Rock music, an energetic form of guitar-driven pop music, passed away in 2010 after being ill for the past several years. Anemic sales, high studio costs, and lack of label development are listed as the cause of death.

Of course, there’s a bit of an exaggeration here. It’s not dead in the sense that it’s completely gone. It’s just gone in the sense that it is no longer the music that sells. You can’t even blame file trading, as pop and dance are traded far more than rock. If rock is traded, it tends to be classic rock. Current rock bands are mostly residing in the underground, and if this sales trend continues, lack of label investment is likely going to keep it there.

Here is the sad state of rock in the U.S. in 2010:
-No new rock album went platinum in 2010
-In fact, no new rock album sold over 750,000 copies in 2010
-The highest charting rock album came in at #27
-Only 8% of the top selling songs of 2010 were rock songs
-But that’s presuming you call Owl City “rock” and if you don’t, then it’s 7%
-Or OneRepublic for that matter, and if you don’t call them “rock”, it’s 5%.

Now, some times when rock is dead, people can look overseas to find rock thriving in Europe. Usually specifically in the UK. So, even I was surprised to find that rock’s death is happening there too. This year, the number of rock tracks in their Top 100 declined from 13% in 2009 to a mere 3% this year. This is the lowest level for rock in about 50 years. Even veteran DJ Paul Gambaccini is declaring rock “part of music history”.

When you start to delve into the real declines in sales, you then also start to see that the bigger declines are disproportionally in the rock category. Does this mean bigger investment in rock would keep the music business more solvent? Or does rock need to be better in order to revitalize a dormant market? Or has rock failed to adapt the Futurehit.DNA model across the board and still exist with bloated intros? Or is it just gone and the new normal music business has rock as a fringe genre?



  1. Cameron January 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm # Reply

    Didn’t Kid Rock come in at #5 or ma I missing something?

    • admin January 15, 2011 at 6:22 pm # Reply

      His debut week, but not for the year.

  2. adam January 15, 2011 at 7:07 pm # Reply

    I understand that a 7 second intro is a radio programmer’s litmus test, and that one is deluding himself to promote a song to radio that doesn’t pass the muster of your outline, but that shouldn’t render all other intros as “bloated.” Especially if something in that intro is the x-factor that defines what’s special about that particular track. Intros helped make rock music. Which died first, the rock music or its airplay?

    • admin January 16, 2011 at 12:56 am # Reply

      You’re right that if an intro has the x-factor, then the song can work. But so few songs do anymore. It’s not the radio programmer litmus test, however, that’s causing long intros to be a liability. It’s the act of discovering them online coupled with short attention spans and way too many rock choices competing for so little (competitively speaking) interest. This causes way too many people to abandon listening before they hear anything meaningful.

  3. T. D. January 17, 2011 at 4:43 pm # Reply

    What’s up, Jay? ;) I think we’re just seeing a normal cycle in broader musical tastes. Auto-Tune has long overstayed its welcome, just like cheesy synth did in the 80s. Over the last 50 years, real rock has faded in and out in the mainstream; give it another 2-3 years and it will have the spotlight again.

    • admin January 17, 2011 at 5:35 pm # Reply

      I’d like to think so, but the signs this time around are different. Not to say that it’s not impossible, but a lot of factors need to swing in rock’s favor in order to resurge. The possible scenario is that the 13 year old who played Guitar Hero 4 years ago is now a 17 year old starting to form a band who may get notice in 4 years when they’re 21. We’ll see.

  4. Reza Izad January 17, 2011 at 7:56 pm # Reply

    Sell what? People still buy rock concert tickets and t shirts. Your analysis is correct on the sales side. There has been a decline in rock sales. The decline in sales ties to the decline of Rock and alternative radio stations nation wide. You need to check your facts. Your inaccuracy muddies your argument. Linkin Park, Disturbed, A7X, My Chemical Romance, Slash and many others debuted top 10 in record sales.. Train (not my idea of rock but rock nonetheless) had one of the biggest songs of the year.

    • admin January 17, 2011 at 8:27 pm # Reply

      The stats are accurate, sadly. Yes, many artists do debut in the Top 10. Train did have one of the biggest songs of the year. But then what? The rock albums quickly disappear from the Top 10. There’s very few additional top song sellers other than Train. If anything, your analysis corroborates mine. If there is a decline in rock stations, that means big companies who are actually good at identifying mass trends no longer find financial value in rock music. A sure sign that it is being driven into the underground.

