Written by Andrew Read: Many established jazz labels depend heavily on the success of their major artists, but obviously that can’t be the entire strategy moving forward. You’ve mentioned limited resources—does that create tension between investing in new talent and managing ongoing projects? How do you balance those priorities, and is it a major challenge?
Dave Stapleton: I would say it’s a major issue. I think where we are now, as a business, spending money on things doesn’t necessarily create money. So you have to be very creative.
Of course, these days we have so much access to resources and technology that allow us to create very high quality assets very cheaply. Twenty years ago, the technology wasn’t there, so you had to keep investing to create a campaign. So while resources may be limited, in some ways that’s a positive because it forces you to think creatively about how you’re going to achieve something. That said, there’s always more audiences out there to find for any particular album. It’s about juggling the balance between how many albums we do each year to bring in the necessary revenue to survive and sustain ourselves.
But marketing never stops. There’s always another potential listener or buyer to find for another album. At some point, though, you have to move on—you’ve got to focus on the next record because you need that one to survive too. It’s all about balancing the number of people we have with the resources required to do the job properly. In some ways, technology is making this easier—the processes can be quicker and more efficient.
I often look at what Blue Note or ECM are doing—these are huge, hugely important legacy labels with enormous back catalogs. We’ve been around for about 17 and a half years. Our catalog isn’t as large as theirs, so we can’t rely on catalog sales. We rely very much on current, new releases to survive. Those other labels, on the other hand, can depend to some extent on catalog sales.
Andrew Read: Many musicians who read the magazine come to me regularly for advice, and having worked in the label business myself for some time, I’m interested in your view on the different types of deals out there. Specifically, how do you see license deals compared to production deals, and which does Edition Records typically prefer from the label’s perspective?
Dave Stapleton: Yeah, I’ve always been artist-centric—it’s why I started the label myself as an artist. I believe it’s really important that artists maintain ownership of their music, so from a musician’s perspective, a license deal makes the most sense.
That principle feels especially relevant today, as the music business continues to evolve. Then you start talking about contract lengths and all that, which is a very interesting point because as a label, your value is wrapped up in contracts—it really is. But I don’t feel comfortable enforcing 15-plus year contracts just to increase the label’s value if it doesn’t add value for the artist. That creates long-term problems. When I’m in my late 60s or 70s, what exactly is the exit plan? I don’t know if that mindset really works.
I feel strongly that the power to keep artists within Edition’s ecosystem should be through the work we do together, not through contract terms. I used to work with options and longer terms, but now we keep it very slim and simple intentionally. And that’s a strategic choice, which runs counter to what many other labels do. I think it ultimately gives the artist that freedom and control to do what they want with their music, and that’s what matters most.
Andrew Read: I know some labels only do production deals where they own the masters, but then the artist might not have as much investment in the project and could move on quickly. On the other hand, if you do lots of short-term license deals, it can make building a valuable catalog harder for the label. Do you think, as you said earlier, that consistently adding value for the artist is the key to keeping them with the label?
Dave Stapleton: Yeah, but that creates more pressure because then you have to keep servicing a lot of music all the time, and again, we have limited resources. So the question is, how do you do that? It creates another issue.
We’re living in a world where gatekeepers are more present than ever. Take Instagram, for example—they control all your audiences through their algorithms. We have no direct control over who sees what messages. Luckily, platforms like Substack are emerging, which are great because you get real direct access—you have an email address you can take with you. We need to decentralize these gatekeepers.
I feel like that same logic applies to record labels. It’s not right for one company to have all that control over so much music—if they’re not actively doing anything with it, it’s a problem. This is the environment we’re working in, and it pushes us to find new ways to break through.
Andrew Read: I agree, when you consider platforms like YouTube can remove your channel at any time, which makes relying on them a precarious strategy. I think it’s vital for both artists and labels to build direct contact with their audience. How do you advise artists to navigate this gatekeeper challenge and build a more direct, sustainable connection with their audience?
Dave Stapleton: People put so much effort into building Instagram and YouTube channels—both vital tools—but as you said, they can be taken away or hacked instantly, cutting off access to an entire audience. That risk is very concerning.
I’m always encouraging artists to focus on their own ecosystem: grow a mailing list, develop a website, host exclusive content on platforms they control, and draw their audience there.
It’s far more interesting to have that deeper content available directly to fans, rather than just relying on Instagram. Genuinely interested fans will follow you there, and that’s what really counts. Superficial Instagram followers don’t contribute much—they don’t sustain your work financially or long term. Genuine fans are the foundation.
Andrew Read: That’s a crucial insight. Many artists don’t realize how much streaming and social media views fail to build real support. The real challenge is converting those casual listeners into true fans who engage meaningfully and support the artist.
Dave Stapleton: Exactly, and that comes down to authentic storytelling—you essentially become your own media partner. Of course, traditional media, gigs, and radio still matter. It’s the combination of everything that builds your profile and audience. But it’s a slow process that takes consistent, persistent effort. You have to have a kind of stubborn attitude to keep going and going, day after day.
Andrew Read: Yes, of course. I think you might agree that most self-releases fail simply because the artist often lacks the necessary skills to bring a release successfully to market. That said, it can definitely work if they surround themselves with the right people who can help them get their music out there properly. Would you agree with that?
Dave Stapleton: I absolutely agree. When you’re releasing your debut or even your second or third album without a network or infrastructure, it can feel completely overwhelming. I get it.
But if you break it down into manageable steps, it comes back to good old hard work—finding contacts and reaching out. All those people are out there. You can find emails or phone numbers with a bit of digging online. It’s about learning how to communicate effectively—think like someone receiving hundreds of emails a day. What kind of message would make you respond? Demo requests that are too long are often overlooked. People look for keywords that stand out.
You want to create engagement—ask simple, direct questions. For example, instead of asking if you can play a gig nine months from now (which can be hard for someone juggling many things to answer), ask if you can send them your music. That’s a much easier yes, and getting that initial response is already halfway there.
READ MORE …
Last modified: May 5, 2026
