The artist vs. the record label

One of the sad facts of the music industry that, effectively, the record label has become the enemy of the artist.

The music industry has been functioning because the audience are willing to pay artists to play music for them. We want to hear good music. So the fundamental ingredient of the music industry is the artist, not the record label. The label is a management institution that exists to support the artist in reaching his audience, to free up the artist's time and mind to focus on the truly creative task.

Therefore, record labels should operate in a way that maximizes the artist's creative flexibility and provides him with a sound management (including financial) backing. However, we keep hearing about artists clashing with record labels. And it's not the unknown artists who are clashing, but some well-loved ones: Prince, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, George Michael, the list is long.

Where is the fundamental rift between artists and record labels? Before the LPs existed, the value of the artist, his renoun, came from his live performances. LPs were introduced as promotional material for the artist, and only later came to encapsulate monetizable value of its own. The recording industry is making its money out of record sales, not out of artist live performances, and that's the problem. They have to keep the sale of promotional records going, even if that's not the highest priority for the artist.

The Internet has exacerbated the problem. Now the record can be endlessly and faithfully copied and distributed widely. The record labels have lost their source of money. But that problem is the record label's, not the artist's.

The solution is for the record label to re-invent itself as an artist promotional service that embraces all media, not just the dying record.