Jon Johanning:

>However, this raises the question of what has happened by now to the old
>idea of "prestige images" attached to certain labels.

Not what it was, though the high-priced musicians are still the ones who
get contracts with the largest labels with the most money.  The prestige
pertaining to the major labels may have made more sense decades ago:
when the major labels were more or less independent or owned only by
broadcasting firms; when the heads of those labels were committed to the
highest musical quality--as they saw it; and when recording technology and
vinyl production values were extremely variable--and difficult to maintain
even by the "top" labels.  Today, when the major labels are owned by large
conglomerates concerned mainly with the bottom line, and when recording and
CD production values seem more uniformly high, in general, prestige--in
certain circles at least--may adhere to small labels prepared to risk all
for musical quality as they see it, but which are not household names.
But if musical values are what you are looking for you may find them in
surprising places.

Jim Tobin