Good insight! Let me zoom all the way out on the abstraction scale of what you said, and let me know if it makes sense. There are some segments of the music in

Good insight! Let me zoom all the way out on the abstraction scale of what you said, and let me know if it makes sense. There are some segments of the music industry that are specialized, and capital-intensive or labor-intensive (merchandising, physical distribution, producing/mixing/mastering, studio access). The specialized segments would presumably not be able to exist or sustainably operate without a steady/predictable source of cash flow. The big labels are market makers, connecting talent to these specialized services, and taking a cut off the top of every D2C transaction, in the form of a special variety of IP-licensing. This results in a bimodal distribution of musician outcomes. If you're accepted by a big label, you fit into modality B, which is shifted far to the right. If you're indie, you fit into modality A, which is shifted fart to the left. If you stick it out in A, you keep a higher percentage of lower expected earnings. If you shift into B, you keep a lower percentage of higher expected earnings, and gain difficult-to-price assets in the shapes of fame, connections, and responsibilities. If this abstraction holds, it's kind of analogous to the differences between an indie hacker and a VC-funded startup founder? cool food for thought.