I'd like this to be true, but in practice it seems like most people (me included) strongly prefer hearing songs they already know most of the time, enjoy songs more with repetition, at least up to a point, and are more than willing to learn to like almost anything with high enough production value.
Some people are music snobs as a hobby and most go on discovery quests from time to time, but it honestly seems like most people most of the time want music they don't have to think too much about or devote too much attention to. Indie-only channels can't really deliver that.
I think most people like variety. Yes, some people always listen to the same 50 songs, and some people never listen to the same song twice. But most people don't go their whole lives without expanding their musical tastes.
While iTunes and Google Play gave chart toppers the spotlight, SoundCloud turned amateurs into professionals. "Nobodies" could put their music on soundcloud and get them streamed millions of times, and that recognition could eventually get them a chance to sign on a dotted line
Why do these two groups of people need to be served by the same service? Why couldn't there be a site for young producers to easily publish their music online and connect with the fans? If I make a song, I can't even imagine what would it take to get it to Spotify. I'd probably have to pay some agency. SoundCloud with its community is the perfect tool for this.
> ...most people most of the time want music they don't have to think too much about or devote toouch attention to.
I agree with that statement - dedicating significant energy to finding new music is a fairly niche hobby.
However, I don't think easy-to-find necessarily equals label-owned music.
I often listen to music for hours at a time in the background while I'm working or relaxing at home. I'll aim for an artist or mood and then I'm happy to let 'related tracks' from artists I've never heard of play indefinitely. If there's a track I really like I'll look at who the artist is and make note. I listen to a ton of "indy" music this way. Mostly, I never know who the artist is. Sometimes I discover new artists. All of this is very low effort on my part.
In fact, it would be significantly more effort to listen to megastar pop music or classics. I'd have to find a way to play the tracks - YouTube most likely, which means a ton of poorly thought out ads, or else paying for the songs directly, which usually is just slow and annoying.
I'd wager the biggest hours of music listening are for background music - at work, in stores and restaurants, while studying, while lounging around the house. I'm sure some people always want to listen to the same ten albums on repeat every day, but I suspect most people are driven more by ambiance. Indy music will do that job just fine.
Of course people will always want to play nostalgic hits. But I suspect that's a smaller driver of music consumption by hour of attention (or at least partial attention) than many people assume. That means the labels have way less power than people assume.
