Truth of the Music Industry: Who is the RIAA?

Gone too far:
Just who is the RIAA?

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a special interest group representing the US recording industry, and the body responsible for certifying gold and platinum albums and singles in the USA. For more information about sales data see List of best selling albums and list of best selling singles. The RIAA was formed in 1952 to administer the RIAA equalization curve, applied to vinyl records during cutting and playback.

P2P music file-sharing controversy
The RIAA has been at the heart of the peer-to-peer MP3 file-sharing controversy. Its attempts to defend the interests of its members have been viewed by some as detrimental to the interests of both consumers and artists, and benefiting only the larger record labels which comprise the RIAA. Opponents of the RIAA claim that the trade group is in effect a cartel which artificially inflates and fixes prices for CDs. Such allegations note that the Big Four (EMI, Sony-BMG, Universal Music, and Warner) distribute at least 95 percent of all music CDs sold worldwide.

Hilary Rosen, the RIAA's president and chief executive officer from 1988 to 2003, was an outspoken critic of peer to peer file sharing, and under her direction, the RIAA has waged an aggressive legal campaign to halt the practice.

The digitisation of music and the availability of inexpensive digital communications and file-swapping technologies are disruptive technologies and have led, arguably, to a crisis of confidence for the recording industry. Some people believe that these technologies may remove the need for physical distribution of recorded music altogether, threatening the existence of many of the large conglomerates that currently dominate the marketing and distribution of music. The RIAA contends that unregulated file-swapping is "piracy".

The RIAA adduces as evidence statistics such as "Surveys in all major markets prove [file-sharing] is a major factor in the fall in world music sales, down 7% in 2003, and down 14% in three years." (Cary Sherman, RIAA president). The RIAA's claim conflicts with figures provided by Soundscan, the Nielsen company responsible for compiling the Billboard music charts, which suggest that US sales rose by 10% from 147 million in the 1st quarter of 2003 to 160 million in the 1st quarter of 2004. The difference is that the RIAA uses statistics on shipments to record shops; Soundscan measures sales to end users. By way of oversimplified analogy, the following situation is being claimed as a drop in sales: 1,000 CDs were shipped last year to shops, and 700 sold. This year only 930 CDs were shipped to shops but 770 were sold.

The RIAA has sought to protect its members' interests by political lobbying for changes in copyright and criminal law, and by litigation under existing laws. As a result, the RIAA's members now have special laws enacted in the United States to protect and reinforce their business models. These include the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These laws are helping them to sue many large peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks, however to date there has not been a successful US lawsuit against one of the major 'decentralised' file-sharing networks.

The RIAA's extreme unpopularity with certain segments of the Internet community has made its website a popular target for malicious hackers, and it has been repeatedly broken into and defaced. Indeed one virus variant was designed for the sole purpose of instituting a distributed denial-of-service attack on the RIAA's web server.

Many people believe that the RIAA has done little to garner positive goodwill from consumers- such as the now-infamous lawsuit against 12-year-old Brianna LaHara. Some believe that their primary goal is to retain the status quo and prevent lowered recording and distribution costs from reaching consumers. To these observers, they appear to spend a considerable amount of money lobbying lawmakers to enact legislation that erodes fair use rights and turns the tables on the "copyright bargain," the social contract that allows artists the right to prevent copying of their works—a right that some think of as contrary to natural law—in exchange for the promotion of science and the useful arts.)

Recently, several industry companies as well as RIAA opponents have claimed that the group artificially expands its membership by listing companies which are not member of RIAA, and do not wish to be. Boycott-RIAA.com (http://www.Boycott-RIAA.com)founder Bill Evans noted that the RIAA's website began listing both Matador Records and Lookout Records on its website as members.[1] (http://www.p2pnet.net/article/7498)However, neither company is actually a member. While Evans may seem to many as a biased, unreliable source, both companies confirmed his story.

Matador Records' Patrick Armory stated that the company is not an RIAA member and does not wish to be. He said this was not the first time they had been listed erroneously on the site. In order to remedy the situation, he said, "I've now sent them three, count them, emails demanding that we be removed! But to no avail." Armory contacted Amy Weiss of the RIAA, a former deputy press secretary to Bill Clinton, but received no response. The listing was then removed two days later, however. At that time, Bill Evans claims Lookout Records contacted him to say that their name had just been added to the list.

