No, but internet music purchasing has become so embedded in the world that people, even young children, especially young children, can buy music online and listen to it. So the numbers for more popular/recent artists (especially those targeted towards children, i.e. Katy Perry and Bieber) are going to skyrocket, and older artists, no matter how much "better" they are, will fall by the wayside.
Newer artists will always sell more than older artists; it's true in every example he gives, and it's reasonable. I don't like it either, but I am satisfied knowing that the older music he lists will maintain better than most, if not all, of the newer artists he mentioned.
AsianSteev: if you can read this, put more Ska songs on the RBN! Please?
Gamertag: Demitri Theodus
Not to mention he doesn't say if it's adjusted for inflation. If The Beatles made $1,000 playing a show or something and Katy Perry made $10,000....The Beatles made more money.
The Archies had four top 40 hits. The Jimi Hendrix Experience had one.
Yeah, 1969 was a weird year for the charts. '69 had some great classic rock songs that have undoubtedly stood the test of time, yet the year-end #1 was this.
*shudder*
Bit of trivia: It's former President George W. Bush's favorite song.
Just because something is charting massively doesn't mean it's going to be remembered.
The Jonas Brothers were practically non-existent already. Plus as mentioned earlier, who the hell remembers The Archies?
_ Genesis
_ Kamelot
_ Pure Reason Revolution
_ VNV Nation
_ More Tribe
"And onward now, and on forever, all great things to come"
George W. Bush once wanted to play Springsteen's "Born in the USA" at one of his speeches. Apparently, one of his aids suggested he read the lyrics first and realize what the song was actually about.
AsianSteev: if you can read this, put more Ska songs on the RBN! Please?
Gamertag: Demitri Theodus