it seems that music and consumers are at a point where neither can trust the other. so many bands made millions of dollars while actual artists wasted away in squalor. giant record companies branded and molded and sculpted acts into what they thought the public wanted and needed. they controlled the supply. and how many 12 track albums did people race out and buy only to find that two songs were good? there's an inherent fear of wasting money that listeners have. they also have a curiosity and desire to find new artists. with the help of smaller record labels and sharing sites like youtube, artists are now able to get their art out to the people easier than ever before. the disconnect seems to occur when people have established themselves. "hey, we're not an upstart garage band anymore. we'd like you to pay for the content now." but listeners have gotten too accustomed to acquiring music in this risk-reduced manner, so they are not likely to change. and as an artist, the dynamic used to be different. put out some jams, sign a record deal, do a tour, get some radio play, blow up. now art is more socialistic than ever before. people upload art onto the internet 100% free all the time - just for the joy of creating it. the person working 9-5 and then recording on a 4 track at night might not have ambitions to tour and make money solely as a musician. whereas someone who says, "art is all i can do. it's all i was ever meant to do. i need money for creating it." is going to have a lot harder time adjusting to this current paradigm. more than ever, art is challenging people to really abide by "i make art for the sake of making art" if you want money, you'll have to resort to better methods than chasing down each $.99 that wasn't paid per download. is getting money from a company playing your song in their commercial much different than getting money from each person who listens to it? or you could always get in that jingle game, homie.