Reference
* Nielsen Rating System At Odds With RIAA's Claim Of "Lost Sales" (http://www.kensei-news.com/bizdev/publish/factoids_us/article_23374.shtml) - Music Dish - Moses Avalon

P2P child pornography campaign
On September 6, 2003, the RIAA started a campaign against peer to peer programs, claiming that they facilitated child pornography. RIAA President Cary Sherman told the U.S. Senate that adults could use P2P networks to lure children into having sex. He added, "A significant percentage of the files available to these 13 million new users [of P2P networks] per month are pornography, including child pornography." News story (http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5073817.html).

This is being viewed by many in the Internet community as an attempt to discredit P2P networks by associating them with something that stops any defense against the claim (anyone defending peer to peer would risk being accused of supporting child pornography) and is likely to make some people (e.g. parents) turn their attention to this subject with a view to banning P2P.

Some people view this as hypocrisy, arguing that the past actions of RIAA members show that they are willing to "exploit" children by exposing them to songs that parents might find unsuitable. A Commentary (http://www.nindy.com/sonyporn.html) and a News story (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32762.html).

It is also argued against the RIAA argument that the postal system, the photographic film and camera makers, candy makers, and public roads all help child pornography to be made and/or distributed, and that P2P is nothing new in that regard.

Timeline of RIAA lawsuits
* July 17, 2003 - RIAA CEO Cary Sherman unveiled a sweeping plan to file subpoenas against file traders which will lead to lawsuits. SBC Communications has filed a lawsuit trying to stop the subpoenas. Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman has also launched a hearing into the RIAA's tactics.

* September 8, 2003 - Several member companies of the RIAA sued 261 individuals for copyright violations. RIAA also announced an amnesty program, where users can submit a notarized statement saying that they will no longer engage in file-sharing, and that they must delete all illegally-downloaded music from their hard drives. According to the RIAA, if users do this, they will not be sued by the RIAA (others have noted that signing the statement doesn't prevent people being sued by the actual copyright-holders of the music, who are typically not the RIAA [2] (http://cnet.com.com/2100-1027_3-5073972.html)).

* RIAA press release (http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/090803.asp)

* September 9, 2003 - It was revealed that among those sued was Brianna LaHara, a 12 year old girl living with her mother in a city Housing Authority apartment. The next day, the RIAA settled with the family for $2000. It was speculated that the fast resolution of the dispute and the low amount of the monetary settlement (the RIAA often claims damages up to $150,000 for each song), were intended to avoid negative public relations that could result from this story.[3] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html)[4] (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=501&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_en_mu/downloading_music_11&printer=1).

* September 10, 2003 - A P2P trade group P2P United offered to cover the $2000 settlement on behalf of the LaHara family.

* October 21, 2003 - A backlash against the filesharing suits grew, a coalition of more than 100 websites (Stop RIAA Lawsuits) called for a boycott of all RIAA music in protest of the lawsuits.

* December 19, 2003 - A federal appeals court ruled the recording industry can't force Internet providers to identify subscribers swapping music online, dramatically setting back the industry's anti-piracy campaign. As a result of this ruling, the RIAA is currently naming as defendants in their lawsuits "John Doe", identified only with their ISP addresses.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA

Truth of the Music Industry: Crikey agrees with me on Idol

Faux Idol:
American Idol's "Fantasia"

Okay, I just checked out Crikey.com and they more or less expressed what I have in the post below this one. It's always great to know you're not alone...

Australian Idol and its TV driven talent show ilk that are growing with such contagion that they will soon even come with their own designated disease (Factor X) – are a boil on the bum of an industry who’s best and brightest are overwhelmingly original talent.

Anyone can and usually does sing. What overwhelmingly drives the record business though is creative talent usually in control of their own material whether they are bands or singer-songwriters. Manufactured pop music has always been around, but the usual pop idols riding on the back of other people’s material, unless you are the diva types, quickly run out of puff. It’s not easy being original which is why so few ever make it by comparison with those who start out.

