Billy Joel had something to say about this. "Oh, you're an artist, not an entertainer. No-one made you sign a record deal. You made plenty of money. Just shut up and be happy for your fortune."
And this is said as someone who loves much of Reed's catalog.
Getting on label is just a deal to package your output and sell it. Doesn't have to come with compromises, especially if you don't do avant guard music but something that does have a livable audience anyway. You dont owe them to "sell even more".
In other words, the middleman pressing your records and distributing it, doesn't have to be your artistic advisor, on how you write or what songs you perform. Sure, if you want to put some water in your artistic wine, you can always do it. And if they don't like you, they can always drop you.
>I mean, don't sign with RCA and Warner and act like popular appeal isn't putting food in your mouth, by your own choice.
Sales of your music is what is "putting food in your mouth". You don't owe them money, you MAKE them money. Not to mention most artists in the 60s and up to the 80s with those big companies got horrible record deals and revenue sharing percentages anyway. They made the company $50 million (after expenses) and maybe they saw 5 of those, if they were lucky.
So your choice is merely going to a company with more reach, to sell what you write to more people, not to tell you to change what you write so that it sells more. They didn't sign a songwriter-for-hire, but a specific songwriter with specific tastes.
Yes. How is that related to having to compromise your art to do it? You can do it, and they can take it or leave it. They signed you, after all, no? At worst, the label doesn't think you're viable, and they drop you. The way Billy Joel puts it in that quote is like you have some obligation to be more commercial, just because you signed to a big label or because you sold records.
>Those people buying your music are what puts food in your mouth.
When they paid for a record, they got the songs in it, didn't they? Did anybody tell them they have some right on your future artistic direction too? Or what songs you play at your concerts and how? They bought a specific record or concert ticket, not stocks on the artist. They can always not buy more records if they don't like their new music.
>but continuing to accept their money while sniffing haughtily that you're not about that is disingenuous and fake naivety.
I'm not sure I understand the argument. You, as an artist put out some albums. People buy them. Perhaps they like them so much they buy a million of them. What exactly obligation does that give you? Didn't they get an album in exchange for their money, as promised?
Do you implied anywhere that you're "all about selling records"? If anything, by refusing to put out what they want you or what would sell more (e.g. more of the same), you imply that you're NOT about selling records. And not just imply it, but you also support this fact with your bottom line, risking not selling or alienating the record buying public.
So, it's neither "naive", nor "disingenuous", or "haughty" from the side of the artist. Sounds quite sincere. And it's not for the faint of heart, either, which is why there's no shortage of the opposite: "whatever the company wants", or "whatever will sell" audience pleasing artists.
Also, if the artist is "continuing to accept their money", this means they continue to give them their money. This means they still appreciate what he gives them, so he's not wrong by them, is he? The rest can always not give the artist their money.
I don't think that's the implication - I think it's more "don't sign with a large label for the extra exposure and income, while also complaining about how you never wanted to make it big because all you care about is the music. You're lucky, just enjoy it and keep doing what you want to do."