Artists Are Products of the Music Industry? The Truth Is Even Worth - On the Dilemma Over Right to Artistic Freedom (and Finding the Balance)

It’s not uncommon that artists are usually seen as a product of the music industry, it’s basically an accepted concept. However, when you really look at what it means, it’s taking away much more than creative freedom. 

Even in the modern day, how major labels work is essentially same as what it was decades ago. To be supported by resources that could make them successful, artists signed to one of the big labels often have to give up creative freedom, so the team working behind them can step in and make changes to a song to make it the most catchy, popular and commercially successful. While the artist may still have creative freedom on some level, it’s the label that has the final say, which means they could have control over pretty much every aspect of a song, from the title, melody, lyrics, arrangement to album cover and how it’s being promoted. Since it’s a product of a team effort, the ownership to the recordings are also likely to be in the label’s hands.

The artist and the songs are no different than products sold in a well-designed package, behind it is a team of professionals who have carefully crafted it. While the artist as a product may be loved by millions of fans, the artist as a person is more like an ingredient picked to make up the recipe.

This is not only silencing the voice of the artist as a person, it’s also the threatening their rights to express themselves freely, because taking away creative freedom means the loss of artistic freedom. Even the UNESCO have acknowledged such censorship by corporations as a global challenge. 

For indie artists who consider to be signed to a big label, the question is how much artistic freedom and other controls are you willing to hand over?

What has changed over the last decade is there have been more platforms that are handing the control back to the hands of artists. With the rise of social media and reduced cost to produce music, it’s never been more affordable to be an artist. Nonetheless, compared to how signed artists work with big labels, this new DIY approach seems to be on the complete opposite end of the spectrum where it’s possible that an artist gets to make decision about every aspect of their music and themselves, but is it practical?

The nature of these platforms are nothing more than tools that can extend one’s ability to get more done. The lack of flexibility forces artists to shift their focus to learn other unrelated skills in order to make things happen. Thus, the new reality that an artist faces is they have to do the workload of a team. With so much to handle, it’s easy to get distracted, not to mention all the cost one has to spend on licenses and subscription fees to use these platforms.

However, artists don’t have to get stuck between handing over rights for resources and having creative control with no support. The purpose of having all the tools available for DIY is not about doing it all by oneself, but having the option to choose when, how and to whom the roles are re-assigned. It’s not a privilege, but an artists’ right. Talented unsigned indie artists deserve more opportunities to be discovered and be heard.

How the music industry currently works is clearly not versatile enough, but over time there could be more services that are truly artist-oriented, flexible to work with and form new relationships with indie artists like never before. Artists may still be products of the industry, but at least by then they have more control over the creative side of things and reinvent themselves in ways that don’t silence their voices.