But TV talent shows of the Australian Idol idiom turn all the normal industry rules upside down because they become one gigantic promotional machine - as we’ve already seen. The trick for Guy Sebastian is not remaining a velvet smooth singer or even trawling through the publishing houses of the world for good songs. His long term marketability lies in remaining fashionable beyond a certain period, and as the sub or teenyboppers get older and our more senior record buying citizens take to the next big thing from the Idol assembly plant, Sebastian will have to exist more as a league’s club staple, and appearing on Bert Newton 10 years from now even if Bert isn’t! Just don’t expect to see his videos being rotated on MTV; in fact he may not even have videos! Being top of the TV talent crop is mostly a guaranteed ride to yesterday.

So naturally most folks in the record business see Australian Idol as purely an instant purveyor of pop pap – whose upside is immediate, but longevity really pushing the envelope! In the record business you rhyme pap with crap. Ian ‘Dicko’ Dickson as an Idol judge can bang on all he likes about avoiding the ARIA awards because of the snobbery of the industry towards his Idol star turns, even as they sell truckloads of records, but if he was at another label with no ties to Idol, he would be equally dismissive of these manufactured pop stars.
Sure the industry is envious of this formula and sales machine that BMG is now tapped into locally, but the industry mostly dines out on originality to sell the majority of pop acts – and being responsible for your own material usually ensures a much longer career. No self-respecting executive hates success and knows volume sales keeps people employed, but the TV talent show process is so totally contrived, it’s both an aberration and the antithesis to creativity. It’s music by numbers.


If Ricki-Lee had got beyond last night’s elimination and actually ended up winning the whole Idol shooting gallery – you still would have had amateur hour releasing factory assembled music. Every bit as forgettable as Bardot - or spurned ex-member Sophie Monk; or now struggling Idol refugee Rob Mills. You only have to go back to a kind of sub-Idol 70’s driven Countdown to see how current judge Mark Holden became a teen idol with songs that at the time made young girls swoon, and groaning boys regurgitate! Soon enough his vacuous music floundered and if I recall rightly he left the country for a fresh start in the USA, following in the footsteps of another former Countdown pretty boy – Rick Springfield, who combined a stalled music career with soapy acting.

Faust would love to do a deal with Idol

So for good reason the industry looks down its collective nose at preppy karaoke pop peddlers who not only sign up in the hope or wild expectation of overnight success, but also have zero control in how they actually go about getting there. If Faust came back today and fancied life as a pop star - he’d gladly sign on for Australian Idol as the shortest possible route to his 15 minutes of fame.

That’s not to belittle those who seek a career via Australian Idol but to recognize that this show has about as much to do with the real spirit of pop music which should be bold and inventive, but when you see the Beatles trashed as they were on Sunday by some, they are mere props in a TV ratings juggernaut. Australian Idol exists to make money and attract as many viewers as possible, both of which it does spectacularly.

But when Dicko or anyone else defends Idol from derision for being anything other than the equivalent of a bargain basement sale or visit to the reject shop, he’s talking through his pocket and that of the record company that peddles the end product, irrespective of how willing or enthusiastic the consumer is to embrace the show. If the film business can happily admit that genre movies are merely exploitative marketing ploys to make money, why can’t Australian Idol accept its recognition as being at the bottom end of the scale when it comes to pop dross?

If my family loves Australian Idol and is silly enough to hang out to buy whatever “product” is dished up off the conveyor belt of the next Idol signed artists good luck to them – it’s their money and their right to be sucked in. But don’t expect those who see the show as the very thin end of the wedge for so many other Australian artists. Those with original talent deserving of support, which, if they also had this Idol machine behind them wouldn’t lack for success? It’s also ironic that when others pass criticaljudgment on Australian Idol for whatever reason, the likes of Dickson or Holden think they’re being snobs. I don’t see it as snobbery for hating the way Idol reduces the music form that most of us grow up with and might still adore, being reduced to the lowest common denominator.

But at least Dickson was the only one of the judges to get it absolutely right when he castigated Ricki-Lee for her murderous treatment of We Can Work It Out on Sunday night. If any proof was required that the show is essentially a vehicle for karaoke singers peddling homogenized pop, seeing and hearing that classic song reduced to sounding horrible was an affront. Even worse, the singer didn’t even seem to know the song actually started with totally different opening lines than the ones she claimed to rate so highly? Dicko sure got it right when he thought a couple of dead Beatles would be spinning in their graves after that effort. God only knows what the living deity who actually wrote it would have thought of it?

Read the full article at: http://www.crikey.com.au/columnists/2004/10/12-0010.html

Truth of the Music Industry: The lip-synching hack

Madonna
I believe Elton in this.

