they're actually claiming myspace has something to do with it? Have these people ever used these sites and come to realise that it's real world hype and plays in clubs which get people listening to bands on MySpace in the first place. It's just a FREE place to check things out, with no money being paid back to the artiste but another sucker signs up to Rupert Murdoch Inc with his 5th biggest website in the world.
Maybe what this really means is BBC will invest in something that helps break acts who aren't part of the corporate machine in the way they could've easily done with Sigur Ros before they signed to EMI or with Jose Gonzalez without the need for Sony advert?
What's wrong is the mass media ways people have to discover music and the way in which these outlets are controlled by sales and corporate marketing spends i.e. not about the quality of the music.
Surely quality programming should come first? Do we really only get 12 or so episodes of Jools Holland a year and a few snippets of 5% of the acts playing Glastonbury, to stand the chance of discovering something that isn't standard/rubbish radio filler or overblown dross. We're a country that thrives on the thrill and hysteria of creativity and storytelling and global stars who mean something now and historically like Bowie and Thom Yorke.
I'd like to see the BBC rival Channel 4, who time and time again take a risk on music and get something right but often with the need for corporate sponsorship.
There's a country waiting,