> You guys are so hypersensitive! Good grief. I agree with your points, partly because I think they are obvious and don't require debate. I'm not going to debate that any popular rock/pop artist isn't successful based on one set of criteria. I'm not fucking stupid, but what I don't see here is folks continuously affirming the obvious rather than trying to understand that there is another story to be told, from a different set of criteria. You're using an awful lot of words "not debating" the obvious. I'm not denying you or anyone else their alternative viewpoint. We all have one. Why belittle success or simplicity, and call it a scam or pose-you make it sound like scheming accountants are choosing to play music to pull off some big money scam . . . that's for the A/R guys and label owners to do. I'm just questioning some of the so-called obvious assertions you're writing reams about. I don't buy the no-talent, anyone-can-do-it theory. I DO believe it's all about integrity and that insincerity is the slippery foundation that will destroy anything in it's path. I'm not calling you a fakir-I'm completely convinced of your creativity and honesty. I'm just debating what you're calling obvious; that there's more to this simple stuff than we really think. If you want to talk about insincerity and opportunists, let's talk about how Clear Channel is packaging rap and rock and shoving it down our throats.