Just a thought about the statement about music videos and getting them into regular TV rotation ("That's where most of the exposure for an artist comes from these days.") I wonder, is it?

The way things are run now, isn't this all a bit circular? The big acts get the PR, get their songs pushed onto radio, often by paying for the privilege, and get their videos on. But do they get big because that happens or does that happen because they get big? I think there's a lot of unquestioned assumptions in the music industry now (and most others, publishing certainly, but music seems the most stuck). Is the music video really that influential for new artists? is radio? and if so, is it because they are the best avenue or because they are the avenue that big labels use? If you only try one route, how can you say it's the best route.

For me, I rarely listen to either the available radio or watch videos because when I do, I end up sitting through so much junk to hear something good. Selling to me needs getting a sample of the music to me (which is how most people get into new music and artists) and that isn't going to happen through channels I've learned to avoid because they don't produce. Music videos on TV are one of those failed channels.

Naturally, I think, the answer is the net. One of the reasons large companies are suspcious of the net is the same as one of the reasons power companies are suspicious of solar power -- it works really well on a small scale, as well as a large scale (solar probably works better on a small scale, individual setup). They're afraid of losing control, which of course is why they're lashing out.