>> you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days 1. Comparing it financially true although I don't thi

>> you no longer see the kind of chart-dominating power that say, U2 or Michael Jackson had in those days 1. Comparing it financially true although I don't think that's fair as the economics of the industry are completely different, not because people are indulging in indie acts more but because music is cheaper generally. 2. I'm not a fan of Top 40 type music but I often look at the charts and it's always the same few people there (Rihanna, Major Lazer, Calvin Harris, Drake etc.). If you go to most clubs the music you hear is generally the Top 40. So although the returns financially are less I think it's more because people are paying less, not because they are spreading the money around to more artists.