Brenda wrote: > There are actually a lot of articles out there about Powell and his views on media > ownership.
I'll try to find some others. The Salon piece was not very illuminating as far as analyzing all the issues involved. A lot of what was stated seemed illogical/incorrect to me - then I got the general gist that the real purpose was just another Salon political hit piece. Sorry - just my perspective. The most I could personally perceive from it is that he has a very good educational and career background but smarts and education doesn't always equate with wisdom. > Maybe it just doesn't appear to be happening in a resonant way for most > of us because we're not 17. Not maybe - absolutely! But what about all us older music lovers who are still crazy about hearing and buying music? Guess we need some dynamos in our target market who can bring us the desired product, too ;-) > I'm glad that it's no longer the simple medium of radio. I've found more new > music because of it. Those days are long gone and I say good riddance, > especially if the new channels can remain competitive. I think the expansion of the various mediums which can bring us music is fantastic. I just worry about it becoming too difficult for most to access or keep up with that the benefits will be fragmented. Then again, I have always been low-tech. > I watched the change first-hand at Virgin as an accountant > (who knew jack about music) achieved more power by manipulating balance sheets > and gaining favor in the eyes of the board and the majority stockholders. The fact > that he was not and is not a music guy has more to do with Virgin's current demise > then the acquisition of the company by EMI. It really stinks - I have also seen a few accountant/bean counter driven companies completely implode because they didn't know the business and wanted to gain personal power and favor with higher-ups by being more focused on numbers than the overall culture of a particular business. It happens in law firms, too. > I don't think this categorization is entirely correct. Sony's management has been > stable for more than 10 years. Warners had been stable for nearly two decades until > recently (and the AOL acquisition was not the reason for changes - poor results was > the cause). I was thinking more about the various owners of UMG over the past ten years. I didn't think Bronfman was the only one coming from another business. Plus UMG acquired a whole load of the other record companies. It just seems that the constant turnover/mergers/ownership/consolidation has to have an effect. Bottom line - they are so run/driven by the numbers now that a lot of talent gets spun out as a consequence. Kakki
