>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.

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.

> 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.

> "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."

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.

>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

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.

OK, so if the "middle man" is why they are on world tours, then why doesn't the middle man deserve money? Why should the internet nature of the discovery matter?

>Why should the internet nature of the discovery matter?

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.

And then we have artists like DJ Kariu (http://www.youtube.com/user/Kariu) who have been producing content for years, have ~30k views on their big songs, produce consistently, and are still surviving with a separate shift job because they didn't get picked up. Even if you're noticed, it's still these labels that are creating a majority of the jobs.

Enough with the ad homenim attacks. I never once claimed that all good artists will be huge stars. I simply stated it's easier to gain recognition, not guaranteed recognition. I also never said the middle man shouldn't exist, most just aren't willing to adapt to modern distribution channels. How many years did it take to get the Beatles on iTunes? AC/DC's stuff was held off for a long time too.

>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 think you're looking for "straw man" as I didn't attack you personally but you think that I'm attacking a point you didn't make. I brought up one counter-example, but I have seen many more out there.

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?

>I think you're looking for "straw man" as I didn't attack you personally

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?