>or any online "chitlin circuit," I'll tell you that for sure.
>
>
>And THAT was the crux of our disagreement... NOT about whether
>or not artists can survive outside of the mainstream.

the internet is a means..not an end. That's been my point from the begining...I think this is just another issue where you've chosen to misrepresent what I'm saying just be be disagreeable..but then later down the line say exactly what I said before....

My only point in all of that topic was that there was a way for artists to make a living outside of the mainstream... (which is what your point was about jazz in this thread) YOU added all this misrepresentation about me claiming that the artists are making money ONLY off the internet.

the internet chittlin circuit as a vehicle for artists to make a way outside the mainstream...get heard..market to your audience and expand your audience....

it's working for a plethora of artists ....jazz artists too...

the earlier poster said that there wasn't an audience for jazz...you argued there was based on all the artists making a living and who are signed to jazz labels.... Well man, jazz is NOT prime promoted mainstream genre and those artists are utilizing the internet chittlin circuit the same way I'm talking about...Gregory Porter and Jose James again are just 2 of the many examples...



>
>>you used current Black Jazz artists as an example of artists
>>who are more authentic than D'Angelo and making a living on
>>jazz labels.... Previously the idea that there were plenty
>of
>>soul R&B or electronic music type of acts making a living on
>>labels that cater to that music and using avenues that are
>>outside the mainstream for black music was something you
>>dimissed....
>
>Nope. I dismissed "the Internet chitlin circuit" and I still
>do. Especially since many of the shows you put forward as
>representative of your "Internet chitlin circuit" were
>actually primarily terrestrial even though you may exercise
>the option to listen to them online. And then you were citing
>artists like Dam-Funk--who is signed to Stones Throw, one of
>the biggest and most influential indie labels around, they may
>as well be considered a major.
>
>I'm not gonna revisit this argument, by the way. I've said my
>piece and you sound crazy. Again: I run a music business that
>grew out of Internet buzz... does it make sense to you that I
>would "dismiss the idea" of non-mainstream promotion?

Maybe the internet chittlin circuit isn't working for the music you promote through your label...but it's certainly working for a ton of other artists...both new and old. People are buying their records...going to their shows...and you certainly aren't hearing their stuff on mainstream sources...it's internet radio..uk stations like Solar Radio or Starpoint radio...webcasts like Giles and the like.... live performances that are available on line (Jose James KCRW set from his BlackMagic album tour is a prime example)

you can move the goal posts all you want and claim stones throw is a major...you're proving my point...it's because you have an internet chittlin circuit that guys like Mayer Hawthorne, or Dam Funk or the Stepkids are ever heard by the masses...they certainly aren't getting put on through corporate owned media or tv....

the "internet chittlin circuit" made it possible for stones throw to venture into new current artists and break the likes of Dam and Mayer


>
>What I said is that there has to be some real world dollars
>being spent, or it is all smoke and mirrors. When you talk
>about an "Internet chitlin circuit," remember that in the real
>chitlin circuit, people BOUGHT TICKETS.

and all the artists I'm naming ..people are buying their tickets and their albums BECAUSE they heard them on the internet chittlin circuit.