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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
He's not disputing this point. His point is that YouTube, in an of itself, would not have made either of those people the dramatic successes they are today. His statement is that the labels, like it or not, are a crucial part of the ecosystem, instead of purely vampiric like they are being portrayed by many people in this thread.
People are citing Louis CK as a reason why labels and agencies are entirely predatory and unnecessary, even though without them he would would only be moderately successful - and certainly unable to command nation-wide independent attention like he is able to now.
>His statement is that the labels, like it or not, are a crucial part of the ecosystem
I agree, but that's not my point. The only reason why they were discovered by labels is because of YouTube. He's absolutely right, they wouldn't be on world tours solely from YouTube, but they also wouldn't be going on them if it weren't for YouTube in the first place.
My initial point was discovery is easier because it no longer requires a middle man: the middle man will simply be able to take you further. Traction can be easily gained via Soundcloud, Youtube and a whole bunch of other sites. No longer do the 3 guys playing in a bar have to peddle their CDs to radio DJs and hope to get some air time. If they are "that" good, everyone will know shortly thanks to YouTube.
tl;dr It's easier for talented musicians/artists to get noticed.
>Even if you're noticed, it's still these labels that are creating a majority of the jobs.
Really? It's the record labels? You don't think it's concert venue's employees or employees of the companies that create the software to distribute the music and videos?
I'll go back to the top again.
>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.
Yes, they get more recognition, but for what? They can convert this Youtube recognition into a small portion of money through Youtube ad monetization (a brand and a distribution channel, though I guess not a label). These examples ended up with a major distribution channel (a major record label) that will bring in enough revenue to survive on or to become a star (something Youtube ad monetization can only do for a very small few). Youtube was just the equivalent of that buddy you have in the industry that can pass on your sample tape with a kind word to get them to look at you. That one buddy probably means more to people in the labels than 100k views.
To continue with your direct response, music labels were promoting artists before iTunes. "[E]mployees of the companies that create the software to distribute the music and videos" most likely include employees of the label itself or contracted companies to write the software. Promoters have been around since the town crier, and their value has kept the job existing (and now unfortunately they take the lion's share of the revenue).
I make no comment on the middle man's ability to adapt to modern distribution channels. I don't think it's relevant to them picking up artists.
Concert venues and software contractors do create jobs, but they very rarely spawn into the giant companies we see represented by the RIAA. If they did, why would this power imbalance exist?
No, I meant what I said. Really? It's hard not to perceive it any other way.
>Concert venues and software contractors do create jobs, but they very rarely spawn into the giant companies we see represented by the RIAA
Such as youtube, soundcloud, itunes, amazon and google, right?