4 ms·

From what I have seen they were able to keep treating everyone badly simply because there wasn't (and really isn't still) a viable alternative available to band

From what I have seen they were able to keep treating everyone badly simply because there wasn't (and really isn't still) a viable alternative available to bands that want large-scale distribution. Sure, a band can distribute their work via the internet, but unless they are already well known they are always going to have trouble finding an audience. I hope that the situation is slowly improving now that there are more ways to distribute your work, but it's still a sad state of affairs given that 'MySpace Music' is still the best known alternative distribution model...

DrJokepu 17y ago
It's not just about distribution. Production is extremely costly. Renting professional equipment costs a fortune every hour. You have to pay producers, sound engineers, technicians, etc. Music videos aren't exactly cheap to produce either. The costs of the production of an album can quickly reach five zeros. Record labels invest a lot in artists (on not very friendly terms for the artist, but that's a separate issue). Additionally, they provide them with connections. They help them getting performances in TV shows, getting their music played on the radio, etc. These days a many bands chose the alternative route of becoming independent. It's not impossible to succeed this way but if you go down that part you as an artist have to invest a lot more time in marketing yourself than you would had to if you signed up with a commercial label.