Well, fast reply works. I wonder what all the other buttons are for.
Elijah Wald's recent book, How The Beatles Destroyed Rock'n'Roll, makes some of the same points I tried to make. I know, there's another thread on that book on this site, but most of the people there haven't read it: I don't know how well Wald makes his points, but the book is full of fun little tidbits, and any book that makes you think is a good book. He starts out apparently flabbergasted at discovering the enormous popularity of Paul Whiteman, said to be the second biggest-selling artist 1890-1950 after Bing Crosby, who started out with Whiteman. Wald doesn't quite point out that a lot of Whiteman's music was very good - somebody should compile the Bill Challis arrangements on CD. (An aside: Henry Louis Gates is the dude who, in the New Yorker when the worthless Tina Brown was editor there, thought that there was something funny about Whiteman's name.) But Wald demonstrates that most of the music we value today was outsold in its time by the likes of Patti Page and Pat Boone. I loved to listen to the radio when I was a kid, but when 'Doggie in the Window' was on the radio every ten minutes, I knew I would have to build my own music collection.
The Beatles did destroy rock'n'roll, which was a feisty music, generating regional hits from Clovis, New Orleans, Seattle, Chicago, Memphis, Austin, Nashville etc. The Beatles turned it into art music, a kind of antithesis. The same thing didn't happen earlier with the Elvis Presley tidal wave for a number of reasons, but partly because the audience was smaller. When the Beatles came along the baby boomers were almost grown up (or as close as they ever got) and had lots of spending money; all of a sudden there was so much money involved that the business was turned upside down. For my money, Bob Dylan is still the greatest of the era, but he hasn't sold anything like the records that other superstars have, and I would trade any of the best Fats Domino tracks for all the arty-farty music that came out of Los Angeles in subsequent years. I think Wald's thesis, and mine, is that the industry always went where it thought the most money was, or as Chuck Nessa puts it, they didn't want to sell 10,000 copies each of 100 releases, or even 100,000 copies each of ten releases, but a million copies of one release; and the result today is pop music a lot of which sounds like kids playing with karaoke in their bedrooms, while a lot of good music is found in Americana, which is the new name for the places where rock'n'roll came from. And now the major labels are hitting the wall because kids don't want to pay for throwaway music.
There are still millions of people who would like to browse in a record shop, but our money isn't good enough, so the music CDs are being pushed out of Barnes & Noble and Borders by the DVDs, and the irony there is that even the guy who runs Netflix knows that DVDs will disappear too: someday we will all be watching movies on our computers. But when all the music is on the Net, maybe it will be a level playing field.