interesting point by richard Griffis on Rotd...what do you think JK

The majors are less and less able to find or break real talent.
Their system, due to shareholders, simply does not allow the inexpensive but invaluable art of development.
I've been saying it for a decade.
I'll be seeing RG later today and we'll doubtless be discussing it further.

A good case in point of this, was the patience it must have taken in devlopement of Pink Floyd, in cash from Harvest/EMI.
And here we are thirty years later, and they still are sellion millions of their old albums. Without developement money being put long term into acts, there simply will be no music left surely that is not independent.
This industry hobby of "throwing it at the wall and seeing if sticks", I first noticed in the eighties, although it must have gone on longer.
I will be intrigued to hear the outcome from your meeting.
We have taken a young band on here, of which I hold great hopes for, but, will they stay together? Which is why I tentatively squeeze as little money out as possible.
This also must be happening at the majors.

<<< A good case in point of this, was the patience it must have taken in devlopement of Pink Floyd, in cash from Harvest/EMI. >>>

But Pink Floyd were having hit singles right from the off - if they weren't would they still be with the label ?

And in the US Pink Floyd left Capitol as soon as possible because the label did nothing for them (or any other Harvest-act).

But - thanks to singles like "See Emily Play (No 6 UK) - at least they had a career by then !

No singles may have lead to them being dropped - and we would never have heard Dark Side of the Moon !

I agree with both the above points, but the gap between the early hit singles (Emily and Arnold), were a far cry from what was being developed , by the time The Dark Side of the Moon emerged. This took record company patience and confidence.
There is some very bitty material on the way to this classic album, but this too, sells as a result of its success.
It is possible, that Radioheads developement advances have been good, and they will stand the test of time, but I cannot think of a pop act, currently going, that we will still be listening to in thirty years time, as notably, we have been debating prog acts.
Ok, I have one! And that is anything written by Guy Chambers.
Which brings up back to the start of the debate......
Is it lack of talent, or lack of investment?

The Times They Are A-Changing.

Nowadays everything changes much faster. Trends come and go in weeks (or maybe months).

So maybe it's impossible to develop an act, even if a record company has the patience and money.

The problem with the majors is, they don't want 10 acts which eac sells a million cds, they prefer 1 act which sells 10 million.

I think you miss the point - pop is not supposed to "last" - it's temporary and disposable !

nm

And yet, I still remember, being sent a CD which went to all shareholders, proudly proclaiming the albums of Pink Floyd on their label, and also sending a snippet of some tracks.
Will the shareholders be happy, with an example of the companies works, which clearly proclaims in loud lettering, we havent signed or developed anything this year but, we will keep looking , so please send us your money and thank you for your continued support?