The Associated Press is asking a question that is practically blasphemous -- the outcome of which could change the face of the music industry: Are record labels really necessary, especially for established artists?

With acts including Madonna and Radiohead forgoing traditional record deals, and international superstar Robbie Williams signing a complicated deal guaranteeing him 80 million pounds over four albums, including some revenue from live events, it's clear that the the traditional concept of labels signing artists and paying them royalties is changing. Radiohead has decided to make its album available online only and let fans decide how much to pay.

Some argue that these are exceptions -- traditional record labels are still a must for all but the most established acts. Yet even lesser-known acts can promote their music on sites like MySpace and Facebook, which allow users to feature the songs they like on their pages. A lot of young people get introduced to music this way, forgoing outlets like MTV and the radio, which are seen as too commercial and passe.

The shift probably will be gradual, with better-known acts making the leap first. But as the methods of music distribution and hit-making change, so too will the role of the record label. Long term, I think that role will become a lot less relevant.