Independence Day: Music & The Majors

The conversation around “independence” in the modern music industry has come to the fore in recent weeks, and is getting harder to define. The major music companies have always built to consolidate power and position- not just through powerful content ownership, but via distribution and now through data.

Downtown Nashville - Photo by Brandon Jean

As the tide comes in from recent acquisitions, ongoing regulatory investigations, and ongoing industry tectonic friction, one question is surfacing more than ever: it is possible (or even worth it) to operate outside the gravitational pull of the majors?

Content Isn't the Only King

Historically, the major music companies- now 'just' Universal, Sony, and Warner- have always held an outsized influence. They own vast catalogs of hits, have developed mature global infrastructure, alongside wielding incredible soft power. In many ways things haven’t really changed- they were at different times the gatekeepers of radio, the tastemakers of MTV, the bankrollers of physical distribution.

In the digital era, this dominance has evolved through changing formats, consumption habits and accompanying digital infrastructure. Much as it’s always been, it’s still about both content and distribution.

Owning the rights to songs and recordings still matters enormously. But controlling how those rights are delivered to platforms, monetised, tracked, reported and collected on is equally as valuable- particularly in a world of fragmented revenue streams and data-hungry analysts.

This tension is playing out in real time through the European Commission’s investigation into Universal Music Group’s proposed acquisition of Downtown Music and associated businesses- including FUGA and Songtrust.

This is far from another M&A deal, given the weight of Downtown itself and UMG’s already primary market position. It's a signpost to the potential reshaping of the independent infrastructure that many publishers, artists, and labels rely on.

FUGA is a key B2B distribution partner for thousands of rights-holders. It provides access to DSPs, analytics, royalty processing, and more across multiple industry tiers. Songtrust enables songwriters (through to the long-tail) to collect global publishing royalties without needing a full-service publisher in a parallel way (one of really only a few options with the scale to do so- Sentric the other obvious comparator).

UMG already holds an immense share of the market. Critics argue that if it also controls tools like FUGA and Songtrust it could effectively tilt the playing field further in its favour. Not by owning more content, but by overseeing the infrastructure that other rights-holders use to monetise theirs.

The Commission’s formal investigation reflects this concern. In its announcement, it notes that the deal could “reduce competition in the market for digital music distribution services” and “harm customers such as independent labels, distributors and artists.”

Even in a market where vertical integration is common, the line between efficiency and dominance is starting blurring more than ever through the hidden consolidation of distribution infrastructure.

Sony's Poke

Adding fuel to the fire, Sony Music Group chairman Rob Stringer recently gave a candid glimpse into how majors are thinking about their distribution footprints.

In a high-profile company presentation, he highlighted how Sony’s acquisitions of AWAL and The Orchard had given them unparalleled visibility into what’s bubbling up in the indie ecosystem. In his own words:

“We have inside track on [earnings]... we were the earliest to adapt a major indie distribution platform into our system, none of our competitors come close”

It was a striking (and in my view, deliberate) admission. Not only does Sony control a significant chunk of the world’s publishing and master rights- they now have a front-row seat to what’s succeeding outside their walls, with the resources to buy or upstream the next wave before others even see it coming. In addition, the M&A moves they've already completed have circumnavigated regulatory approval- conveniently where their competitors are currently mired. A coincidental quote, or a well timed chide...?

Either way- in the digital age, data is leverage. Whatever the postulating, it’s clear the majors now have more of it- both from their owned content and from distributing the content of others. This is their superbly executed dual playbook: control the hits and control the highways. Content and distribution.

The Pillars of Entertainment Power

It’s helpful to frame the majors' influence through these two distinct but reinforcing pillars:

1. Content ownership

2. Infrastructure control

On the content side, majors continue to dominate. In publishing, they represent vast global catalogs- old and new- with deep value. In records, they house the lion’s share of streaming’s top earners and they’re still acquiring- Warner’s recent $1.2 billion raise confirming their continued proactive approach to consolidating valuable content.

On the infrastructure side, majors now operate an array of internal distribution services (through cross-pollinated sub labels), 'DIY' distribution platforms and collection networks as well having leverage via direct deals with DSPs. They don’t just own the product- they own the pipes.

This dual power model means that even as other players enter the market, from private equity to tech platforms, they often still depend on the majors in some way. A fund might acquire a publishing catalog, but might need to rely on a major’s network to collect royalties (if not even actively desire access to a major’s mature administration capabilities). An indie artist might own their masters, but will often distribute through a major-owned pipeline for scalability.

This isn’t inherently problematic. But it does make it harder to define what “independent” really means.

Can Anyone Compete?

Replicating this consolidation of both content and distribution is the only effective means of being able to challenge such market dominance. Large independents (though effectively ‘semi-majors’) such as Concord and BMG are effectively playing to the same game.

Another example is Kobalt- a company first focussed on tech-first infrastructure, later moving into raising Funds for content acquisition. Its investments in AMRA have increased its direct collections footprint, whilst reducing its reliance on traditional CMO networks. Indeed, Kobalt has since sold off large parts of its business (including AWAL to Sony), and its 2 funds- but ostensibly only to move assets onto their own balance sheet instead of Kobalt Capital's.

Such independents face a tough choice: build your own infrastructure from scratch (costly, slow), partner with the majors (efficient, but beholden), or find hybrid solutions that borrow best practices from both worlds.

What’s clear is that “independence” today rarely means full autonomy. It often means strategic dependence and partnership- working with majors in some markets or functions, while maintaining control in others. This, I believe, is the modern music industry- one that it is difficult to navigate at scale without considered and strategic alliance with the major companies.

Rethinking Independence

What does independence mean in 2025?

It’s no longer a binary concept- indie vs. major (traditionally cast as good vs. evil). You can be independently owned but rely on major infrastructure. You can distribute your own music but license through a major:

• Taylor Swift- owns her own masters yet partners with Universal. Would she be considered independent?

• A DIY artist utilising The Orchard for self-release- are they now considered part of a major’s assets?

This blurring has both pros and cons. On the upside, creators do have more choice than ever (a counterpoint often touted by those opposing the ‘majors have market dominance’ argument). On the downside, those ‘choices’ are often ending up travelling via major-owned infrastructure anyway.

The majors today are not just labels or publishers but full-stack operators- combining unparalleled ownership of valuable content, and their intricate existing channels to distribute it, now with 'big data' that reinforces the advantage. But should they control all the data, all the channels and all the content? If care is not taken, music as an industry will confirm it's coming-of-age as an oligopoly.

With the right tools, partners, and strategies, 'independence' can still mean control, transparency, and growth- on artists and non-major label's own terms.

Majors aren't going to disappear. The next decade will be about building smart, scalable solutions and partnerships that allow more creators and rights-holders to thrive in a small and tight-knit ecosystem alongside them.