Our readers appear to have spoken. Thanks. As for the culture industry debate, I have the following to contribute:

Those who believe that artists can and will ever be exempt from a well-defined microeconomic model are living in a fool's paradise. The heavily biased 'buffet' of mainstream music today, otherwise known as a collusive oligopoly, is just a skewed model that mostly rewards adherence to identified 'trends'. These 'trends' or 'scenes' are often artificially manufactured and may or may not have a basis in the actual existence of a localized community movement. There are notable exceptions though, as evidenced by my review of a few days ago.

Fairer distribution models that encourage originality are emerging but are still very much on the fringes. In the mean time, select parts of the buffet offer us a glimpse into what the undiscovered eclectic kitchen has on offer.

A major factor that will determine whether or not real musical movements will enter the public eye is consumer apathy. As Nick astutely points out: "The incessant need of the blind audience to be satisfied with the familiar has driven the industry to continue generating carbon copies of past acts." He then argues that it's the consumer's responsibility to make a conscious choice. But can we really expect the minimally educated public to do so? If not, has artistically integritous music been eternally condemned to exist on the fringes?