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.

 

Anyone who was making a living in the music industry when it was a music industry last century probably thought it collapsed a long time ago.
Many of us probably thought like the Monty Python parrot sketch - This music industry won't voom again if we put 4,000 volts through it. There hasn't been a music Industry for nearly or more than 20 years. It's a bunch of privateers making money any way they can and the majors sit back and collect from them, rarely getting involved. Just stating what is, not what any of us might wish.

 

'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.'

hmm personally this is an argument designed to fit a specific target. My impression after working closely with creatives for 30 years, originality and innovation is built on a mass of disparate influences. Raw talent picks through the past in such a personal and idiosyncratic way that a new voice appears. Easy access to wider inspiration isn't the problem I think, quite the opposite maybe.

I think what you are reflecting is the massive visibility we are getting on creatives exploring any instrument. 50 years ago we'd have seen only the most innovative or skilled guitarist being recorded and surfaced. Underneath there was probably thousands of pretty good kids copying Hendrix who never made it. Now they can all have a channel and get followers.

We probably have a similarly small amount of truly original innovators like every generation. They're most likely getting lost in the mass of creative noise. Or like many, they don't even go on social media much, they focus on the work and the creative universe directly around them. A lot of people don't need the modern 'industry'.

This whole discussion has some pretty 'negative' takes personally. The larger industry is fractured and unstable, but its really dangerous to presume we have any idea about all the talent out there.

Social media just doesn't reflect reality anymore, or many people right now. As it becomes ad and bot infested, less 'social' and less friend group oriented, a growing amount of the worlds population are moving away from regular use, or having their own identity on it. While very popular, Social media 'music' and streaming charts don't reflect the whole of the music world at all, its a weird corporate bubble that fosters a specific type of creative and business model, and probably doesn't contain the most talented minds.

With a little effort away from the corporate algorithms I can find passionate young creatives exploring genres in really interesting ways, sometimes with exception skill. Grassroots underground genres have always been the most exciting part of the music industry, and still are. I just don't expect the surprising originality of the 20th century any more because those were very specific laboratory conditions.

 

Last edited: Feb 17, 2026 at 9:51 AM

One could also say that the incentive for many is simply to upload something to the World Wide Web so they are digitally visible and exist.

As is well known, money is an incentive to even take action and work, but the quality and skill of many, from our perspective as musicians, is rather weak to mediocre. Lack of intelligence, laziness, and ignorance. (Note: if they want to amount to something, they have to educate themselves, read books, learn something)...! If you believe you have made a lasting, meaningful contribution with your music, I have to disappoint you; only good to very good music survives the test of time, quality over quantity.

In the past, you had to learn something, an instrument or sheet music, etc. Today, machines do it. The day after tomorrow, perhaps AI. How are the free social media platforms actually financed? Mostly through advertising revenue. In my opinion, the business models are neither sensible nor up-to-date, but they are very powerful because everyone uses them. If you, as a user, shut down these services, you, as a young person, are excluded.

What kind of music do I want to make? Young people, feeling insecure, look to see what others are doing. Incidentally, my musical nightmare is gangster rappers who can't sing and spread vile lyrics. Zero cultural value, but they boost the crime statistics! (Okay, that's debatable).
As for talent, talent needs to be discovered and nurtured, including financially. If someone is passionate about their music, learns playfully, and, most importantly, perseveres, we will continue to see talent and excellent music from all genres. Remember, besides the digital world, there's still analog life out there.

Here's another creative tip for people who desperately need money: paint yourself like a clown, learn one or more songs, and go out on the street with a cassette recorder and a hat to collect money. Organize small concerts in pubs, bars, or youth centers in your city, and talk to others about it.

 

Spoiler: Social Media - Why the brains of young people are so vulnerable - As of February 17, 2026 - by Veronika Bräse, BR

Social Media - Why the brains of young people are so vulnerable - As of February 17, 2026 - by Veronika Bräse, BR

Politicians are discussing age restrictions for social media.
Scientific studies show that young people find it particularly difficult to escape the constant flickering screens.

Young people's brains are particularly burdened by the colorful barrage of images, especially those fired off in rapid succession by short videos. On platforms like TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube, there are clips that are often only a few seconds long.Australian researchers compiled and analyzed 71 individual studies with a total of 98,299 participants in a review study. Their results were published in the journal Psychological Bulletin in September 2025.

Social media can impair cognitive abilities

On average, the participants in the Australian meta-study were 23 years old. The most pronounced effect of the short videos is seen in the cognitive domain – and especially in the area of attention. This means that young people who consume a lot of short videos find it more difficult to dedicate themselves to a specific task – such as reading a text with concentration.The ability to solve tricky problems step by step also declines. The study's lead author, psychologist Lan Nguyen from Griffith University in Australia, says: "This process can gradually decrease cognitive stamina and weaken the brain's ability to focus attention on a single task."The brain enters a kind of euphoric state in the colorful world of images because dopamine, a happiness hormone, is released. Those who post something themselves sometimes receive surprising likes. This means that others click on the video and give it a thumbs up. This is a moment of joy, and the brain's reward system is activated. Users want more of this good feeling and don't put their phones down.

The adolescent brain follows spontaneous impulses.

Adults can usually stop using apps because their brains are no longer so strongly driven by impulses. Teenagers, however, find it difficult to resist. This is due to the prefrontal cortex, where our consciousness resides and which, among other things, controls impulses. It isn't fully developed until the mid-twenties. Until then, children and teenagers tend to act according to the pleasure principle. Biologist Martin Korte from the Technical University of Braunschweig explains: "During puberty, the adolescent brain becomes a major construction site. Therefore, it's difficult to resist short-term rewards."The adolescent brain, which craves reward, is therefore particularly susceptible to all kinds of drugs. So far, the WHO has only recognized gaming disorder as a diagnosis. Social media has not yet been recognized as an addiction. However, the EU Commission is investigating whether TikTok has an "addictive design" and therefore violates EU law.

The adolescent brain follows spontaneous impulses.

Adults can usually stop using apps because their brains are no longer so strongly driven by impulses. Teenagers, however, find it difficult to resist. This is due to the prefrontal cortex, where our consciousness resides and which, among other things, controls impulses. It isn't fully developed until the mid-twenties. Until then, children and teenagers tend to act according to the pleasure principle. Biologist Martin Korte from the Technical University of Braunschweig explains: "During puberty, the adolescent brain becomes a major construction site. Therefore, it's difficult to resist short-term rewards."The adolescent brain, which craves reward, is therefore particularly susceptible to all kinds of drugs. So far, the WHO has only recognized gaming disorder as a diagnosis. Social media has not yet been recognized as an addiction. However, the EU Commission is investigating whether TikTok has an "addictive design" and therefore violates EU law.

https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2026-89350-001.html

 

what is funny in that video is in the Narration parts, it sounds exactly like it was written by an AI.

 

Well, that's reassuring!

Fun aside:

Really sad and depressing. Music is not just a business, it's away of life. Or at least it has been.
gone.
But we've got something new: AI, dead electronics. Killing everything around it - And companies love to follow the death path. Congratulytions idiots!

It's n ot music alone. Where I live, in Germany we see mass layoffs of programmers and other high yield staff and companies are willing to transfer everything to AI. Unbelievable. They don't get that they are helping their own killer this way.


p.s.: Teilweise ein echtes Zucker-Video. Ich fange jedenfalls an zu zucken, wenn ich die takes im Studio vor den Konsolen sehe. Soll das ein Stilmittel sein?

Sorry for my German

 

Last edited: Feb 17, 2026 at 6:16 PM