Even some established artists I know have either ditched or lost their labels, and are just engaging listeners and fans directly.
I don't paint all labels as bad, but established artists (at least in the music I listen to) have moved away from big label contracts to smaller labels to which they license their recordings. That lets them retain their masters, and get a better deal along with the marketing and distribution clout a label offers. Streaming is the black sheep in the family even today (income is laughable) but being part of a well-run label has advantages.
I can't give a name here but since 1996 I've worked (in a support capacity) with a band that recorded for a couple of major labels. Warner at first, then MCA, which then got absorbed into GRP (when Universal decided to shift much of MCA's jazz catalog to GRP), then back to Warner for three albums. With the third Warner contract (which is when I hopped on board), the label made them great promises, only to find after the first album, label support for them evaporated completely.
Being with a label is a necessity, but not how you'd think. When their contract expired with Warner, they were without a label. And without a label, they didn't have a new product out. Many of the "name" jazz clubs will not hire a band for a gig unless they have a current release. So, very little income (after expenses) from the few gigs they could make. It took us a couple of years of Internet sales (where we sold current and past CDs) before they got enough funds to record, manufacture and release a live gig of mostly new tunes, and the only sales online were through their own site. But that broke the ice and the gigs started returning, and it caught the attention of a Telarc subsidiary, HeadsUp International, who licensed their next few recordings. That put them back on track. Then they made a similar deal with Mack Avenue Records (a local label), where they are currently.
While Warner would occasionally reissue an older recording (like their debut), Universal will not budge. There was still fan demand for the older recordings, but all Universal would do is toss out an ill-conceived anthology every half dozen years. And now I'm betting their masters are lost after the Universal Spit Roast of 2008. 🙄 Warner similarly shows no interest in reissuing the back catalog either. And due to the contracts, the labels own the masters, and can do with them what they please, even if it goes against the artists' wishes. The labels have no interest in releasing the masters to the artist, even for a price. Disgusting, if you ask me.
A couple of artists I follow are also on their own labels (like The Mavericks on Mondo Mono Records, and Four80East on Boomtang Records), or on smaller specialist labels (Colemine, Daptone, etc.).
It's kind of ironic to me how it has all played out. We started in the 50s and 60s with hundreds of tiny record labels popping up everywhere, and a small handful of major labels. Then the majors started absorbing these independent labels, or taking the artists onto their own roster, and that killed off most of the small labels. It got to a point where you were on a major label, or your music just couldn't get it released to a wide audience. Now we've seen an explosion of smaller labels again, many created out of frustration with the majors, and some artists even self-releasing to avoid labels entirely. The Internet has played a huge role in this, via getting the word out to fans, as well as providing new means of distribution.