It reminds me of what happened to The Cutting Crew, leading artistes started writing their own songs and playing their own instruments so their services were no longer required and because the lesser struggling artistes of the time couldn't afford them they were basically out of a job. I think we have a more creative situation now. Heading in the right direction maybe.

 

There was a world before the internet and a world after its invention. Markets shift, new products emerge, and old ones disappear, no longer in demand. Before the internet, manufacturers had to advertise their products in fanzines, music magazines, or on the radio.

Today, manufacturers reach anyone in the world who can read their ads. Some manufacturers have opened up new markets worldwide. They profit from downloads because they no longer have to ship anything—postage-free, paperless, and cardboard-free.

There are also jobs today that didn't exist before the internet. As you can see, everything shifted; some things disappeared, but new things emerged. Overall, in retrospect, technological progress has generated more money and prosperity.

 

Excellent points through and through (and not too long at all).

That said it only tells part of the story, a few facets of the complex diamond.

A chief, multifaceted aspect of this diamond/equation is corporatization. The record industry was initially the music business. A lot of unsavoury characters populated and drove the business, initially.

Then we had the golden era of musicians (Sinatra, Herb Alpert, etc.), and passionate amateurs (e.g., Ahmet Ertegun, Berry Gordy). Overall, mobsters or genuine amateurs, most of them were (as Frank Zappa once famously illustrated) risk takers.

They knew what they knew, but also they knew what they didn't know, and accepted the high risks-high rewards equation of the business/industry. All of this started shifting in the 70s (first with WB, then with Columbia), and then, by the 80s, with MTV fuelling if not leading the corporate Pac-Man charge.

The corporate masters wanted people that spoke their (Wall Street) language in charge, so out with the musicians and enlightened amateurs that had built the business from the ground up, and in with the bean counters (sorry, accountants) and lawyers.

And these people, like all of congress, don't care about their constituencies; they care about their masters (corporate, not tape) and keeping their jobs long enough to cash in their stock options, collect their end of year bonuses, and buy their yachts, jets, and beachfront properties in Hawai'i.

Most certainly, as stated, digital audio technology played a massive part - but looking at it from the musicians's side (as we are prone to do) fails to account for the CD revolution. For two decades, the massive profits they generated camouflaged record executives' core incompetencies. They made so much money - and corporate/Wall Street cares only about returns - that it hid their gross incompetence at the job, and leadership.

Many of my (Gen X) generation will remember Napster and other torrent based sites, and how unwilling the RIAA was to face the reality of the changing technological landscape (remember how the RIAA sued a grandma for millions for copyright infringement)? In the IT and Telecom world, such stubborn close-mindedness and denial famously sunk Kodak, Polaroid, Blackberry and Nokia. It took Steve Jobs to bring the RIAA to the negotiation table, and open their eyes at the possibilities (not threats) afforded by the Internet.

As regards the quality of songwriting and "polished recordings," I agree and disagree. I agree on the lessening quality of songwriting, and that technology weighed heavily in said impoverishment (drum machines come to mind). Where I disagree, is in the conclusion it is due to "most people using the very same equipment and apps."

If that were true,
1) all jazz and classical music would sound the same;
2) all pop/rock music recorded in the 40s, 50s and 60s, with mostly the same equipment (mics, preamps, consoles and outboards) would sound the same; and
3) all drummers ("mostly the same equipment") would have sounded the same.

And therein (#3) lies the rub: all GenY and GenZ drummers today do sound the same. Not because of digital audio software or apps: they use the same drums their predecessors use (sometimes literally: vintage drums). They sound the same chiefly because of YouTube (but not only). Before YouTube, musicians, drummers and others, would get on average a lesson a day, from a face to face meeting with a local teacher. After YouTube, musicians from all over the world could get lessons from any other musician anywhere in the world.

The result is a musical bouillabaisse. Instead of picking the ingredients tastiest to your individual palate, musicians started cramming all the ingredients they came across, and playing as many notes as fast as humanly possible on every possible beat or bar.

To this day, I can tell Steve Gadd from Steve Ferrone, Jim Gordon from Jim Keltner, Jeff Porcaro from JR Robinson, John Bonham from anyone. I once had dinner with at a friend's house in Cairo (I took my wife to see the pyramids). He put on some arabic music. After two bars of hearing it, I turned to my wife and said: "that's (my friend) Patrick on drums." My Egyptian host got up and fetched the CD - sure enough: Patrick on drums. Listen to any drummer younger than 40, and good luck with your blindfold test. You can't tell them apart.

My point being: there's a lot more facets and nuance to each facet of the industry than appears at first, or even second sight. In the context of this thread, it would behoove us to not overlook or discard the impact and effect that Wall Street driven corporate culture has had on American life (and the Arts) in general, and music creators in particular.