I think the pathetic thing is that the industry is such that "product" is what's wanted...really moving work tends to be somewhat disturbing, even difficult to digest at times, which makes it less marketable...all anyone really wants anymore is a beat to dance to as you attempt to get laid...not that there's anything wrong with that.

As a 35 y.o. (obv, not young...) seeing what happened w/ grunge was an education. A real, fresh, meaningful music came along and--surprise--sold. What did the industry do? Basically find bands that can do the posturing and ape the pioneers without covering any new ground. I quickly realized that, for every "visionary" band that makes it big, there's at least a dozen that fail to make it (costing a record label $$$). However, any blatant rip-off act will probably get at least modest success as long as the "craze" is going. Long story short, a studio can make much more money trying to find the "next Monkees" than the "next Beatles."

Here's something I can't understand, though. I think Susan Tedeschi's first album came out about the same time Britney became popular. Now, Britney probably has the swimsuit competition locked up, but not only is blues (and blues-based rock'n'roll) a blatantly sexual medium, Susan T has FAR more sexual a voice. WHY would any 15 y.o. male want to listen to a putative virgin tell how she's "not that innocent" versus a sultry woman say that she's "gonna show you how to rock me right"?