[quote]Not even remotely true. You know how many scandals there have been over the years concerning record promoters bribing radio DJs to play the tunes they're repping ? The musical talent may have been "more organic." But fame has always been about marketing and sales.

Sure there was always payola, I'm quite aware of that. There still is payola to some extent, it's handled differently these days. I meant, the relentlessness involved in promoting so much truly bad 'pop 'music' these days. Years ago, it wasn't so obvious.

Years ago, there also weren't as many platforms pushing music, it wasn't so in your face. The internet has made music, and everything else, more immediate. Years ago, music fans had to wait a month to read about their music faves in magazines. Most fans anticipated a new LP by their fave bands and solo artists, if they loved their music, they didn't care about an advertising campaign.

Marketing was and is important, but relentless marketing was and is never a guarantee that a record will sell. I know that is a fact, I work in advertising..

Years ago, the bands seemed to be more original and there was also more diversity in rock and pop music.

In the end, it's up to the fans if they want to buy what is shoved down their throats. Bribing promoters and paying off DJs only went so far. It's the same with films, fashion and well, everything. There is just so much that behind-the-scenes hype can do, same with relentless advertising.

You've got to give music fans much more credit than believing all the hype. Not all music fans are easily duped and gullible, some actually enjoy the music and don't get all wrapped up with a band's or a singer's image. They could give a shit about the marketing aspect.

In the end, you cannot force people to buy terrible music, see awful films, purchase horrible clothing and read crappy novels.