Even if the major labels were only useful outside of marketing, that would make them a pretty big deal. The consumption of pop music hinges completely on how well your image and sound is sold to the general public. It's hard not to like "Umbrella" when it plays 10 times a day on top 40 radio. When Madonna's album is at eye level right when you walk into BestBuy, you can bet it's going to sell a lot more copies than similar (better?) ones that are just sitting alphabetized under "Pop / Rock."
If your aim as a musician is to earn enough money to make your full-time effort worthwhile, distributing music through MySpace alone might get you enough cash to survive. If you're shooting for worldwide fame or the type of money that lets you live like a rock star, you pretty much can't do without the connections and money the majors provide.
edit:
The point of all this being, no matter how cheap it gets to produce and distribute music, you'll never beat the majors (in pop music) if there's not a cultural shift away from consuming the music served out to the public by expensive marketing campaigns.
The article would suggest that most of the bands that "make it big" don't make a lot of money, unless they're like Madonna and have stayed popular past the initial sodomizing. So, making a living off of Myspace would be better for many bands than selling 500,000 albums one year.
Part of my argument, which I didn't explicitly state, is that most artists would rather their work be widely appreciated than it make a lot of money (any money?).
Comments
Even if the major labels were only useful outside of marketing, that would make them a pretty big deal. The consumption of pop music hinges completely on how well your image and sound is sold to the general public. It's hard not to like "Umbrella" when it plays 10 times a day on top 40 radio. When Madonna's album is at eye level right when you walk into BestBuy, you can bet it's going to sell a lot more copies than similar (better?) ones that are just sitting alphabetized under "Pop / Rock."
If your aim as a musician is to earn enough money to make your full-time effort worthwhile, distributing music through MySpace alone might get you enough cash to survive. If you're shooting for worldwide fame or the type of money that lets you live like a rock star, you pretty much can't do without the connections and money the majors provide.
edit: The point of all this being, no matter how cheap it gets to produce and distribute music, you'll never beat the majors (in pop music) if there's not a cultural shift away from consuming the music served out to the public by expensive marketing campaigns.
The article would suggest that most of the bands that "make it big" don't make a lot of money, unless they're like Madonna and have stayed popular past the initial sodomizing. So, making a living off of Myspace would be better for many bands than selling 500,000 albums one year.
Part of my argument, which I didn't explicitly state, is that most artists would rather their work be widely appreciated than it make a lot of money (any money?).
"... most artists would rather their work be widely appreciated than it make a lot of money (any money?)."
On what do you base this claim?