Finally, someone has stood up an said publically what many have been thinking about mass-produced lip-synching pop divas for a long time:

Singer Elton John has never been known for his restraint - his binge on flowers costing more than $US200,000 ($A272,000) between 1996 and 1997 is testament enough to that. Nevertheless, the ferocity of his attack on fellow pop star Madonna last week might have struck some as excessive.

Appearing at the Q Music awards in London, John exploded with a foul-mouthed tirade after learning that Madonna had been nominated as best live act.

"Madonna, best f---ing live act? F--- off," he said in an extraordinary outburst. "Since when has lip-synching been live? Anyone who lip-synchs in public on stage when you pay £75 to see them should be shot."

A representative for Madonna denied John's claims. "Madonna does not lip-synch nor does she spend her time trashing other artists," said spokeswoman Liz Rosenberg.

No, she just blatantly rips them off and claims their fads. Hack.

Nevertheless, the drama illustrated the extent to which the issue of lip-synching still raises hackles in the music industry. Indeed, even former boy band singers have been forced to demonstrate the genuineness of their musical wares. At a Melbourne concert earlier this year, a credibility-seeking Justin Timberlake was moved to boast "I don't lip-synch, I sing" - a none too oblique reference to former girlfriend Britney Spears, who admits to getting "support in the choruses" during her performances.

But is lip-synching really such a crime? (Well, anywhere apart from Vietnam, which banned the practice four years ago.) Not necessarily, say some critics. They argue that, in the pop world at least, the "entertainment package" can be more important than musical "cred".

As Monash University music lecturer Robert Burke said - even if Madonna does mime, "I don't think it's a major concern because she is who she is. Her whole act is about popular culture, rather than being a legitimate singer. It's a real package."

It's a sentiment that would warm the heart of former Neighbours starlet Holly Valance, forced to defend herself after lip-synching at the 2002 ARIA awards.

"As a pop artist . . . I need to get up there and put on a visual show, and if that means working my arse off in incredible dance routines, I'm going to do that," she said.

"What do you want me to do? Wear my little ripped rock T-shirt and get up there with my guitar and bulls--- around? That's not me, it's not what I do."

Yeah, Madonna doesn't bulls---- around the stage, doing bulls--- in a concert, like playing an instrument or - gasp - singing. Possibly because she can't sound decent without several hours worth of heavy mixing.

Predictably, Melbourne musicians who make a living by getting up there with a guitar and "bulls---ing around", take a different view.

"Hats off to the crazy bastard," said Chuck Jenkins, lead singer of Ice Cream Hands, of John's outburst. The music should come ahead of the visuals, he said, "because it's an emotive, immediate thing and it should change night to night according to how the performer feels and how the crowd is reacting.

"To go out there and just simply go through the choreographed motions - I think the performer is really shortchanging, not only the audience, but themselves."

Indeed, it could be that Valance shortchanged herself. Her next album, State of Mind, sold a pitiful 2000 copies in its two weeks on the Australian chart. And the producers of Sunday's ARIA awards certainly seem to agree with a music-first policy.

Although organisers refused to comment, they said all the performers booked for this year's ceremony, including Delta Goodrem, Jet, Kasey Chambers, Guy Sebastian, Eskimo Joe and Pete Murray, would perform live.

A risky policy - who can forget the tuneless mewling of Madison Avenue's Cheyne Coates at the 2000 ARIAs?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/10/1097346694964.html

Like I said, I'm not making this a non-music blog; I'm just featuring stoies about topics other than music on here. But I will continue to post music-related stories on here... like this one.

Elton John is far from my favourite artist, but the man makes a valid point. Pop music has a reputation for being mass produced garbage, and for the reasons I point out below, it's for good reason. And acts like Milli Vanilli should be seen as just the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to sudio produced, talentless hacks.

Look, it's very easy for someone like a Simon Fuller - someone who I have mentioned earlier in this blog - to take someone who looks good and can possibly dance and make them a top 40 star - regardless of their talent (or lack thereof). All you need is some canned or session musicians to provide a good backing track for a producer, and a Max Martin character to provide good lyrics. Studio technicians fix little niggling problems like utter inability to sing. Wrap it in some payola and marketing - and a good video - and you have yourself an instant, cookie - cutter mass - produced bubblegum pop hit.

