. I'd rather be known as a great artist, not as a one-hit wonder.

I'm just trying to show the other side of the “best music” argument that it de-humanizes the artists behind the music.

I do admit that the “best-of-the-best” working together can sometimes produce sub-par results, but sub-par results are the standard for most independent artists. I feel like the ultimate test should be the music itself…how it makes you feel, what it means to you. This, I believe, should not be judged based on who wrote or performed the song, but just the product itself.

Regarding the genres, there are some easy ways to filter out Top 40 music you don't want to hear. Satellite radio has some awesome stations. I also like lala.com and spotify online.

Summary of your thoughts: Great pop/rock music equal great singers + great producers + great musicians + great songwriters.
My thoughts: Good bands do not equal good music. A singer/songwriter like Bob Dylan has great stuff and I consider much more of an artist that pop bands who write little of their own material. But I think this gets into a side argument of top 40 music is not always performed by great artists. I think a great artist (musically), write and sings their own stuff and does a great job of it.

Summary of your thoughts: Listen to top 40
Mine: A bit too many genre's. I want pop, not rap, or this or that, don't give me all of it. Top 40 is turning into MOR (radio-speak for middle-of-the-road which means something for everyone).

In the end, the question to ask is how do I determine the quality of a song? Is it defined as the best of the best working together? Is it defined as a band that writes/sings/performs their own stuff + great production?

I totally agree that the music industry (and any artist really) is selling a full product, not just music. I tried to keep my argument simple in my original piece, but I think we have both proven that the market for products is both complex and diverse. Where we differ is that I believe the music industry is also truly COMPETITIVE.

For starters, I disagree that it is expensive to find new music…..portals like last.fm, spotify, pandora, and lala, make it extremely easy. They generate and play new artists automatically, at no initial cost, based on your specific tastes. Secondly, I believe that like other careers where talent + hard work determine success (like basketball, writing, and management), the top artists are at the top for a reason. They have beaten out the millions of other artists to get the opportunity to be backed by the power of a label.

I made the point that record labels sift through all shit that's out there to find the most promising acts, and I don't think it has been refuted. The artists that you talk about (swift, cyrus, jonas brothers) were not concocted in some lab and programmed to please audiences. Before becoming stars, they all demonstrated a capability to have mass appeal, and showed the rare ability to stay focused and sane doing the work required of a celebrity artist. For every Taylor Swift, there are 1000's of pretty teenage girls who sing and play guitar (and have overzealous parents with $ in their eyes) that do not become stars.

It is easy to look at Taylor Swift and assume a lot from her image. Most people don't realize that at age 11, she convinced her parents to take her to nashville to distribute her demo tape around to labels, getting rejected from every single one. At 12 she started playing guitar and writing her own songs, playing open mics and traveling to nashville every chance she could get. Her family moved to Nashville to support her music career when she was just 14. At 15, she rejected a development deal with RCA records, because they would not allow her to record her own songs. She is obviously now signed, and as hard as it is to believe, she writes her own songs. (and actually a staff songwriter for Sony/ATV publishing house). This girl is nineteen years old and has driven herself to achieve what millions of people have tried and failed at for their entire lives. I don't care if she is “pitchy,” she deserves every bit of fame she has.

Likewise, Miley Cyrus was not pushed or prodded to pursue acting at such a young age. Certainly, having a famous father opened some doors for her, but none of her other siblings, and millions of priviledged kids around the world, have achieved the same status as her. Her persistence, drive, and innate talent are what make her a complete product. The same goes for the Jonas Brothers and any of these other supposedly “manufactured” artists. They've got something that millions of others don't.

I will concede that good music alone does not make you a top artist, and that their are other factors. But those factors are still based around the talent of the artist! Elvis was a great example of this principle. We would have never heard “Blue Suede Shoes” or “Heartbreak Hotel” had the original artists been the only performers. When the right artist records the right song, the result is a product that is worthy of exposure. It does not make Elvis any less deserving of his fame because he did not write his own material.

From your response I sense some “player-hating from the sidelines.” These artists couldn't be talented, because they are young and are being packaged by opportunistic labels. Again, the masses are being hood-winked into an inferior product that is being shoved down their throats. They aren't capable of finding other music or making good musical judgements like you are. I believe this arrogance is the primary motivation behind the criticism of popular music.