he's right about an artist/band having more control over their stuff, ..... but the big problem with this is there "quality control" anymore. Back then you had a lot of people involved with music : quality producers, engineers, musicians, .. even DJ's and Record stored played a part. You had a big music environment with a lot of ear involved. Now, just have a few people involved in a record is not good.
i dont know if i agree with mike about not putting all the best songs on one album,most record companies did that to ensure some sort of longevity for each band as not to spounge up their creativity too fast,i think thats in the best interest of their clients.
I know you posted this 3 years ago, but it's relevant today and will be tomorrow, at least if artists continue following the antiquated path of releasing collections of songs as CDs or albums (many bands are finally switching to individual song releases, which I think is better for the product and better for the fan - more focus is on the song, and the fan doesn't have to wait an eternity for the next release). It's an artist's job to create music. If they don't have that ability to create more than a handful of well-written, relevant songs, then they shouldn't be in the game. The record companies telling him to extend their material across several releases shows that they want to line their own pockets and ensure their own gravy train for a few more albums. And it shows a disrespect, and actually even a lack of true support and confidence, in the artist. At the end of the story, if you buy an album that has one or two hits, and the rest is filler, then do you feel the label has screwed you? Or the band? For me it's the band, because they haven't done their job. Of course, what is "good" and "bad" is subjective. But I strongly feel the labels got what they deserved playing games like this.
