We’ve completely forgotten who independent artists are

The phrase “independent artist” has become so overused in society and so commonplace that we have gradually stopped thinking about its historical meaning. Today it can describe almost anyone: an artist without a label deal, an artist who uses a distributor, an artist with a large team, or even someone who “independently” uploaded their first track to streaming via an aggregator.

But independent from whom?

Where did independent artists even come from?
#

And if we turn to the history of the music business, this question becomes much more interesting. Because independent did not emerge as a nice bit of positioning, not as a marketing term, and certainly not as a distributor’s pricing plan. The need for independence arose as a protest response to how the music industry itself was structured.

In the 20th century, the music market became increasingly concentrated around major record companies. They controlled not only the money, but practically the entire chain: professional recording → record manufacturing → physical distribution → access to stores → radio → press → marketing. In other words, the problem was not simply that an artist “needed a label.” Without the infrastructure of a major company, it was extremely difficult to physically reach a mass audience.

But alongside them there were always companies that released music independently of the major record corporations. Hence independent labels. They became especially important for music that major companies considered too niche, too risky, or not commercially viable enough. Independent labels played a huge role in the development of blues, R&B, jazz, punk, post-punk, alternative rock, electronic music, and many local scenes.

When independent became indie
#

In the 1970s and 1980s, an entire DIY culture formed around this: if the major industry doesn’t want to release us — we’ll create our own label, record the album ourselves, press it ourselves, work with independent stores ourselves, put on shows ourselves, and make fanzines ourselves.

This is where independent becomes not just a legal description of a company, but a cultural identity.

And from there indie grows. Originally, indie meant independence from the major-label system more than a specific sound. Only later did the music that was widely born in this environment develop such a recognizable aesthetic that the word indie began to be used as a genre label. That is why today there is even a funny paradox: an artist can play indie pop but be signed to a major. That is, be indie by genre, but not independent by business model.

The term independent artist itself became especially important much later, when technology allowed artists to do without not only a major label, but sometimes even a traditional independent label.

Home recording, CDs, and especially the internet, digital distribution, social media, and streaming gradually dismantled the old chain. An artist gained the ability to directly hire separate parts of the system: one for distribution, another for PR, a third for management, a fourth for touring. And at the same time, not hand control of their entire career to one label.

So, very briefly:#

An Independent Artist emerged not because artists wanted to do everything themselves. It emerged out of the need to create, release, and control their own music outside the system of major record companies.

The history of independent is, in fact, the history of the decentralization of the music business.

Independence does not mean solitude
#

And that’s where we’ve lost the original meaning a bit today.

Because for some reason people have started to imagine an independent artist as someone who has to do everything alone. Record the song alone, make the artwork alone, upload the release alone, shoot Reels alone, set up ads alone, write to journalists alone, and at 3 a.m. even reply to their own email alone :)

But independence has never meant solitude.

An independent artist can absolutely have a manager, music producer, PR team, publisher, distributor, booking agent, investor, and another dozen people around them. The question is not the number of partners. The question is who controls the career, rights, economics, and key decisions about the music.

How digitalization changed the music business
#

Digitalization gradually removed one of the major historical advantages of the big record companies — the monopoly on physically delivering music to listeners.

And then what usually happens in the business of any sector that starts growing rapidly happened. Major companies realized that independent was no longer a small counterculture existing somewhere nearby. It was a huge market. And until recently, distributors for independent artists controlled rights in that market.

That is why the line between “major” and “independent” has become much more interesting today.

When majors entered the independent market
#

The Orchard, for example, has long been associated with distribution and services for the independent sector, but today it is owned by Sony Music Entertainment. AWAL, which also built its model around independent artists, was acquired by Sony Music. TuneCore is owned by Believe. At the same time, it is important not to mix everything together: Believe is not owned by Universal, Sony, or Warner and formally remains independent of the “big three.”

But the trend itself does not disappear because of that.

The major music corporations realized that it was not necessary to fight the independent model. It was far more interesting to become part of its infrastructure. Majors did not defeat the independent-artist revolution — they led it and started making money from it.

Previously, the logic of the music business looked much more like this: the artist finds a label, the label invests in the artist, creates the product, provides distribution, marketing, and access to the audience. Without entering this system, it was very difficult for an artist to scale.

Today, an artist can go through a significant part of that path on their own. Release music. Build an audience. Create their own team. Build a brand. Get the first hundreds of thousands or millions of streams. And only then choose whether they need a major partner and on what terms.

That is a fundamentally different position in negotiations.

So who is an independent artist today?
#

That is why it seems strange to me when independence today is reduced simply to the phrase “an artist without a label.”

For me, independence is first and foremost subjectivity.

I decide for myself what music to release. I choose the people and companies I want to work with myself. I understand to whom I transfer which rights and for what term. I can change distributors. I can end my cooperation with a contractor. I can keep my catalog in my own ownership. I can bring in a major label if, at a certain stage, it provides me with the resources I need, but that must be my conscious decision.

Because the mere presence of a major partner does not yet make an artist “dependent.” Just as using an independent distributor does not automatically make them independent.

Everything is determined by the structure of the relationship.

Who owns the rights? Who makes the decisions? Who controls the catalog? Who defines the strategy? Can the artist exit these relationships? And what will remain with them after that exit?

Independence is subjectivity
#

This is where, in my view, the modern meaning of independent lies.

And perhaps we really should return more often to the origins of this word. Because the independent music sector did not emerge to create yet another pretty category of artist. It emerged from the need to have an alternative to the concentration of control over music in the hands of a few large entities.

Technology has changed. Distribution has changed. Business models have changed. The majors themselves have learned to work brilliantly with the independent sector and make money alongside it.

But the need for independence has not gone anywhere.

On the contrary, the more complex the music industry becomes and the more the big structures control catalogs, technologies, services, and the infrastructure around music, the more important it is for an artist to understand their own place in this chain.

Independence is not when you do everything yourself, which is more like loneliness. Independence is when a huge system can work around you, but it works for you, not owns you.