Otherwise they kept on doing their jobs
as A&R, Studio managers, VPs, CFO etc. Pretty much a bunch of dinosaurs
with the exception of distribution and mass production, which are the main
things still keeping them going.
No, more like lawyerism at work, finding new niches for litigation and
fee-taking.
Like Napster didn't know what was going to happen. They flaunted the aspect
of copyright infringement and called it "sharing" enough that they invited
litigation against them - if publicly - and then made a huge frigging deal
with the people they were pretending to rip off.
** in my opinion, the whole thing that this points to is that these guys will almost always be at the top of that dung hill as they have the money, resources and commitment to take control. that's all they've really done. if you've ever been involved with trying to get a "major label" record deal, you may have some experience with these people. (the bands come and go, but the record co. people and "music" lawyers seem to survive - - and flourish.) it would not surprise me to have these people basically calling the shots in whatever comes along - - well at least when there's REAL money to be made.
to me, artists are about producing what they do, a very solitary or small-group activity and one that is not (only) done for the dough. most musicians do not take responsibility for the economic, manufacturing or distribution aspects of their art as that is not their inclination oe within their skill set. because of this they are most often beholden to the people who are so inclined or skilled in that way.
i think that this perfectly elides with the government patronage issue. if you look at the history of music, musicians have always been at the whim of patrons, whether the patron is the church, the "nobility," a mercantile class, press, government, "well-heeled true believers in art" or the "marketplace." each has had its advantages and its pitfalls. it all comes down to the "golden rule" - - you take their gold, you gotta play by their rules. by this i mean: if you're been paid to be a dance band, they damn well better be dancing; if you write a mass, the church better dig it; if you write some orchestral suites for a duke, he better like 'em; if you write a symphony for the london music society, they better like it; if you're trying to be the next brittany spears, the kids better like it (or at least a majority of your intended "audience" in any of these cases) . . . there are some who can subvert the rules to their advantage, but i feel that they are few and far between.
furthering this thought, i suppose you could say that some of my "patrons" from the other night had their rules followed, whereas some did not.
stig