The Guardian's Richard Wachman had the best of the weekend's articles about EMI (pieces about Guy Hands and EMI show up every weekend, like clockwork). The trust of the article is that EMI's fate ultimately lies in its ability to sign and develop new artists.

One thing can be said with reasonable certainty: eventually, the challenge of selling music both profitably and digitally will be solved by the wizards of technology and network distribution. What is less certain is whether EMI under Hands has the creative wherewithal to sign and develop new artists, which are the lifeblood of any music company and upon which its future ultimately depends.

EMI can place its future in the hands of a new breed of digital executives, but their influence on the larger marketplace is limited -- unless they can figure out a way to succeed with direct-to-consumer sales/experiences. Music companies depend on retailers and service providers -- the same ones its competitors use. When EMI gains from new technologies and new sales channels, its competitors will gain as well. Within each retail ecosystem, labels try to tilt the near-zero-sum game in their favor.

What EMI can control is the talent it acquires and retains. That's ultimately how a music company differentiates itself. Cost-cutting and a new organizational structure will only get EMI so far. The popularity of its artist roster will make or break the Hands regime.

[music jobs] Hiring? Put your job here by listing on the Coolfer Job Board!