For that extra "authenticity", have it packaged as punk rock-lite, heavy metal-lite, or "not quite Motown" R&B.

I've recently heard the argument that there is talent involved in the process, and it's true to an extent. But the end result is an unispiring and insipid 'hits by committee' product, rather than musical artistic self expression. And certainly the pretty face fronting this act - the Milli Vanilli or Madonna of the act - deserves very little credit for the product.

As for the question of whether Madonna lip-synchs... it's one best left for these guys.

Politics: John Kerry Opens 3 Point Lead

John Kerry
Leading the race for the
Whitehouse... at the moment

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry expanded his slight lead over President Bush to three points in a tight race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Monday.

The Massachusetts senator held a 47-44 percent lead over Bush in the latest three-day tracking poll, up two points from Sunday. Bush's support dropped one point and Kerry's support rose one point in the new poll.

The close race turns up the pressure for Wednesday's final debate in Tempe, Arizona, when the White House rivals will have another chance to make their case to voters on domestic issues.

The poll found six percent of likely voters are still undecided about the race with barely more than three weeks to go until the Nov. 2 election, and 16 percent of the voters who identify themselves as independents are undecided.

Bush made small gains among young voters and Kerry picked up strength among women voters ahead of the debate -- the final chance for both candidates to speak directly to an audience of millions of voters.

"Wednesday's debate is vital because many sub-groups remain close and because so many independents have yet to make up their minds," pollster John Zogby said.

The poll of 1,214 likely voters was taken Friday through Sunday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The rolling poll will continue through Nov. 1 -- the day before the election.

The last two days of polling came after Bush and Kerry battered each other over Iraq, jobs and taxes during a debate on Friday. The economy and Iraq are consistently listed as the top issues in the race.

A tracking poll combines the results of three consecutive nights of polling, then drops the first night's results each time a new night is added. It allows pollsters to record shifts in voter sentiment as they happen.

The poll found 48 percent of voters thought the United States was headed in the wrong direction and 45 percent thought it was headed in the right direction.

It also showed independent candidate Ralph Nader, blamed by some Democrats for drawing enough votes from Al Gore to cost him the election in 2000, earning the support of 1.7 percent of likely voters.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6465847

While promising for Kerry, just remember some polls had Mark Latham over 3 points ahead...

My photo is finally up!

ME! ANDREW! 3b
For those of you who are curious,
here's my photo...

Okay, I've uploaded this photo to my profile, and unlike last time it seems to be working. This post is, more or less, a test to see how well the blog works with photos. Assuming that all goes well, I'll hopefully be able to get more photos up in the future. For the record, for the time being, I'm using flickr.com for the photo.

Right now, I'm procrastinating doing a politics essay for Uni, which I should do in the hours before I head off to work. Don't worry, I will get about to getting some done. When I have some more time (or more likely, another chance to procrastinate) I'll upload some of my essays from this year onto the blog.

Politics: Greens agree with my analysis?

The Greens
The Greens agree
with me?

Do the Greens agree with my analysis of the election? At least in part?

From the Green Party blog:

I was in a bar last night, drowning my sorrows in advance, and got talking to the owner of the bar, who cited interest rates as the issue that was going to decide his vote this election. He talked about his fear of losing his business - "if the rates go up to 15% like they were under Labor, I'll lose my house" he told us. "It'd be a disaster."
The real disaster, as far as I could see, is that the Liberal Party's scaremongering has met with almost no opposition in this election. The are a million ways to explain why interest rates aren't necessarily higher under Labor, but the Labor Party has simply failed to make the case. It's the same across all the key issues in this election campaign: the Labor Party has shyed away from a fight and never taken the time to explain why so much of Howard's rhetoric is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Greens stand to do particularly well out of all this, which is great, of course. But will the sun rise tomorrow if Howard is the Prime Minister? What will the next three years bring for us? I broke the lead of my pencil grinding '1' above the line for the Greens; now all that's left is to wait.

http://www.greens.org.au/blog/ElectionBlog/41

Politics: October 9th

Mark Latham
Why this man is not Australia's
Prime Minister

Okay, before I write any more, I just want to say to the 300-plus people who have checked out this blog, feel free to write a comment! Yes, I know it's sporadically updated, but if you have an opinion of anything that I say here - either for or against - feel free to comment.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand - why Mark Latham lost the election, and what happend.

