I remain confused about the state of the music industry

First of all, I'm back in New Orleans now, which doesn't really mean anything for you, unless you know me, in which case I'm either closer or farther away from you, depending on where you know me from.

But MSNBC has two articles about bands that, you'd think, they wouldn't have anything to say about. First of all, the Arcade Fire and, second of all, Bright Eyes. Actually, everyone except I, it seems, have weighed in on the Arcade Fire (it's not gonna happen now, either) and Bright Eyes has been showing up right between the Killers and Nelly on people's facebook.com profles. Indeed, with Modest Mouse, Franz Ferdinand, etc., it seems that 2005 could get even weirder for those of us who have been following "progressive" or "independent" or whatever for a while.

Could it have something to do with the fact that legal downloads finally outstripped CD single sales or that CD sales were up by 2.3% over 2003, even with increased downloading?

Maybe the big media corporations are finally figuring out that just because these artists' reputations generally have spread via online trading, downloading, show attendance, word of mouth, etc, doesn't mean that their CD sales are going to be hurt. In fact, it seems that downloads help sales. Imagine that. The Wilco debacle may have been the majors first turn-on to this idea, but it will probably take a while longer for them to actually adjust and begin taking the risk with some of the more adventurous albums - not just the Bright Eyes and Modest Mouses, proven sellers in "indie" circles.

Meh.