> Maybe, maybe not. There's a larger variety of business model behind record labels than what people usually mean when they refer to record labels. They're not

> Maybe, maybe not. There's a larger variety of business model behind record labels than what people usually mean when they refer to record labels. They're not all middlemen trying to take a cut out of artists. Those exist, and artists have always railed against the model... and then start their own label. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't really play out like that. For example, back in the 90s and 00s, indie record labels were all the rage, particularly in the metal world. You had all of these companies like Relapse, Metal Blade and Century Media operating "outside" of the major label system, and you'd think that would protect the artists from middlemen, but it didn't. Those companies absorbed massive amounts of money with relatively small staffs, and much to the detriment of the artists who would often go home with nothing after a tour. I watched it happen so many times that it became pointless to keep count. And don't even get me started on how little they actually supported the artists in any capacity -- they wouldn't even send singles to radio stations when the stations themselves were asking in order to put them into rotation. There are certainly "good" independent labels, as well as good people working at "bad" major labels. I think almost everyone gets into the business because they love music and want to participate in finding and producing the best talent. However, much like every industry, once the revenue reaches some threshold and the employee counts grow, those altruistic motivations become much more difficult to maintain. Unless the person at the top of the company is wholly dedicated to music and that attitude is able to trickle down to every employee, then labels have a proven tendency to devolve into middlemanning and nickle/diming and worse. > Labels are mainly a house for all of the logistics behind an artist. No artist wants to spend 90% of their time marketing, merchandizing, booking, etc, etc, etc. They want to create and perform. The label is supposed to enable that. As long as the label does so, then it's worth it. That's an oversimplification and the last bit is definitely not true. A label is not actually a manager or booking agent or publicist. Labels pay people to do all of those things, in the same way that any musician can. In fact, the biggest function that an indie label provides these days beyond some physical distribution (which is also a third party service), is maintain a list of those managers and booking agents who may be willing to take a meeting with a no-name startup band just because the label vouches for them. That's about it. More importantly, managers and booking agents still aren't going to do all of the work for you. One of the biggest shocks that bands face when getting signed, is just how much of the business and marketing work they need to do themselves. So at the end of the day, anyone is more than welcome to give away 80% of their gross to a label if they want, but they have to do so understanding that more than 50% of the effort is still going to fall on the band members' shoulders.