144 said:People do buy from itunes or it would be out of business. Charity getting noticed isn't necessarily the intent of the artist. In Michael's case, he was being slandered, so his friends defended him by mentioning charity. His intentions were pure, but in order to defend his image, he had to fight the slanderous accusations. His charity getting mentioned doesn't take from the purity of it. Thirdly, you're arguing for the sake of argument. Like I said, I could name artists who are living well without being money obsessed. There is no blurred line, between contentment and money obsession. That line is clearly distinctive. You keep blanketing people, then when I mention it, you deny it. You say more money can easily be obtained, yet you say a record label is paramount. Well, if money's easily obtained, for obsessive purposes, who needs the help of a record label? Joey said his profession can be a struggle. Doesn't sound easy to me. Yet he's not selling out. He enjoys his craft. He stated he has success. If he was truly money-obsessed, he would never admit to any success at the present moment.
I honestly believe that there are some artists who are really not money-obsessed (& subsequently do not care at all about mainstream success). But this number is a drop in the ocean (as compared to the number of those artists who think about money/mainstream success). So, my disagreement has to do with the quintessence of your argument, rather than arguing for the sake of it.
Also, artists can obtain money easily when they are under (major) record labels’ contracts. There are innumerable, clear examples of artists who have made a lot of money because of effective marketing/public exposure rather than due to their music itself. For the most part (& in terms of monetary benefits) it is a win-win situation for both parties (artist & record labels/companies).