  5. Rykk January 17, 2011 at 9:41 pm # Reply

    Rock is definitely NOT dead. The major labels went for the quick bucks, gave up on music & started selling beats. Music fans abandoned terrestrial, label-driven radio years ago. Damn right Rock is underground, have you seen the number of internet stations that play only guitar-driven Rock? Gotta get out of the 20th Century, sales don’t matter….it’s concert attendance. Not noticing any drop off at the major European Rock festivals either, they keep getting bigger.

    • admin January 18, 2011 at 1:49 pm # Reply

      Actually I do notice concert attendance, which relies on a lot of rock acts. And guess what? Concert attendance dropped in double digits last year. Yes, there are lots of internet guitar stations, but routinely pop stations outperform the rock ones. Rock is trounced in nearly every metric except concerts. But that’s declined so much it suggests that the genre’s decline is leading to that audience’s decline.

  6. Mike January 18, 2011 at 11:07 am # Reply

    To me, the modern challenges of the music industry make it very difficult for major labels to sign and develop rock bands. Pop musicians tend to be more of a “flash in the pan” – here today, gone tomorrow. As such, record labels can invest a lot of money into them and expect a rather quick return on their investment. Rock bands, however, generally are more of a “slow burn”. It often takes a while for rock bands to develop. For example, Metallica’s first album came out in 1983; they gradually built up their fan base before breaking out into the mainstream in 1991.

    Other times, when a rock band does come out of left field, it takes a lot of blind faith and a large investment of cash on the part of record executive to promote them. For example, in the climate of hair metal that existed in the late 1980’s, who could have predicted that Nirvana would explode in 1991 and with the arrival of grunge, completely change rock music? It required a great deal of money and patience on the part of the record executives to make this happen, and the realization that if the band did break through, the record company could potentially have a cash cow on their hands for years to come.

    In the current climate, with the music industry shrinking rapidly, I think that major labels simply do not have the cash or patience to properly sign and develop rock bands. Nobody wants to take a chance on investing in an artist unless they are a “sure thing”. As such, the only new rock bands being mass-marketed today are pop bands disguised as rock stars, who don’t appeal to classic rock fans, and evidently don’t appeal to pop music fans either.

    • admin January 18, 2011 at 1:37 pm # Reply

      I agree here. The issue I see is that there was a specific vital underground nurturing these acts with certain mass media willing to promote them. Remember that Metallica had Headbangers Ball on MTV for many of the years prior to their breakthrough, as an example.

      Another interesting thing is that while there are indie artists bubbling up, when they are at a level to “move up” (think Arcade Fire), they opt to stay independent. This is likely a wise move financially on their part, but culturally it tends to keep some of these acts more “below the radar” than they have the potential to be. It’s probably an OK tradeoff, but it helps maintain rock as a format more on the fringes.

  7. Glenn January 18, 2011 at 2:32 pm # Reply

    Rock is not dead. It is fractured. Thus you can’t necessarily gauge rock’s health by looking at the top of the charts. It works for pop, but not for rock.

    According to SoundScan, rock is the top selling genre (by album) and alternative is the third best selling genre (second to R&B, which includes hip hop). Rock is right up there in track sales, too.

    2010 just wasn’t a big year for rock albums. Vampire Weekend and Arcade Fire got a lot of press, but their sales are pretty modest compared with A list artists.

    Bottom line, I think, is that 2010 was just a really strong year for pop music. However, part of that strength may have come from the combination of radio and Internet marketing — YouTube is great for flavor-of-the-week pop videos — and thus could signal the beginning of a significant shift in the market.

    • admin January 18, 2011 at 5:57 pm # Reply

      Glenn, I agree that rock is fractured. But there are several things at play.
      First, the summary report you’re looking at can’t be used to claim “rock” as the #1 genre, because that report does not break out “pop”. Also, it’s hard to call “alternative” the 3rd best selling genre because most (if not all) of the “alternative” titles are also included in the “rock” number, so that’s some unfair double dipping.
      The broader point is that “new” rock is not selling. The bulk of those rock sales, as far as I can tell, are catalog. 2010 was not a big year for either albums or tracks in rock, and if there was some new artists causing mass excitement they’d be there. Incidentally, rock tracks aren’t streaming at the same level nor are people searching for new rock artists the same way either.
      Another issue is if the rock “pie” is fragmented, that means individual artists will make less. If that’s the case, will that cause artists who would have been rock to move to another genre because the money is not in rock? For some, yes. For some, no. No matter what, the rock that remains has a much bigger hurdle to overcome than in the past that I believe makes it less likely to stage a comeback than has happened in the past.

