I hope this doesn't come off as one of the way to common "corporate music sucks ..." diatribes. Without trying to be "judgemental" about it, I'd say the national music industry has changed greatly from the days of motown's hits (OK, that one was obvious but bear with me). The changes include managerial, technological, and financial.
It is easy to focus on the managerial changes. Larger corporations bought record labels, larger corporations bought those, and now large segments of the music industry are small portions of large entertainment conglomerates. The idea that an act has to be a big hit right out of the box makes sure we'll keep getting Mandy Moore's and Jessica Simpson's for every Britany Spears. It will also make it tougher for acts like Springsteen to get three albums to finally hit big. Blue Note, CTI, Alligator, Blind Pig and probably a lot more where started by guys that wanted to put out music they liked, they'd do what the could to help a "good" act because they knew good music in their genre. The guys at the very top of all the decisions, at whom the buck stopped, ultimately got into this because he liked the music. The fact that they succeeded has more to do with the balance with in themselves between business and art. Honestly, can the same be said for the CEO of Sony or any of the other big coporations. In a sense, the buck don't stop at the CEO of Sony, they just keep flowing in. This is the same as food: does anyone think the CEO of MacDonalds really thinks that is a great burger?
Technological changes has enabled "producers" to get what they think they want more cheaply and quickly, and perhaps even more reliably. I watched the Standing in the Shadows too, and my distinct impression was that the "producers" and arrangers knew precious little about music, and the musicians played what they knew could be played in the spot and fed off of each other. If today's technolgy were available back then, the Motown musicians would probably have remained local jazz musicians.
Financial changes are sort of related to the managerial changes, but in some cases big record labels are small portions of much bigger companies. Hit records have as much to do with what part of the fiscal year the music is being promoted and how much budget is available, what promotional tie-ins are there, what sound track is it tossed into, how can the people making the desicions be convinced that the project will make money. The trend for homogenation in movies and music and everything else (like politics) has as much to do with seeking a broader audience as it does with meeting with the prejudices about that broader audience in the minds of those making decisions. Take Rap (before it was Hip Hop). when it was in the Bronx, Queens and Englewood it reflected the full spectrum of life as experienced both by the audience and the performers. It made money for some people (Sugar Hill), because that audience had been completely underserved by the largest players in the music industry. Once bigger and whiter business people got into the business of making rap records it was "Good Bye Digable Planets, Hello Gangsta's." This had less to do with some kind of "gangsta" reality and more to do with the perception of the people making the decisions about what to sell. Violant and vulgar African-Americans were less offensive than positive, socially-conscious, politically aware Rappers. Besides, only so many records are bought by people attending block partys in the Bronx, the real audience became teenagers with disposable income.
With such influences how can "good" music stand a chance, let alone a good and experienced musician have in impact like the Motown musicians?
Daniel, and JD: Some of the best music I have heard of late has been here in these forums, and links. Some of these people have amazing talent. Truly good songs, and performances.