[tmh88j]

> The other half is getting rid of the middle men, who are now just struggling to justify their existence

I may be misinterpreting the quote, but it seems like the middle men are entirely the "issue," not the artists and creative people. Artists like Louis CK and Smashing Pumpkins have already proved they can make money without the middle man.

[crdoconnor]

Louis CK is able to make it on his own because he's already a big name. He can do without middle men who control the marketing channels. Smaller artists can't - not so easily, anyway.

[tmh88j]

Justin Bieber was a nobody until he put his videos on Youtube. Kendrick Lamar was discovered this way too. It's easier to gain recognition now than ever. If the world enjoys what you produce you don't have to worry as much about a distribution channel like you did 10+ years ago.

[chaz]

Justin Bieber had just 70k YT views [1] before he was discovered by Scooter Braun. He didn't make it big until he was signed with Braun and Usher. 70k views in 2008 wasn't nothing, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume he would have grown to his current 3+ bn views, becoming an international A-lister, and a household name without signing with a major label.

YouTube and online help nobodies become somebodies. Labels help somebodies become megastars. The bottom end is rising, and the top end is compressing, but I don't believe we'll ever see them equalize.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2011/02/11/inside-th...

[tmh88j]

>70k views in 2008 wasn't nothing, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume he would have grown to his current 3+ bn views without a major label.

You just proved my point that if the world likes what you're doing (70k+ views), you're bound to get a lot of attention more easily. It's also easier to get an initial presence too. Prior to "web 2.0" the chances of him being discovered would be practically non-existent considering he was just a kid doing covers of his favorite songs. Back to the original point; the middle man isn't as crucial as he used to be.

[chaz]

I agree with the direction of your points, but not the magnitudes. Justin Bieber, Kendrick Lamar, Smashing Pumpkins, and Louis CK are already big stars who made it largely through the use of labels, and are thus bad examples. Independent artists who have made their success entirely through unsigned online distribution are much smaller in terms of popularity and monetary success.

Also, it's unfair to simply assume that labels are middle men and are gatekeepers to success. They're essentially venture capitalists who reap licensing deals in exchange for large marketing investments, while providing production direction (with or without the artist on board). Compare to hands-on tech VCs who invest a lot of capital, own the majority of the equity, and provide product guidance, with or without the founders on board, who might be soundly fired. A solo artist can't really be fired, but band members have been replaced.

Labels are indeed becoming less important, but they're far from dead. I don't see them ever completely dying off -- we'll just have more of them (like Google/YT itself), each with smaller wallets. Sorta like larger seed/angel rounds. Any predictions on a Series A crunch ... in music? Maybe it's already happening.

[tmh88j]

> Justin Bieber, Kendrick Lamar, Smashing Pumpkins, and Louis CK are already big stars who made it largely through the use of labels, and are thus bad examples.

I agree that Smashing Pumpkins and Louis CK were already big stars, and you're right, they don't fit into that category. However, my point was that the initial successes of Justin Bieber and Kendrick Lamar were founded from YouTube videos and without them, they probably wouldn't have been discovered by record labels. Bo Burnham (comedian for those of you who don't know) found success the same way.