  8. Musicfan88 January 19, 2011 at 12:47 am # Reply

    Every few years this comes up. Decca Records rejected the Beatles, saying that “guitar groups are on the way out” and “the Beatles have no future in show business”.

    Everyone though disco killed rock in the late 70’s but it gave birth to arguably the most profitable time for rock n roll acts in history.

    Make no mistake, Rock is THE dominant genre.

    New(ish) Artists such as Mumford and Son’s, Arcade fire, Vampire Weekend will have long careers and fans that pour in a ton of money supporting them. Kesha and Drake Will NOT, unless they invest in a water company that gets bought out by a multinational so they can fund there vanity projects that nobody cares about ala 50 CENT.

    Take a look at festivals round the world and the concerts that people ARE going to! They are mostly rock acts and rock heritage acts (U2, Bon Jovi). You may have a rapper with a US number 1 who struggles to fill a club. Or a band with no media attention or chart placement (Hold Steady) that does shows to 1000’s round the globe.
    If you write amazing music, and can perform well, you will be HUGE. People CRAVE it.

    Watch and see my friends, the future is bright and ROCK is alive and well!

    • admin January 19, 2011 at 1:26 am # Reply

      Yes, this does come up every few years, but this time is different. Rock sales at the top dont exist. At least in years past, you might be able to point to some sales success. Also, you can neve under estimate the pop stars that would still be around. In 1999, you might have replaced “kesha” with “Britney spears” and “drake” with “eminem”. Yet last I checked, eminem’s record was a top seller and Britney broke radio and digital sales records this week.
      Also, for every rock festival success, I can show you dance festivals that are bigger.
      My point is obviously overstated to attract attention (something few rock bands do nowadays). Also some “underground” bands become legends over time (see:Ramones). As for long careers for many rock artists…maybe, but I don’t see huge crowds flocking to TV on the Radio or Yeah Yeah Yeahs gigs lately, unless I’m mistaken. And what about the dance artists who get no media or chart placements who play to TENS of thousands like Tiesto?
      I’m not denying the strength of heritage rock acts live. I’m also not denying that some acts are doing decent numbers. But this market is too fragmented to produce stars, lacks major media support, lacks financial support from labels, and new acts in other genres produce stronger numbers than nearly all rock acts. This is not a recipe for a return to health.

  9. Jennifer January 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm # Reply

    Going off the traditional definition of rock music, I would say the genre has been in decline for some time now. There haven’t been any major selling artists in a while that can compete with artists like Gaga, Britney Spears, or Katy Perry…2010 was a huge year for pop. Although sales are still being made (Cake taking over as the lowest selling number 1 in SoundScan history), the times have changed: we live in a world where Glee outsells the Beatles and Steven Tyler hosts American Idol.

    Despite the brief resuscitation of rock with the release of the entire Beatles catalog on iTunes, sales of new rock music just are not there. As far as ticket sales go, hopefully 2011 will look up (U2 and Eagles tours starting up/continuing), but I don’t think it will be enough. It may be true that rock music is a piece of history, since artists such as Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Springsteen, and Journey still have some of the top selling albums in history. Despite rock music legends in the past, we have to cope with the fact that new rock music can’t compete in the current market.

    As people have already commented, some artists that could fit into the rock genre choose to stay more on the fringe. A friend of mine in the band The Hush Sound and Gold Motel claims that this is more for the creative aspect and the love of the music than it is for the money. This agrees with your book, Jay, when you say their music is “by definition, not commercial” since they are creating music as art. They could choose to incorporate more of the Futurehit aspects into their songs to make them more commercial, but I don’t know if they really care to. I think a lot of other underground artists are out there with a similar approach to their music, which is fine for their purposes, but bad for the rock genre.

