The Indie Illusion

In the early 2000s, if you asked someone to define an “independent label,” they’d probably describe a shoestring operation fuelled by passion, run from a flat in Camden or a basement in Nashville. Fast forward to today and “independent” is far more complicated.

Some of the most successful artists in the world proudly fly the indie flag, only to be distributed by a major-owned platform, funded through a JV with a major publisher, or entangled in backend deals that blur the lines between autonomy and affiliation.

And now, with Universal Music Group’s proposed $775 million acquisition of Downtown Music Holdings - parent to CD Baby, FUGA, and Songtrust - under active EU antitrust scrutiny, the stakes are more apparent than ever: what happens to independence when the majors own the pipes?

The Quiet Battle for the Soul of the Industry

The independent sector has long been the incubator of innovation - whether it’s pioneering artist development models, jumping early into new formats, or pushing the boundaries of creative tech. But now, that ecosystem is being squeezed - not by falling revenues or changing tastes, but by strategic acquisitions designed to reroute the flow of power, creating the very real possibility that its most essential infrastructure is being swallowed whole.

Independents pulled in nearly $14.3 billion in global recorded music revenues in 2023, accounting for 46.7% of the market, and their share is growing faster than the majors. In publishing, the trajectory is even sharper: independent publishers now generate more than €2.4 billion annually, doubling over the last five years

This isn’t a niche anymore. It’s the bedrock of music culture.

So why are the pipelines - distribution channels, royalty platforms, publishing admins - that feed this sector increasingly owned by the very companies it’s supposed to stand apart from?

“Labels should serve artists, not the other way around. The indie model has always been about resourcefulness and accountability.” As the late Steve Albini once said, “Labels should serve artists, not the other way around. The indie model has always been about resourcefulness and accountability.”

That spirit still runs through much of the independent sector. But today, independence isn’t just a question of ownership - it’s about who controls the infrastructure that enables creativity to reach the world.

Culture Is Made by the Indies, But Monetised by the Majors

The major label model isn’t broken - it’s just built for something entirely different. Shareholder-driven operations optimise for scale, not intimacy; market share, not market nuance.

Once upon a time, majors invested in A&R and development. Today, they let others do the heavy lifting. The real R&D now happens at the indie level: artist managers, boutique labels, creative collectives. By the time the majors step in, an artist already has an audience, a brand identity, and a tested product. The major’s job is to amplify - not build.

Which is why the majors are now buying the infrastructure that feeds them. They’ve moved from acquiring artists to acquiring the systems that incubate them. AWAL, The Orchard, INgrooves, and PIAS have all been absorbed. Now it’s Downtown’s turn.

Even Sony Music’s Rob Stringer publicly acknowledged this recently: their investment in indie distribution, he said, gave Sony the ability to “grow market share” by building the most robust backend data operation in the business. Translation: if you own the supply chain, you own the output.

But this isn’t new. Def Jam, Atlantic and RCA all started as indies before being absorbed into the major system. What’s changed is the scale and subtlety of the process. The pipeline used to be about talent. Now, it’s infrastructure.

Market Share, Fiction, and the Pressure to Inflate

The majors are publicly traded, meaning market share isn’t just a data point, it’s currency. And as competition intensifies, tactics to maintain or grow that share are under scrutiny. Indies, by contrast, aren’t beholden to earnings calls. They don’t need to inflate numbers to keep investors happy. They just need to break even - or better yet, break culture.

In 2022, UMG quietly acquired a 49% stake in PIAS. At the time, it was positioned as a strategic partnership. No alarm bells. But by late 2024, they’d completed the acquisition. No headlines. No real pushback. And crucially, no antitrust scrutiny. Why? Because they staggered the deal. They knew the thresholds. And they knew the optics.

This is one of the ways market share inflation works: buy just enough to control the influence, but not enough to raise red flags. Then finish the job once everyone’s stopped looking.

For indie labels and artists relying on that infrastructure, the implications are clear: when the platform you use to release your music is owned by a competitor with a vested interest in preserving its own catalogue dominance, you’re not on neutral ground.

Innovation Looks Different on the Indie Side

Major labels often have a front-row seat to emerging tech and platform opportunities. Their scale makes them the first call. If a platform wants to launch globally, they need the catalogues only the majors can provide.

But here’s where the approaches diverge: indies operate with less bureaucracy and more freedom. They can experiment, iterate, and deploy without clearing six departments or aligning 40 markets. That doesn’t always mean they move first - but it often means they learn faster.

