How did Janis Joplin effect the the music industry?
107407
She showed everyone how to use drugs and die when she was in the prime of her musical career (i.e.  Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Elvis....) We lost some good ones...
1007267
Think about how TECHNOLOGY affected jazz music.  \nFor years, it was all about the 78's.  They were cool & all, but you had 3 1/2 minutes to do your thing.  Then, they invented the LP.  You could have 45 minutes or so, cut in half, to say your piece.  I know that Ellington went nuts!  He was like, "Woo-hoo, I'm gonna create some serious ART!"  It must have blown people's minds.
525737
her singing and all are/were great.... She was good even before the dixie chicks (doing backup work in Texas as dad Lloyd is a musician and producer out there) but she is also very liberal and opinionated .... something that can be a curse if going against the public grain in country music\n\nAnd she answered your question in their song that's currently on radio (or trying to be) "I'm not ready to make nice"....\n\nfans have responded with sales going to be top 10 this week, but not to be heard on radio in either country (that has shunned them) or their new "home" at a/c which basically don't give a hoot about them right now either.\n\nThat's why every new artist in their contract has a "Dixie Chicks Clause" as it's known in the business.... If you open your mouth and record sales tank because of it, the record company will now come after the artist for the lost revenue...
867698
I guess it's not Janis Joplin.
752823
Yes it has been shown in scienctific studioes that plant sod react to music. and other sounds.\nPlants that were subject to smoothing low sound sof music wer efound to grow better and healthier than those with loud blaring music(these did worse) and those with no music.\nI read of the test first about 20 yrs a go but this i sthe first response to that study I have ever seen. \nThanks I alway wondered about the study if it was still ongoing.and will look into it if I get the time.
232152
1. Their music can reach more people faster than it would by just doing concerts and selling CDs alone.\nA great case study is the Grateful Dead.  Fans were always allowed to record shows and now that they have the internet, you can download hundreds of those shows free and they STILL have excellent sales on their studio-recorded CDS and band-issued live CDS.\n2. It can actually increase music sales...for example, if they make their songs available individually on a site like iTunes, people who would not pay for a whole CD can then just purchase the songs they want for a lot less than the cost of that whole CD.\n3. There is a savings in packaging and production fees.  The music is being downloaded so the musicians don't have to pay for packaging of as many CDs
556880
It is truly sad when u see someone with such talent going down the wrong road in life! I heard her sing on a TV program and she can't even sing anymore. What a shame! I watched her show with Bobby Brown and that is what i thought too that she is crazy but it could just be from taking too many drugs.
409355
the effects that it caused.
134533
The reaction to music is an odd one. The "Mythbusters" did a segment on it once. It seemed that the more SOUND a plant recieved usually resulted in more growth. Therefore, yes music does affect plants.
1035403
I think as a whole any new development or improvement in technology or methods of transmission and delivery of musical product is very good for music.  The internet specifically the use of computer files like mp3, wav and wma have allowed for a greater range of artists to get exposure... virtually ANYONE can be a star.  People also have opportunities to get exactly the music they want and not waste money on junk.  Internet has been really good for music as a whole.
251766
:}\nSounds as if many could benefit:\nhttp://www.mastersmusic.com/bio.html
987816
It's terrible and I think it proves a point that the stuff music channels and radio stations play has nothing to do with talent or quality but the almighty dollar alone. SHe has the money to get it there and now the people who backed her have to spend money to get it airplay and make their money back. It not only makes me furious but makes me really sad. There are way better people and bands around, ones with passion, talent and dignity who can't get a break because their pockets are empty. The whole thing sucks.
199867
In many ways, it still goes back to the Beatles. \n\nThe idea of the singer, song writer and producer all as one person or as the group wasn't as fully developed untl they came along. You had talented people, but the person who sang the song, the person who wrote the tune and the person who shaped how it sounded on the record were often three very different people. Now, you can go back and say other artists had influence and control; but the post 1960's musicians owe so much to what they did and how they did it.\n\nNow, artists demand control of almost everything from writing to marketing. But every rock musician still wants to top Sgt. Peppers Lonley Hearts Club Band as a concept, as production and as a piece of wrtiting and music.
557154
Those artists were inspired by musicians who were all about the music. The blues was the last great musical form. From it came rhythm-and-blues, rock'n'roll and much of what followed in rock. You have to go back to the roots to truly get it. Bands today are often copies of copies, all the fire is gone after so any levels of remove from the real thing. Maybe someone will put together something we haven't heard before that rocks. I'm not too hopeful, but who knows?
888848
elvis.........many uncredited sales, literally hundreds of recycled albums put him top closely followed by the beatles in terms of sheer volumes sold. \n\nIn the fifties, still post war, rationing era; singles and EPs sold as the teenagers could not afford long players. As a result, many rashly put together albums were released, with several a year by Elvis for example. This explains why artists like Sinatra and soundtracks like Oklahoma or West Side Story or The King and I spent months/years at the top of the charts. It changed in 63/64 with artists like the Beatles and Dylan as albums became more accesible to teenagers with more disposable income\n\nCreatively, its relative.\n\nNow its completely different where an album is the mainstay of an  aritist. A complete shift in buying as sales figures clearly show. \n\nIn terms of a body of work, Pink Floyd, Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, Marley and Marvin Gaye would be up there in my opinion.
82199
MTV ruined music in my opinion.  Music has been in a downward spiral since around 1985.  I'm 25 years old and I listen to mostly to the music my parents and grandparents grew up with.  There are a few good artists right now like Jack Johnson and Norah Jones.
725704
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=plants++music+affects+them&btnG=Google+Search