The Crippling Power of a Record Company - Can the Artist Fight back?

Azealia Banks has used Twitter to voice her dissatisfaction with Universal Music. She's actively looking to leave her label Interscope (owned by Universal) -read about it here and here .  However, can't because she's contracted to them.  So what's an artist to do when they are so clearly 'owned' by a label.  All that's left to them is to go public with their complaint - as Prince and George Michael have done in the past.  Twitter and social media make it easier for the artist to do this - no elaborate change of name (ala Prince) needed to get global attention for your grievance.   It's also interesting that she complains about the supposed out of touch nature of those at Universal who make decisions about her music and career.  It seems she has previous on this, having made similar complaints about her time at XL (part of the Beggars Group).

Where's All The New Music?

The BBC News site recently reported on a statement by the UK head of Universal Music regarding the difficulty in breaking new music acts.  In particular he complained about the fact that commercial radio (radio stations that aim to make a profit, mainly through advertising) are reluctant to play tracks by new artists and instead rely on established artists that are proven to be popular to fill their playlists and maintain their audience numbers.  There are lots of interesting statistics in the article that you could quote in an exam answer.  His statement poses an interesting question around choice and ownership.  We often think of the concentrated ownership and the profit motives of record companies as limiting the choice of music available to consumers.  However, taking on board what is said here, we may need to think about the ownership and profit motives of those who exhibit music - e.g radio stations and TV channels.  When was the last time that you saw a new artist on 4Music or Viva?