I really see sponsorship as a simultaneously optimistic and dystopian possibility for the future of music. But which devil do you deal with and how many really worthwhile bands can they really afford to help?

“Recorded music is more a marketing tool than a revenue source” for acts now, said Azoff, who also still manages the likes of The Eagles, Neil Diamond, and Christina Aguilera. His storied career, and well-earned reputation as one of the fiercest and savviest managers in the business, took flight with the Eagles, back in the Seventies when both Azoff and his artists were significantly more mustachioed and bushy-haired than they are today.

They also had a much easier time making a dollar back then. Today,“recorded music is down to less than 6%” of major musical acts’ revenues, he divulged. To put this in its proper perspective, consider that such income once was such acts’ “biggest revenue source,” he added.

Much of what Azoff said pointed to a view of music revolving around the live music experience. This, obviously, plays into his wheelhouse as one overseeing business interests so dependent on concerts. Still, his logic is convincing, and the examples he cited concerning what he called the “demonetization” of the music business were striking.

Artists walk in to his office, Azoff said, “who used to make $300,000 to $500,000 a year in royalties [from selling recordings]. And now that’s diminished to less than $50,000” a year. This means, unsurprisingly, “the creative side” of the music business is “very anxious” about the changes that have swept this landscape.

His answer, as cringe-inducing is it may be to artistic types uncomfortable with the ways of business, is understanding the branding and promotional value of music. He cited new deals like his client Aguilera working with Procter and Gamble to launch a line of fragrances.

Read the whole article here – Irving Azoff in Business Week Interview

I’m glad that you both have strong and dissenting opinions about how indie bands work with sponsors, (I refrain from using the term ‘corporate’ as it’s too inflammatory,) as it throws a spotlight on the issues that will arise after bands abandon major label record contracts. The labels have been the bank for many years providing funds for recording and touring and also enviable distribution reach. So, let’s say for arguments sake that the playing field has been leveled and a small band on Matador and a big band previously on Universal, have to now chase after some kind of sponsorship to improve their income stream around the release of the physical product.

As sales of recorded music slump do either of you have an answer to how best strike deals with sponsors without music fans thinking that sponsors have simply replaced the ” big bad major labels?”

We all have our own opinions about what constitutes (in your words) an “obnoxious” company to be associated with (hey, some might include the Universal Music Group), and your feelings on that matter are as valid as mine. I’ve already mentioned that SY have done a good deal recently to circulate their new music through outlets that have no connection to Ticketmaster. Your implication the band are eager to distance themselves from the iLike arrangement runs contrary to a news item on their own website Sonic Youth.com

The next time an artist chooses to premiere new material -at NewsCorp.-owned / not-paying-indies MySpace, can we look forward to an editorial lambasting them for their failure to support independent outlets? My apologies if you’ve already composed a few of those.

Make sure you have your facts straight. Pearl Jam’s Target deal is NOT and exclusive deal.