    Personally, I hope rock music is just on a little creative hiatus. A lot of factors have to change for rock to recover, but hopefully something big will come along, stir up some inspiration, and bring innovation to the music again. Although I’m a child of the 80s, my parents raised me on The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Eagles. I can’t really think of any current pop music that is as timeless…and I don’t know how I’ll be able to explain Justin Bieber to the next generation.

  10. Ben Lazar January 19, 2011 at 8:14 pm # Reply

    I think this piece, frankly, misses the point entirely. It’s not technology that killed rock.

    What caused rock to become a fractured genre were cultural and musical, rather than technological, factors. Before punk began in 76-77, rock was designed to be commercial music. There was no “alternative.” And indeed, the first wave of punk rockers were signed by major labels expecting it to become the next big thing–when Seymour Stein signed the Ramones, the Dead Boys, et al–he thought those bands were going to be commercial. But while punk failed commercially (its cleaned up descendent, “new wave,” was far more successful), it created a whole new subculture that began to exist, often defiantly, outside the traditional record company and touring system.

    So in the 80’s, the split began in earnest. While you still had a lot of commercial rock, much of the vanguard of rock was underground–and committed, at least in theory–of staying that way, ambivalent about signing to major labels (R.E.M., Sonic Youth, Husker-Du, the Replacements) and of commercial success. Before the 80’s, the idea that you could “sell out” by signing to a major label didn’t exist. By the late 80’s, it was embedded in the subculture to the point where success itself was looked upon with suspicion.

    Then came the early 90’s and the very surprising alternative explosion that occurred in the wake of Nirvana’s explosion. But even that era–where seemingly every left-of-center indie leaning band got signed–was a brief period where the vanguard of rock mixed with its mainstream. By 1995, Kurt Cobain was dead and bands like Bush, Better Than Ezra and Candlebox were the new “alternative.”

    Since the Nirvana era, I am hard pressed to find a band that has combined underground credentials with true commercial success. Radiohead, despite their critical success, has never been a singles band (with the exception of “Creep”) and their albums haven’t been monster sellers. They’re a big band–but on the margins. The concept of hit singles are alien to them.

    In the online era, the fragmentation has only increased in rock. Think of Pitchfork and compare it to Rolling Stone in its heyday. Both incredibly influential with their respective audiences, but Pitchfork operates on a much smaller scale, writing about artists who are much more niche oriented, who don’t even view traditional commercial success as a possibility. Their readership is relatively narrow. Rolling Stone dealt with rock at its biggest as both a cultural and commercial force. Their decline in terms of that began way before the Internet and new technologies emerged–it began when there weren’t that many great AND commercial bands anymore.

    Where the most interesting rock music of the last 20 years or so (probably more like 30) has gone is similar to where jazz started to go in the late 40’s with the emergence of Dizzie Gillespie, Charlie Parker and bop–a vanguard of the music going in a direction that is too challenging for the mass audience to really get, while also altering the playing field of the music entirely. Arcade Fire, for all of their qualities, just don’t make very commercial music. And they don’t really try to. Culturally, they’re not supposed to. When the “best” bands within a genre don’t even try to write hit singles, often times because to do so would inspire derision by their most ardent supporters, its no accident that they don’t become that big. And that has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with culture and the music itself.

    If rock is to become a more dominant form of popular music again, it will only be because a band believes that you can be great AND commercial…and have the skills, passion and commitment to really pull it off.

    Or in other words, all of everyone’s bloviating can be blown apart by one revolutionary song.

    • admin January 19, 2011 at 9:14 pm # Reply

      I never said technology killed rock. So I hardly missed the point. And yes, underground fragmentation has existed throughout (such as punk). The key difference, though,is that a mainstream rock style also existed. That way, when the underground became mainstream, it had a place to go. This time, there is no mainstream rock success. So where does the underground go? I suggest it stays there.

  11. Musicfan88 January 19, 2011 at 8:44 pm # Reply

    Jay, you touched on an important point that i think is at the heart of the issue. The way rock music is marketed and recorded in 2010 is very different to the 60’s 70’s and 80’s.
    Major record labels are trying to produce rock acts like they are pop stars, in turn not allowing them to mature and create classic albums. U2 would have been dropped had they come out in 2010 with their 2nd record “October”. People forget that “Dark side of the Moon” was Pink Floyd’s 8th record. This kind of artist development and investment is no longer conceivable with the current state of affairs in the industry. In defense of labels the elephant in the room in also the reality that new rock acts are creating music that cannot explode into a mega hit and influence popular culture. The level of songwriting, skill and performance abilities from modern rock music have gone down. There is a severe lack of IDENTITIES and PERSONALITIES in rock music. Where is the danger? The rebellion, coupled with the ability to write and perform hit songs?

