  |
is it just me, or did it seem like back in the '90s, it was a big deal when an artist was dropped by a record label? Today, we barely bat an eye at such news. Has it always been this way?
To me, it's partly explained by the radically changing landscape of the music industry over the last five years. A record label is a business like any other, and if it fails to make ends meet year-to-year, changes have to be made. Dropping an artist is a tough decision, but it's a reality, just like having to fire an employee within a company or even at a church.
Of course, nowadays it's not as critical for an artist to have label support. If their music connects with listeners, independent artists will find ways to carry on. As long as the music is good enough to find its way to the ears of consumers, it really doesn't matter if a record label is supporting it or not.
My question is, shouldn't it matter? I sincerely want the company to succeed as much as the artist, because just as successful artists continue to make good music, successful record labels continue to find good music. That's why it bothers me that record labels today don't have a better track record with introducing new artists.
Unfortunately, there's no foolproof formula for success in music—but I get the sense that some record labels believe there is. Too often it seems as if some labels aren't interested in an artist's potential. Rather than looking ahead to the long-term investment that comes with signing an artist, they become preoccupied with the present ("What's selling now?") and the past ("What's worked before?"). Granted, we can't know what the future holds, but is it any wonder that we find so many short-term artists by focusing only on what's selling at the moment?
Let's face it: the synergy between record label and artist isn't what it used to be. If you look back at least twenty years ago, you'll find a lot of legendary artists who didn't start off strongly, but found their footing with time and artist development. Those are the artists who have graced us with careers lasting ten, twenty, even thirty years.
My favorite record labels are the ones that invest in their artists—breaking bread with them, praying with them, listening to their hopes and ambitions. They're the ones that enter into a long-term partnership after careful consideration, not short-term business deals based on shortsighted marketing data.
Believe me, I'm not trying to blame all the woes of the music industry on record labels—it's not all on their shoulders, and there are lots of factors at work beyond their influence. But much too often, it seems record companies are looking for quick success with a new act, only to drop that artist when the success is fleeting. Are record labels and listeners afraid to invest in the new? Or are we all really this fickle with our music? No easy answers, just something to think about.
Here's my reply
when you speak of an artist that 'developed' I can't help but think of Michael Bolton. He was the original 'Chris Daughtry' in terms of style and talent, but was an unknown rocker forever ( to most of the Gen. Public ) until his 'Dock of the Bay' single in 1988. Currently, he's trying to beat out Michael Buble' in a genre that doesn't fit his voice AT ALL. Regardless, he stuck with what he was good at all those years, and so did the record company, until the point that the style was no longer marketable ( makes me think of Point of Grace - will they ever be successful again? Honestly, I don't miss them a bit.)
As far as record companies investing in their acts, Rob from Pillar once said in the FOTF/Plugged in magazine ( paraphrased as best as I can remember) "People used to buy albums, read all the liner notes, and get to know the band. Now with downloads, it's 'the flavor of the day' ". In my pre-christian days, I could tell you what song was on what side and in what order of every album I owned: Rush, Journey, Kiss, etc. ( I had more free time back then, but really got to KNOW the music ) If the fans arent' willing to invest in an artist, why should the record companies?? Nowadays, I'm lucky to buy 2-3 CDs a year, and they are usually movie soundtracks that I enjoy. One exception is the grammy awarded 'Fingerprints' by Peter Frampton. Quality songwriting, production, and musicianship. Besides, how much should I invest in another CD with all the current bands rehashing the same 3-4 chord worship tunes over and over when most of them play at a college levels?
Thanks for the article !
Jim Cox
No comments:
Post a Comment