Thanks all for your comments. Very interesting.

I agree with Nick's comments about the state of the AOR scene past and present. We talked about it on this very board back in 1998 and nothing has really changed.

Stricly speaking I think labels should sign less acts and concentrate on the top quality ones. There are way too many average bands out there copying what's been done 20 years ago and bringing absolutely nothing new. Why would I buy a brand new band when what I'd get is a copy of Journey/Bon Jovi/etc. ? I might be a bad example but I have basically stopped listening to/buying records from newer bands because a) there are too many to follow and b) they for the most part lack of originality. I don't need 10 Def Lep sounding bands in my collection.

From a label point of view though, they need the turnover to bring cash in hence the high number of releases. It is indeed a very difficult situation.

I would tend to think that professional musicians would anyway have a lawyer and/or accountant and/or business advisor. I again take the example of the jazz guys : they generally set up their record label and are involved in all aspects of their solo career. It's time consuming but can be very rewarding.

Quality wise, most of those jazz CDs are excellent. The production, artwork and the packaging are very good.

My feeling is that from a business point of view AOR bands are a bit either "lazy" or old fashioned. They still too much rely on the "Golden Pot" (i.e. recording contract).

My take is that the whole scene would be better off if a) labels would only sign new bands with REAL potential and promote them accordingly and b) if bands would learn to deal with their own business in a more independant way and would take control of their career.

A lot of jazz artists have understood the word "business" in show business and manage to make a living. Even top session guys had to adapt. And most of them did. One way or another.