AI is a clear example. While majors debate governance and rollout, many indie teams are already using AI to support metadata workflows, sync pitching, and personalised fan outreach. These aren’t hypotheticals - they’re daily operations.

Innovation isn’t about who signs the first deal. It’s about who gets to act on what they’ve learned - and how fast they can adapt.

That’s where indie agility becomes a genuine competitive edge.

When Indies Are the Majors: Lessons from Asia

Japan’s Avex, King Records, and B Zone dominate their domestic market, accounting for nearly two-thirds of the share. In Korea, HYBE, JYP, SM, and YG own almost the entire local music economy, with a combined market share of 90%.

They didn’t scale by playing the Western music industry game. HYBE built vertically integrated ecosystems - including fan platforms like Weverse - to retain control over audience relationships. Avex spent decades developing domestic artists through multi-channel strategies rooted in TV, retail, and touring.

They built cultural infrastructure aligned with local tastes, language, and platforms. They nurtured artists over years, not quarters. Quite simply, they got big because they built with patience, intentionality, and deep understanding of their audience.

That kind of long-term, locally grounded growth - where independents scale without being forced into premature alignment with global systems - is rare in the West. Here, independents often build in the shadow of multinationals, navigating a landscape shaped by major label influence on distribution, retail, and exposure.

So why haven’t we seen more of these models adopted globally? In part, because Western markets often prioritise short-term visibility (and profitability) over long-term vision. That kind of slow, intentional growth is harder to replicate where independent businesses face immediate competition, lack infrastructure, and are under pressure to scale before they’re ready.

Where’s the Line - and Who Gets to Draw It?

There’s a deeper identity crisis at play. If an artist owns their masters, runs an indie label, but distributes through Universal… are they independent? Should they be eligible for AIM or Libera awards? What if their publishing admin is via Warner Chappell? Or they’re caught in the crossfire of a dispute - like when UMG pulled music from TikTok in early 2024, affecting thousands of creators with no direct Universal affiliation?

The lines are blurry, but the implications are real. These distinctions affect funding access, representation, awards, and deal terms. Without enforceable definitions, “independent” becomes a hollow branding exercise.

Sometimes the ambiguity is strategic. For some artists and labels, operating in the grey zone means retaining creative control while accessing major-scale infrastructure. That’s not inherently bad; it reflects how complex and fluid the modern industry has become. But it reinforces the need for transparency for creators, partners, and audiences alike.

The Collective Is the Antidote to Consolidation

Organisations like Merlin, IMPEL, A2IM, AIM, and IMPALA exist not just to negotiate better deals, but to defend the very idea of independence.

But unity doesn’t mean uniformity. The indie world is broad, across genres, regions, and business models. One-size-fits-all policymaking does a disservice to that diversity.

We don’t need standardisation. We need structures that allow for flexibility, because homogenising the indie space would betray its core value: diversity of thought, strategy, and sound.

What Comes Next?

The music industry is at an inflection point. The decisions made now about ownership, access, and autonomy will shape the business for decades.

So how do we futureproof independence, regardless of whether the Downtown deal goes through? It starts with a new playbook; one that values autonomy over scale, transparency over consolidation, and infrastructure over optics.

Here’s what that might look like:

• New capital models for infrastructure: Indie-friendly funding mechanisms - private equity, state-backed culture funds, or co-op reinvestment - that allow distribution, sync, and metadata platforms to scale without needing acquisition as an exit.
• Mandated transparency on market share reporting: If majors use indie-owned pipelines to inflate share, regulators and trade bodies should require third-party audits and clear categorisation - so “independent” means something again.
• Carve-outs in licensing and public policy: For example, guaranteed access to DSP tools or visibility thresholds for companies that meet independence criteria, regardless of catalogue size.
• A certification standard for independence: Like B Corp in business: a verified, third-party audit of independence covering ownership, governance, and distribution affiliations - something funders and platforms can trust.
• Tech incubators and shared infrastructure: Regional collectives or export offices could co-invest in tools for rights management, AI-powered royalty tracking, or fan data insights. Canada’s FACTOR or the UK’s Music Export Growth Scheme show how public-private hybrids can support indie innovation. These could be standalone or sit within collectives like Merlin or IMPALA.

This was never about indies versus majors. It’s about whether freedom, flexibility, and cultural diversity can still thrive in an increasingly centralised industry.

And whether the next generation of artists will have a real choice - or just the illusion of one.