this shortlist thing seems like yet another misguided attempt at 'helping to raise the standard of music entering the mainstream of america.' the whole idea of mainstream music is so absolutely obtuse at this point, with most 'stars' being so vertically integrated that music is but a small and often insiginificant part of their entire celebrity package. look at beyonce, ludacris, jlo, britney or even someone like slightly less like sean marshall...i suppose the beatles, elvis and all did these things, but with the ever falling sales of albums and what has to be an extremely low level of radio listening (is there evidence of this? who the hell really listens to the radio only?), it seems that music is just an easy entry point for these very false talents.

strayed from my point. what purpose does 'indie music in the mainstream' serve really? to diversify voices? to encourage a meritocracy of songwriting and production? to feed into the psychological need for an underdog? looking at the choices made by the mainstream critics and artists (beck, pete yorn???, the music writer for time magazine, a writer from the source) it is all the darlings/college radio selections whose vapidness and crass indie commercial viability is debated endlessly on the fun v. smart threads of i love music and like boring critic flame boards. where are the 'oh brother where art thou?' types - the gospel, folk, jazz, 'world' and other genres that are also 'pop' and often more popular than those fannypack chicks will ever be. every person in the industry - inside or out - loves when such things boil up into 'the mainstream' because it is this truimph of the righteous and non-fame seeking. so why no actually celebrate these things? because it wouldn't be too glamourous to hold an awards show with a bunch of dirty folkies or bluegrass types.

okay. i am ranting. award ceremonies are dumb. the first short list thing went to sigur ros who are the yanni of indie rock. yawn.