I have been deep in discussion with some fellow bloggers about the role of the major labels. Prompted by this, and also an amusing blog by Fake Steve Jobs, I thought I would attempt a concise consolidation of my thoughts.
The blog entry by Fake Steve Jobs mentions that Majors are like loan sharks, providing loans to record records and demanding ridiculously high levels of interest in return. I see the point, but I don't see it quite like this. Remember that majors are businesses and businesses need to make profits else everyone would just stay on the dole or leave money in a bank (which itself makes profits). In fact, remember that majors don't make major profits unlike supermarkets and high street banks. It's a risky business, financing people knowing that you may get no return. So the ones that do make a return, the profit share is there to subsidise those that don't sell so well, or at all. You are never going to get business to not want to make profit. I think we are harsh on the majors, but that doesn't mean that I like everything that they do but I understand why and I don't think they do it out of greed (which I think the banks and supermarkets do). The musical world is changing and I am sure they have made mistakes, shot themselves in the foot etc, but big businesses do not adapt quickly. And they cannot afford to promote all the artists. I am sure some good artists do not succeed as they are not given the support but hey this happens in other areas of life. I was not given much support at school but battled through and I was in a good school. After university, accountancy firms hire hundreds of accountancy students and then filter them out and sack a third or so after the first year. Those that don't make the grade. They can;t be subsidised forever. If a major signs an artist on the basis of a few gigs, and then that artists sucks or the demand isn't there, they get rid of them. But that is why I also cannot find veggie food at KFC.
However, I welcome the opportunity for new ways of getting music to people and ways in which musicians are rewarded. I have dabbled in the past in funding a band. I gave them 1,000 pounds to record a demo. I got some of it back. They split up. Unless bands want to fund things themselves (which is more possible these days with technology) then there will need to be some outside finance who wants a return.
So I think the answer is, stop moaning about majors. Don't do piracy. It's not big. It's not clever. If you don;t like the music on majors then don't buy it. Seek out music out there. Send bands that you like emails of support. Help them finance their own music and distribution but it may be their livelihood so don't rip them off. There are still plenty of good indie labels out there or indie style labels:
1965 Records
B-Unique
Dance To The Radio
Deltasonic
Domino
Loog Records
Modular Records
U-Discs
so support those labels if that is your philosophy. I hate U2 more than I hate majors. So avoid artists you don't like rather than the majors. U2, remember, preach about our government paying off third world debt - which would be funded by you and me as taxpayers - but contribute zero to UK tax being domiciled in the Netherlands for tax or wherever. That's nice of them. At least the majors pay tax. How about I preach about finding a cure for Leukemia funded by U2's profits? Would Bono like that?
Anyway. A middle alternative if for music friendly types to support bands more than by turning up to gigs, by sponsoring bands. I remember Mark Webber, the F1 driver, having a sponsor Mark Webber website. Every contributes a little bit, and helps him get mega successful. He would then pay them some dividends. A bit like a band having a company with shareholders. There are a good few unsigned bands out there who I would invest in.
Peace out.
(P.S. I actually hate majors, but like arguing).

No body minds the majors making profit. Everyone understands they are in business.
People just don’t like the way the majors are running their business. The last thing the major thinks about is fans.
And I disagree with you. Pirate away. When the Universal (the Steve jobs post, which you should really link to) wants to pull out of itunes because they don’t like the lack of ability to control prices (i.e. they want to push them up) they are sending a message. The only way to send a message back is to pirate universal music and buy DRM free music from EMI.
The quickest way to let new business models develop is to let the one one collapse. Quite frankly I’ve had enough of the attitude of the majors, and universal this week is showing how badly they understand people.
Regardless of weather you agree or disagree with piracy what universal is doing is going to push people to it. Want someone to blame, blame Universal.
One of the interesting things the downloading phenom has shown us is the truly democratic nature of being a fan. Sure, I can say to myself: “Well look, I’m not going to buy this album anyway, I may as well download it and see if I like it, it won’t affect their overall sales.” but when everyone is doing that, the artists do really suffer. I think if you like an artist, you shouldn’t pirate their work.
That said, I hope Universal suffers badly by pulling out of iTunes. Morons.
Downloading will benefit good bands.
There might be things you download and think “they’re just not worth it” (e.g. Britney) but otherbands (Rilo Kiley) you go out and spend the dosh.
I think the only way downloading will really hurt bands is if the record labels force people to really think of downloading as the way you get music, and their will be a gap whilst equilibrium reasserts itself and new models appear.
Downloading hurts far less than the labels will have you belive.
majors suck and you’re right, exactly like a sharking bank loan. Will read the article/post you refer to now too