For decades, artist development and management have been structured around the major label system, with a few independent variations. Here’s how it has typically worked:

1. Artist Development (Label-Controlled)

Major labels historically invested in promising artists through development deals. These deals provided funding for training, image-building, songwriting, and production—but with strings attached. Labels controlled the process, deciding everything from branding to sound direction. If an artist didn’t meet expectations, the label could drop them, leaving the artists in debt for the investment the labels made.

2. Today

Major labels are doing far less in terms of traditional artist development than they used to. Decades ago, labels would sign promising artists early in their careers, provide financial backing, and invest time in developing their sound, image, stage presence, and overall brand before pushing them into the mainstream. However, in today’s industry, that kind of investment is rare.

3. Traditional Management (Percentage-Based)

Artists often sign with a manager who takes a standard cut (typically 15-20%) of their income. Managers act as intermediaries, handling business negotiations, networking, and career strategy. While managers can be valuable allies, their incentives are tied to the artist’s income, which can create conflicts—especially for emerging artists who aren't yet generating significant revenue.

4. The Bottom Line

The traditional model often prioritizes control over collaboration, debt over independence, and long-term contracts over flexibility. While some artists find success, many end up stuck in bad deals, losing ownership of their music, or feeling powerless over their own careers.