Australian elections today. Howard returned to power, Labor lost. And lost by a surprising amount, given the prediction in the earlier post; I expected this to be a lot closer. Anyway, some thoughts about the vote.

The first thing I noticed was the rise of the "Family First" Party. It looks like Australia, for better or worse, is beginning down the same path that America did a couple of decades ago, with the emergence and growth of the Evangelical Christian right wing. An interesting trend, given that arguably the cornerstone of American president George W. Bush's American supporter base is the Christian right wing.

Why the rise of the Christian right wing as a social phenomena? My first guess is that there are a lot of people looking for meaning in their life. The mainstream churches haven't been able to open themselves up, become compelling and relevant; and people are seeking answers elsewhere. And Evangelical Chistians make a loyal political voice. My prediction is that this will be an important trend to follow.

My next thought is that the ALP needs to take the center ground. The party lost 2 Tasmanian seats in bending over backwards for the Greens, which really benefitted no-one. Look, I doubt that the Greens will be cutting deals with the Liberals any time soon; the ALP getting the Green prefs is a lock, and chasing after it is stupid. A better scenario for all would have been having the ALP running a "We care about the environment, but we care about worker's jobs more" policy. Greens pick up the dissaffected environmentalist vote, which gets passed to the ALP via preferences, while the ALP takes more of the middle ground from the Libs. What the ALP ended up doing inane - i.e. chasing a Green vote which was theirs (via preference distribution) anyway, alowing John Howard to shake hands with card carrying members of the CFMEU!

The other thing the ALP has consistantly handled poorly is the Scoresby Freeway. And I would be hard pressed to think of even one occassion when *anyone* from the ALP has pointed out that if the Liberals were really concerned about the Scoresby Freeway, the shortfall (being covered by tolls) would come from the federal budget. Or that no-tolls assumed that there would be federal money being poured into the project, which was withdrawn to combat the ALP's insistance that workers from the same CFMEU (whose hands John Howard shook in Tasmania) would work on the project.

Labor didn't press the point that Brack's decision to impose tolls was a state issue, not a federal issue. Labor didn't make the point that yes, Bracks did lie; and Howard lied about weapons of mass destruction - which is worse?

Similarly, the Liberals ran a scare campaign centred around interest rates. One of the ads in the campaign looked at interest rates under Hawke and Keating Vs. Howard (interestingly, no mention of interest rates under big Mal), but the government lieing over children overboard was just too long ago. Where were the mentions of this little example of well orchastrated Orwellian Doublethink by the ALP?

Finally, say what you will about John Howard, he is a very shrewd politician. He opperates using divide and conquer tactics, and he struck in the last week over the environment. But this was just a mere repeat of what he did with "Children overboard" and 9/11 at the previous election; and the "For all of US" campaign ('Us' being white, middle class Australia) when he was first elected over Keating.

Note that this is not to say that Labor didn't do anything right, because there was a lot they did excellently. A few months ago, I was thinking about what would make for effective ad campaigns for either party, and I came up with the idea of Auctioning off a University education; and the ALP used that for an ad in this campaign. And Mark Latham did manage to close the gap on Howard, and even pull ahead during the campaign. But. that said, in retrospect it is easy to see why we don't have "Prime Minister Mark Latham".

Finally, what Labor should have tried to get to stick was a phrase like the "John Howard reality distortion field". Pithy phrase that would have earned some ridicule and satire, but would henceforth be bought up every time Howard bought up something that was slightly less than the truth.

Anyway, this is my quick and dirty analysis of the election. Feel free to post a comment to tell me what you think...

We'll see how this goes...

Voting is under way across the country, as 13 million Australians choose their next leader.

The latest opinion polls published in the newspapers today show the Coalition in front on the primary vote, but preferences are running in Labor's favour.

http://www.abc.net.au/queensland/news/200410/s1216498.htm

Finally... an update...

Okay, sorry about the lack of updates the past few months; I've been busy both with work and uni. Anyway, since I've got a few minutes, I'll post an update here.

First off, while I'll continue to post stories about the music industry, I've decided to broaden this blog to be a general, all purpose blog. Hopefully I'll post some essays from uni on here over the coming months, as well as (possibly) finally getting around to putting up a new website...