In reality, the value that labels were able to offer was money to record (now rarely needed); ability to get music in to stores (i.e. distribute), which is now not needed as artists can get their music for sale online easily (see TuneCore); ability to promote, this too is very different than it once was. Now that bloggers, etc. are breaking artists as readily as any other medium (when was the last time you bought a record because of a New York Times or Rolling Stone review?), artists can take control of this. What's left is mainstream radio, which is still controlled by the majors, but this is really only relevant to a very few artists.

Now, as artists can affordably create, distribute, and (arguably) promote the music they create, the entire label concept is under question. It remains to be seen how (or if) labels will be able to provide value for the artists they sign, and, conversely, if the labels can derive any economic value from working with these artists.  Certainly for major recording artists who require massive radio campaigns, labels are still relevant. However, with artists like Madonna and the Eagles eschewing the label system, and, instead, partnering with Live Nation and Wal-Mart (respectively), even these major recording artists are questioning the traditional label paradigm.