Ah, yes, I meant Cmaj9(#11). Thanks.

Is this why pop music nowadays uses the same chord progressions? Because the chords resolve so well in that sequence?

Yes, absolutely.

Though interestingly enough, the heavy use of vi - V - IV is actually pretty indicative of pop music alone. I've taken a pretty extensive history course, and I don't remember that progression being in any other periods, not even in Jazz.

i see it all the time. that, or IV  - V - vi or IV - V - iii - vi or IV - V - vi - iii or, yeah, you get the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHBVnMf2t7w

posting a link roph showed me that basically proved the point above.

I figure grooveshark has enough on it that if I'm interested in a band I will listen to it there and then buy the CD if I like them. I don't usually download music anymore.


As for making music, I have no talent for it whatsoever. I can play a little piano, but that's about it and I can't create anything :'(

i have an mp3 player with about 400-something tracks on it, which i use because i don't always want to listen to music in front of the computer. and i think it's ridiculous that i should have to pay 400-something dollars to, especially when the bands themselves collectively get maybe 20 dollars of it while the label keeps the rest. my heart goes out to indie bands and the labels that support them, and don't affiliate with the RIAA, and i have no problem giving them what is essentially a donation by purchasing their music. but fuck the bigwigs.

http://riaaradar.com

this is an excellent site for anyone who wants to find out if they should really be buying the music from the bands they love, or not. i use it all the time.

I don't know about that; distributors do important work for the advancement of the artist's music. Artists can release independently if they want to. The reason that some go through labels is because it benefits them more than just releasing independently and collecting profits directly that way. Distributors have an important role in publicizing the music and thus allowing great artists to receive the respect they deserve. I think rewarding distributors for that process is a good thing. By buying from them, you are supporting the artist even if it is not monetarily; by not buying from them you are harming the artists by making them less marketable to major distributors thus affecting how well their music is distributed. I think it's artificial to draw a "support the artist" line only on a monetary basis, when artists value more than just money - they are surrendering CD sales on the basis that the distributor is performing a valuable service for them (in addition to giving them money up front). By buying the artist's CD from the distributor, you are making the artist a good investment for the distributor and thus giving them better opportunity to negotiate the deals they want. Just because your $20 isn't going directly into their pockets doesn't mean you aren't supporting the artists in a real way.

I completely agree with you, when it comes to indie labels, and I referred to that but maybe not clearly enough. I'm happy to support labels who truly only exist for the reason they're supposed to: to distribute the music. What I don't support are the huge corporations that take ownership of the artists' music and do all they can to sap as much of that money as possible from them so that they can spend it frivolously on themselves. Obviously a lot of the bands aren't hurting for money, as the label pays for almost all of their needs, and if I could donate the money directly to the band, I would. But the RIAA labels need to crumble to the ground, artists need to all take ownership of their music back and I don't feel comfortable supporting those labels until it happens.

Just so you know, typically distributors and labels are two separate entities. Labels do the promotion work, like you said, but they don't usually have warehouses to store all that merchandise, so they send it off to a distributor that does nothing but store merchandise, and ship it. It's another fish in the food chain that eats away your money, meaning the money flow goes:

Consumer -> Retail Store -> Distributor -> Label -> You.

And each entity gets a cut of the money. So you're right, it sucks for the artists. They get like 5% of what people spend at retail stores.

Which is why the popularization of internet releases, digital music, and the rising trend of independent artists is KILLING labels. If there's no need to manufacture thousands of cd's, and therefore no reason to store them, and the artists now has the power to do all his own producing (Pro Tools, Logic, cheap software) and design (Photoshop), then what's the point of having labels anyway? Digital distributors like TuneCore, which delivers you digital music to Rhapsody, iTunes, Amazon, and many other online sites is now the way to get your sound out there without spending much money, as long as you have the talent to record, produce, and design everything yourself.

This way, the artists gets MORE of the money that comes through the pipeline because there's fewer entities involved, but as usual, whoever gets their hands on the money first (in this case, online retailers like iTunes and Rhapsody) still end up keeping the biggest cut of the money.

Marketing is still an issue though, but I suppose it will always be.

On the plus side, this means some labels are getting desperate, meaning it's now easier than is usually is to get "picked up" by a record label.

Labels are still the most popular choice, and e-distribution is a rising trend, I think.
A lot of people just do both, though. I mean, if you can, why not? More market/money for you.