Record Labels Statistics

When a song gains widespread popularity, there is typically little inquiry regarding why the song successfully hit the mainstream charts. The general public normally assumes that the song possesses general qualities that somehow merit noticeable recognition. Some listeners might point out that the song became a hit because of its good rhythm, while others will claim that it was due to its melody. In reality, however, this might not necessarily be the case. For every song that becomes a mainstream hit, chances are that there are a countless number of similar songs that go completely unrecognized. This raises a question, who is controlling the music market?

The truth of the matter is that, for the past decades, major record labels have blatantly
During the nineteen hundreds, licensed commercial public radio stations commenced to develop. By the nineteen twenties, music was being broadcasted through various radio stations nationwide, opening new opportunities for musicians to promote their work and gain recognition (1). It didn’t take long before record labels came to the realization that it was possible to take advantage of the radio in order to raise their sales. If the songs of the artists they represented reached a large-scale audience, the growth of the artist’s career would become secure, thus ensuring stable profit for the labels. During the mid-nineteen fifties, record labels commenced bribing disk jockeys by paying cash and handing out gifts in exchange for airplay. This form of illegal commercial bribery came to be known as the payola scandal, which generated a large amount of agitation within the music industry. During the crackdown of the practice, numerous disk jockeys such as Dick Clark, Alan Freed, and Arnie Ginsburg were prosecuted for accepting bribes from various record companies. At the time, however, many of the record companies offering payolas were simply independent labels that were aiming to flourish within the industry, not corporate conglomerates
Martin, Travis Hirschi, and David Matza have studied the social control theory; they all propose that very little difference exists between delinquents and non-delinquents. Thus, they attribute the prevalence of criminal activity to the failure of primary social groups or institutions to provide reinforcement for non-delinquent roles. In essence, this theoretical framework suggests that criminal activity must be prevented by strong regulation, such as punishment. If some type of castigation is applied to illegal behavior on every occasion that it occurs, it is probable that a person will be less likely to engage in criminal activity. It is clear that if corporate conglomerates in the music industry feared prosecution every time they attempted to rob musicians from their work, not simply the bigger artists, the rates of corporate exploitation within the industry would decrease. Furthermore, sociologist Travis Hirschi expands the theory by pointing out that strong social bonds can also prevent criminal activity. Hirschi points out that crime occurs when two groups of individuals do not have a belief in a common value. Considering that musicians and corporate record labels appear to have very different priorities, it is not difficult to understand why corporate crime prevails in the industry. This also explains why it is not very common to hear about legal disputes between musicians and independent record labels, considering that smaller