Now that you mention it, that's one thing that I never thought about, but it's so obvious.
How many of these bands are going independant because of the artistic integrity aspects of their music (Prince, Hole, all the Indies), and how many of them are doing it because they realise it could make them MORE money?
Does it even matter? I think so. This is just another case of the means not justifing the ends. If they "fight for the freedom of their music", only to see that they got more cash from the RIAASONYUNIVERSALEMI crowd, they undermine the integrity of everyone else who's doing it because they want to own their own music, and they want to produce music, whether or not it makes them a shiny dime.
Since you only hear the news that the media companies want you to hear, if it was a case of greed over integrity, all the general public would hear on ABCNBCCBSFOX is that they got taken advantage of by the greedy wolf musicians in the sheep's clothing of actual artistic integrity. How much damage would that do? Would truly independant musicians like Ani Difranco get lost in the shuffle, and get labeled greedy by the big boys, because there was one bad apple?
The thing that worries me is, how do you know the difference?
I'm not saying that these bands in particular are doing this, but "rock and rollers" like to have a bad ass reputation, and this does seem to be this generations bad ass.
I hope not...
This is my .sig. It isn't very big. (an oldie, but a goodie)