There was a recent link on
reddit.com to a
list of the top 100 record sales from Amazon.com that are "RIAA-safe". Meaning, I think, that the labels that put out said record is not affiliated with the RIAA, and by that inaction they are somehow opposed to the
strong-arm tactics the RIAA proposes as a result of the "terrorist" actions of people trying to use the Fair Use clause in the copyright laws.
Barring whether any of that previous statement was true or factually correct, the comments to the article are what baffled me the most. One in particular, actually, which stated something to the effect of: "I have never heard of anyone on that list. Thank the Lord the RIAA exists, because how else would I find out about music except through the radio and PR?" Assuming that this person is not trolling, apparently the perception is that without A&R folks in the record company, without
radio payola, and without the giant PR machine of the record companies no one would ever find any new music.
The irony, at least as I see it, is that the list linked to is a result of a self-selecting group of people who are finding good music that
isn't being forced down the throat of consumers. Why isn't this list as beneficial to consumers as the Billboard Top 100? Or what some record company paid to get played on the radio? Why is significance betrothed on the decisions that the A&R folks make and not on the mass collective who shop at Amazon? Or read
pitchfork?
It seems like this is a direct consequence to the
long tail that Amazon does so well and which is so lacking in mainstream radio/MTV. Embracing the long tail is a perfect solution: because of the virtually unlimited shelf space that Amazon has, the record companies are prevented from bribing Big Box stores to push their artists which forced the niche labels out in the process. Now however, there is an instant leveling of the playing field. Or at least the proverbial mountain just became a really big hill.