It is odd to decry the distribution of your own material by those that do not want to remunerate you but you, in the same post, point out that you will not pay for music. I am baffled at the contradiction within the space of a single post.

However, not my point.

It is the unwillingness to pay for new artist (or artists that are not formulaic) that has now cornered the music industry in to only putting releases that are 'sure things'. Whereas the industry standard deal in the 70's was a three album deal and up to you to make sales happen in those three, you now get one shot and you best work within a formula to do it. Because risk no longer pays, labels do not take them.

Risk payed in the 70's. Peter Frampton had, at best, a middling career before 'Comes Alive' was released as the biggest selling album ever to that date.

Risk nowadays does not. If the artist is mildly interesting but not an easily marketable entity, they will likely get passed over. There is no financial benefit in doing so.

People demonize the labels for this inability to cultivate new and interesting artists. Labels have always existed to make money. However, they were more apt to develop an artist because it could net a long term payoff.

People unwilling to pay for music is a prime culprit. A wholly uninteresting popular music landscape exists because people have not connected their own personal actions to the action of those whom they no longer pay for services (ie - labels).