It does and it doesn't. I see a lot of similarities with the recording industry and the current start up "scene". In the music business, you get noticed by labels for having an awesome mixtape, much like developers getting noticed by VC's for having a popular website/app. Touring clubs makes a couple bucks, probably on par with a "McJob", but more often then not even small acts have a sponsor or some backing so they don't have to work full time and can fully commit to performing. My cousin got popular the same way; performing in small clubs, his record got noticed, hacked is way into a radio Christmas Show which got him noticed again, got a couple acting gigs, a movie roll, and now he's actually pretty big in the Midwest and overseas. Here he is; Tylerhilton.com
"You can want artists not to care about their recording rights as much as you like, but wanting recording rights not to matter is not the same thing as them actually not mattering."
I do agree with that. I want them to be compensated for their creative efforts, which means the artist, not necessarily their label, holds those rights. I wish they didn't matter as much as they did so everyone could enjoy their music much easier, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too I suppose.
Even that last sentiment oversimplifies the economics. The C.W. is that rapacious labels took an undue share of the proceeds from artists, so that buying a CD was essentially just subsidizing a middleman.
But it turns out, most major-label albums never recouped, and the artists kept the advance regardless. Labels served a similar function in commercial music as VCs serve in startups: they'd subsidize near-market wages for 9 money-losing bets in exchange for large proceeds from one breakout success.
I don't think reducing the number of small acts out there is a bad thing. Let's face it the overwhelming majority of bands suck, and plenty of people are going to do it for free as a hobby or just to get laid. So, IMO convincing the vast majority of starving artists to move on with there lives is probably a good thing.
Continuing the music industry to start-up scene analogy as used above, the same could be said for start ups.
I do have to agree with what you said, though. Most mainstream successes really are puppets of the big labels. If you notice, all the songs sound (about) the same sound, same shitty lyrics about whatever, ego-stroking, and bits of flamboyance to flaunt how much money they are making. They all even have the same career trajectory of talk shows, scandals, dating habits etc. Makes me wonder if the labels are, indeed, behind this or if these new "artists" are all just really damn similar.
Lots of good Indie Music out there (in every genre), but too much of it sucks. Surprisingly in the last year or so, T.V commercials have been a decent source for finding good Indie Music. Sam Adams, Sprint, and Cigna commercials all turned me on to great artists that I would have otherwise had no idea existed.
"You can want artists not to care about their recording rights as much as you like, but wanting recording rights not to matter is not the same thing as them actually not mattering."
I do agree with that. I want them to be compensated for their creative efforts, which means the artist, not necessarily their label, holds those rights. I wish they didn't matter as much as they did so everyone could enjoy their music much easier, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too I suppose.