I'm not trying to turn this into a debate about business ethics, but it's sad that people feel that shady business techniques are the only way to become successful just because thats how the next guy did it. Yes its the norm, but no its not the only way.
The problem is people throwing the shady business label around like it's a hot potato as if the label is doing things behind the artists back. People willingly sign contracts every single day without reading and/or understanding the terms. It doesn't mean the label is shady, it means you're too stupid to get someone to explain it all to you so you know what you're agreeing to.
People do bad business, but they also do good business. Major labels are not evil or the anti-christ or any of that other ridiculous shit people say.
Also, the music business has changed through the years. They use to have a thing called artist development, but now the big labels are only run by lawyers and accountants. Which means if their artist doesn't do a certain amount of numbers within the first quarter they're gone. It doesn't matter if they have artistic potential.
Labels providing artist development was necessary because most of the outlets didn't exist and the artist didn't have a means to really get the growth on their own. Technology has changed that which is why labels have stricter prerequisites and a higher bar set for the legwork a newcomer needs to handle. I agree 100% with it too. If you
can do it, you
should do it so the experience hopefully makes you more well-rounded.
As far as sales requirements. A business can't sustain itself if it's constantly in the red. It makes no sense what-so-ever for a label to continue investing money into an artist that isn't making it back. Every label has a balance sheet and if you're hurting it, you got to go. I agree with this 100% too.
This has seriously effected major label music because it forces the artist to try and sound like whats selling so that they don't get dropped. But, like Roz said, with technology is coming a lot more indy artists. And good indy artists. I can't even remember the last CD I enjoyed that was off of a major label, but within the indy circuit I can always find something new and good.
If artist X is better off working for an independent label then that's what he should do even though independent labels become more like a major labels little brother every day. If he thinks sales figures and the music business are so evil, or he only cares about the "artistry" then he shouldn't try to be a part of it at all and just post his music for free download from any of the tons of file hosting sites. Artists these days want... no scratch that..expect all the perks of being a major artist, but without any of the strings or sacrifices. These cats actually believe they deserve, are entitled to, and owed. And that's why so many of them fail.
I don't come across much stand-out talent and creativity when considering all the artists and music I come into contact with regardless of what labels (if any) they're associated with. That's one of the problems with technology. It's made people who don't have any real musical ability believe they're just what the music business and fans need when in truth it's exactly the opposite.
One thing point I want to make is that major labels don't and can't force you to buy anything. They can't force music down your throat. You're the one (meaning the consumer) that decides how and what you spend your money on. If "you" don't like all the cookie-cutter pop bullshit then don't buy into it.