  12. david ehrlich January 20, 2011 at 12:23 pm # Reply

    If rock is dead why do so many teenagers listen to “classic rock” (i think it’s funny they call it that). Rock is not Dead; it’s diffused. Consolidation of radio has narrowed playlists so critical mass needed to get notworthy artists noticed has been corrupted. Just like the Beatles replace Elvis and the Stones supplanted the Beatles so will another force come along that overcomes the current obstacles…i think the author’s premise; that kids don’t like rock anymore is belied by the popularity of “classic rock”, it’s just that’s the only rock radio plays.

    • admin January 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm # Reply

      As I stated, if rock IS active, it is in the classic rock vein. Many (including myself) say CDs are dead, yet Wal-Mart still has them. If it’s to remain vital, the new acts have to get some kind of mass traction, and that’s just not happening.

  13. GKILLX January 20, 2011 at 1:20 pm # Reply

    Avenged Sevenfold 1st week was 163k #1 album
    Disturbed 1st week 179k #1 album
    Linkin Park 1st week was 250k #1 album
    All three are still selling steadily. However, Linkin Park is underperforming which has more to do with quality of the album (most fans don’t like it).
    It looks like Warner Bros. Records knows how to develop rock bands especially over the last decade etc.
    Rock isn’t dead but definitely going through a transition. The genre needs some fresh blood who can write songs to excite the masses.

    • admin January 20, 2011 at 2:26 pm # Reply

      Yes, but those bands have all been around for 12 years or longer. While they may “sell steadily”, only Linkin Park has actually gone gold. None have gone platinum. Meanwhile, other genres are now more reliably steady sellers than rock. Three years ago, 3 of the 5 acts on the album chart the longest were rock acts. Now, it’s only one. The problem also is that even if the fresh blood comes around to excite the masses, there’s no mainstream outlet prepared to expose them as such.

  14. Andy January 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm # Reply

    So true.

    “Current rock bands are mostly residing in the underground.”

    DIY rock bands are making money for themselves and impacting peoples lives through their music in non-traditional systems.

    Hats off the them.

  15. Andy January 20, 2011 at 1:53 pm # Reply

    Just because we aren’t seeing them in Billboard, or an Exec isn’t screaming about them, or they’re not on Pitchfork’s radar, doesn’t mean they’re dead.

    • admin January 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm # Reply

      As I said clearly in the post, the “dead” comment is an exaggeration. Today’s rock doesn’t even come close to creative hyperbole to attract attention, which is part of the problem. I salute any artist who gets financial success, especially in a DIY/underground vein. But that doesn’t mean it’s vibrant. They still pack ‘em in at classical music halls around the globe…how would you classify that genre?

  16. Ray January 20, 2011 at 3:56 pm # Reply

    Rock certainly isn’t dead on the live side. Yes, the live business was down in 2010, for a lot of reasons, the death of rock not being one of them. The major festivals, Coachella, Lolla, Bonnaroo, ACL, etc., stateside, and the Euro fests, most all had huge years, and are all rock-based with scattered pop or rock-pop hybrids. Dance/electronic fests are pretty big and growing, country has a few big fests, but when is the last time you heard of a hip-hop or dance-pop festival drawing 85,000 people? Seven of the top 10 tours were rock tours, eight if you count James Taylor/Carole King as rock. Too many people focus too much on recorded content as the barometer when it’s actually just a blip on the radar screen of how humans have enjoyed music over the history of civilization. Maybe it’s recorded content that’s dead or dying, at least as a commodity that sells, rock content included. Dating back to neanderthals beating on stumps, one might say rock is the original music, and it is here to stay.

