I think this is not giving the article enough credit. It's not just that people are "newbs" to music history, it's also that real music history is buried under manufactured-consent style industry narrative, which the article explicitly points out halfway through:

> the rest is music industry history — something we need to make an discerned effort to divorce from actual music history.

By the time I write this comment, the article has received 1.8k "likes" (or whatever they are called on Medium), and has probably been read by an order of magnitude more people. It pushes back against this narrative.

The fact that you already knew this as a music superfan (or whatever the reason might be) does not reduce the article's value in this regard.

Thanks for the links though!

As for the 'music industry history' quote ... couldn't agree more. The industry did and does a great deal of damage to popular music since it popped up in the 1930s to decide what songs appeared on 'Your Hit Parade'. I also wanted to take this chance to promote Montgomery's overlooked film; it gets so much right with so much heart.

And for the record: it was clear either way that your comment was motivated by sincere love for music and the people who make it.

Thanks again for the links, I did not know the film

I'm in my 30s and would say I have an above-average knowledge of rock history and still learned a decent amount.

Yes Payola is nothing new or unheard of, but how that played into segregation in music is something that's rarely discussed in tandem at least in popular contexts.