Do you think that is the outcome or the actual intent?
I think that's the intent. Pure conjecture, but I can think of no other logical reason for it. They don't want artistic types in any kind of position of power or influence. They could go Jacko on them (and not do the courtesy of dying at the right time so they can hawk a "best of..." compilation), or worse: they could do a Beatles and actually go into competition with them! If allowed to become influential, people might listen to them when they become a Bonnie Raitt, Prince or Tom Petty, and criticize the industry.
I mentioned a lack of artist development earlier - another side to that is
listener development. As our favourite artists develop, they take us along with them and start influencing our musical tastes (just look at the Beatles and what they did to mould popular music).
Where the music companies of the '60s were wise, was is in realising that they did not understand the music at all or know
what would sell, so they used hip young A&R guys to sign the acts and amongst the popular artists, also ended up with a variety of oddities. Many vanished, but some moved on to become surprisingly popular or accomplished artists that sold steadily to smaller, fanatical fan bases. The newer business model gets rid of the oddities in favour of the manufactured artists who are more predictable. I often wonder how many artists are passed over who might have become the next Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa or Pink Floyd - none of whom would have stood a chance of getting a foot in the door of the modern industry or would have been dropped after the first album.
What the record companies, and, indeed, the retail stores seem to have not figured out is that they should be looking at a more discerning market.
Ah! But there are a thousand fickle "marks" in the market (sorry!) for every single discerning listener. When they grow and move on, there are a thousand more. There are two demographics with disposable income - the younger one who have mostly not developed much discernment in their music tastes, will happily flit on to the next musical taste or fad and who are - quite frankly - easily led. The second is the older one who are very specific about what they want and are difficult to sell newer artists to. The second market provided an extra few decades of huge profits by simply replacing all their vinyl-based music with CDs. Once that tapped out and we refused to fall for it a second time with SACD (or again with DVD-Audio), they abandoned us in favour of the easier, younger market.
Of course, where it all falls down for them is that they have put all their eggs in that one basket and now that technology has turned things around they have nothing to fall back on and regroup. Worse, is that they are stupid enough to punish their own customers to try and keep the status quo (suing grannys, DRM), which only helps the image of them as the rich bad guys - and that gives many all the the justification they need to be "Robins Hood".
The industry can scream "foul" as much as it wants, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a now irrelevant middleman who has been bypassed by a newer, better technology that they lacked the foresight to adopt. They are the rail company in a world that has moved to highways and airways. They should have become the equivalent of a
transport company when they had the chance.
One thing I am sure of is that ultimately, the music will out. There will always be those driven to make good music and others driven to seek it out and appreciate it. Whatever the result of these "interesting times", the two will eventually come to some sort of arrangement that works for both of them.
