(no subject)

[jfb]

Eric Olsen wrote a piece for MSNBC last week on the end of Pearl Jam's association with a major label:

If Pearl Jam — now touring the United States to wildly enthusiastic crowds — is able to create a successful business model mobilizing its fans via the Internet and engaging in such “crazy” stunts as releasing live double albums of every show it performs, this could be the beginning of a stampede away from the lumbering dinosaurs that the major labels have become.

Well, I guess. And, you know, I think such a stampede would be a great idea, regardless.

But if Pearl Jam--after twelve years of major-label-backed success, and the kind of promotion (music videos, national airplay) that only money can buy--continues to make money off its well-deserved fan base, well, what does that prove? The real test is whether bands can be successful (and I'll leave the definition of "success" open for interpretation) without signing a seven-record, decade-long contract in the first place.

Comments

[jfb.livejournal.com]

You may be right--I hope you're right--that in the long run you can make more money on your own than most bands do with a major label. My point is only that Pearl Jam is not most bands, and we shouldn't look to them as an example. Sounds like you weren't looking to them as anything. :-)

I wonder how often musicians really do wind up playing music they don't care about. It seems to me that most of the time what major label money does is not replace someone's music with something else, but take someone's music and make it glossier--but they can still play it raw once they get out of the studio.