Without music labels where would some artists be?

So do you think an artist is nothing without a label?

Most of the time yes.

Absolutely. You have to have a good label to get you out there and actually promote your talent(s)

No, people on this forum give way too much **** to music labels all the time, thinking that they could do it better. At the end of the day some may have more resources but they all want their artists to do well and if the label doesn't put in effort it's probably because they don't see a tidy profit on the horizon and the artist would be doomed on way or another.



Addendum: A good label is helpful for a new artist trying to break out though.

Yes and No.... While, it's extremely important to have a solid label supporting your career because it's difficult being the talent while managing your own career. In some cases, some artists have terrible management, so it's up to the artist to promote themselves if the label isn't doing their job!

You need a good label to launch you but you can have success thereafter without them.

Well, without a strong label or a label in general, artists would be selling their music on the street corner or trying to get their music out there on Twitter and YouTube. A label is needed.

It worked for Arcade Fire

:tank::tomcat:

they rolled into the grammys without a major label and took care of busiiness..

the currently pop divas are a clear example of this poll

Arcade Fire is on an independent label. It's still a label. They still had backing.

Merge Records had one entry from an album in the billboard 200 before 2004. It was a small ass label, and Arcade Fire got exposed based on their masterpiece debut album and constant touring.....they didnt really get any backing from any mainstream media publication or mtv before 2007 atleast.