> i also think if more bands embraced torrents, it would help them get their music heard. That's a theory that hasn't been borne out by the evidence, and doesn

> i also think if more bands embraced torrents, it would help them get their music heard. That's a theory that hasn't been borne out by the evidence, and doesn't even stand to reason if you think about it. Let's label the 10,000 or so bands in existince in the UK alone, and let's assume each of them released an album every two years, in torrent form. The average listener would need to listen to 5,000 releases every year to stay up to date, or more than 14 or so new albums every day! Of course that's not practical. So what's the solution? How do you whittle the number down to something manageable. Well, you could listen to just a subsample, but then you could be missing then next Fleet Foxes! Or the next Mozart. No, the solution is for someone who really, really, thinks that band 7,819 is the new Fleet Foxes, as opposed to band 6,412, to put his money where his mouth is and advertise and publicise the band. And that's exactly what major record labels do. And that's why they are no more obsolete than publishing companies are. In effect, we pay labels some fraction of the album price to save us from having to dredge through myspace to find something listenable. Unfortunately, for that to work people need to pay for their music. And for that to occur, government needs to crack down on filesharing. IMHO