... intending to charge money for music.
I'm not about to say that musicians don't deserve money for their music, but look at it this way.
Ever since medieval times, music has been performed. Were these performers paid? Sure, by the king. The general listening rabble paid nothing out of their hand, or so it seemed... truly, they paid through taxes. Now, i'm not about to say "have the government sponsor music" because that will just get us overrun with (IMHO) crap like Spears, Backstreet, Sisqo, Bone, blah, blah, blah, etc.
However, companies don't seem to realize that people do NOT want to pay for music, at least not in the "off the shelf" form that we consume most crap. Music does EXCELLENT in venues such as concerts - entry fee, flat rate, and then all the music you can handle (or they can play). We need something more museum-format. With art, you are charged to go in and look at the stuff, or sometimes it is even free. You are able to take away a drawing or a photo (in most cases) - the musical analogy is an mp3. Not quite as good as the original, but still there. Plus, you're missing the liner notes.
There's a huge stink about music... why isn't there a huge stink about art?
Probably because artists gave up trying to sell and make big money off of individuals a LONG time ago. They auction art, for high prices, to individuals who are monitarily more like corporations.
Maybe the music industry needs to look at making their money off of different sectors. Movies, for instance. I don't have hard numbers, but I'm willing to guess that an artist doesn't make a TON more from a movie soundtrack spot then they do off of a few thousand sales... and the movie is seen by many more people, sometimes.
*shrug* If i had an answer to the "music problem," I'd for sure tell everyone, but I really don't. I just know that a lot of the problem is the fact that people are cheap, and we don't want to have to pay for something that has no real substance... Music is ethereal, and it's a basis of human existance (that's another rant in it of itself). I'm not saying the artist should get nothing, but i am saying that there should be a lot more "music for music's sake," and not just for the money.
<leonphelps>Yeah, now, uh, "sig," what is that?</leonphelps>