    • admin January 20, 2011 at 5:01 pm # Reply

      Yes, but new rock absolutely is. The youngest rock band on the Top 50 tours of the year is Muse. Meanwhile, several young new non-rock acts are all throughout the Top 50, including Gaga, Bieber, Taylor, Jonas, and Alicia Keys. We used to see several new rock acts in the Top 50. Now, the only successful rock act of the past decade live based on these numbers is Muse? Only one? But we’re supposed to still believe the genre is healthy?
      If anything, the festival success confirms my observation. If only one new rock act can tour successfully on its own, but the others require a festival? And not only that, to be more successful last year, these festivals needed to add headliners such as Jay-Z (Coachella & Bonnaroo), Lady Gaga (Lollapalooza), Stevie Wonder (Bonnaroo) and Norah Jones (ACL)? If rock wasn’t hurting, these festivals wouldn’t have needed to pay big bucks to have them come. It’s not just recorded music.

  17. Steve Wonsiewicz January 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm # Reply

    Just think about it. When was the last time a new, truly innovative, current-based rock format hit the airwaves? I can’t think of one in the past 15-20 years. Yeah yeah yeah, there’s internet radio. I get all that, but terrestrial radio still draws in listeners. Just ask my 16 year-old son. All he listens to are the local pop stations when he’s in the car (a lot more these days now that he has his license), and the playlists on those stations are dominated by music that is decidedly NOT rock. The rock industry lost me as a customer a long time ago and they’re not converting new listeners. So it’s little wonder that rock music sales are falling off a cliff.

  18. Jake Rye January 21, 2011 at 6:06 pm # Reply

    This blog is neat. It stirs a fire within me. I am pretty sure there are a few rock bands out there still kicking butt even in 2010. Ever heard of Jimmy Eat World, Muse (a few million albums sold in 2010 world wide), U2 (I think they sell a few), Foo Fighters (Yep they sell a few too), 30 Seconds to Mars…
    And look again at how many artists total in all genres sold over a million albums…I believe it was about 20 or so… Eminem, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift etc…Also,keep in mind that the industry is much smaller than it was 5 years ago. Less money is being invested in all bands. That’s why there are fewer top shelf acts. More people are seeing indie concerts and buying indie albums than ever before…
    Being a member of the Grammy Association and a producer I tend to follow these trends. The good news is that we don’t need to worry about all this silliness. People will buy the music they want. How do I know this. Because thats exactly what they are doing.

    • admin January 21, 2011 at 6:53 pm # Reply

      Jimmy Eat World hasn’t broken 100k in the 4 months since release. Foo Fighters haven’t had a new album in 4 years. 30 Seconds To Mars hasn’t gone Gold over a year since release. Muse is probably the only real “new” uneqivocal success story of the last decade, in both record sales and touring. The rest are either acts that have been around for over ten years (U2) or are acts that sell decently but aren’t in the tops of any list (Arcade Fire). The issue is that if the whole business decreases, then rock should stay at a similar proportion. However, that proportion of chart toppers has shrunk dramatically, which has never happened before. Also, saying more people are spending money on “indie” bands is only anecdotal. There is no real way to gauge that. I do agree that the “indie underground” is very vibrant and profitable for many, but it’s still underground. Overall, I’m glad that this stirs a fire. If anything, rock has had mininmal fire under its belly in recent years and could be a cause for the softness it endures to date.

  19. Musicfan88 January 22, 2011 at 8:36 pm # Reply

    Rock Is The Most Popular Digital Download Genre

  20. admin January 23, 2011 at 8:52 pm # Reply

    Musicfan88, read my Part 2 to show you how this data should be read…

  21. Eelu March 23, 2011 at 2:37 pm # Reply

    Interesting article. It reads a lot like this one:

    • admin March 23, 2011 at 3:57 pm # Reply

      Yes, that article was a starting point for my thoughts. I linked to that article in the original post.

  22. Eelu March 23, 2011 at 5:24 pm # Reply

    According to your blog, this is the “original” post. I guess I’m missing something. I think you are too.

  23. Mike N March 28, 2011 at 9:05 am # Reply

    Typical BS. Post a provocative but specious topic and get a bunch of people to argue pros and cons. Good job.

    • admin March 28, 2011 at 12:35 pm # Reply

      I’d agree if it wasn’t backed up by facts. Sorry.

  24. Mike N April 5, 2011 at 7:50 am # Reply

    “facts all come with points of view, facts don’t do what I want them to.”
    Again, good job of putting up a BS column and getting comments. You must have worked on a morning show. But I make a lot of money off people like you and the fools that believe it. I bought BP when they were dead and I’ll buy rock when it is down too. Please – keep making broad pronouncements for the masses.

Leave a Reply to Eelu Click here to cancel reply.