Somewhat detracts from the quality of the article when they select the wrong Phoenix Foundation to use a clip from. Last I heard our Phoenix Foundation were headed down a highly enjoyable Beatles meet Spacerock path, not a paint-by-numbers emo-pop-punk path. Also, when they describe Die! Die! Die! as "art-rock". Maybe "post-punk", which is just as meaningless a term to use, but what isn't "art-rock" these days?

There was something about that NYTimes article that depressed me. Quite a lot about it really. I mean the ideas around state-sponsored music are all quite sound (and have been debated at length here) but cultural marketing and cost-benefit is so un-rock'n'roll.

On the other hand it's gotta be better for a band to benefit their country and "national pride" than benefit some multi-national corporations "bottom line" and get screwed over for every penny under a one-sided contract. Actually getting screwed over by a company is certainly more rock'n'roll than becoming a tourist marketing billboard for your country but even less inviting. And maybe "art-rock" is just more marketable than "post-punk".