That I confess I've never taken the time to fully flesh out, but it goes something like this:

The music industry is in the shambles it is in today because of its own decisions. First, they had everyone using the same internet service in the late 1990s (called Napster), and rather than buy it and monetize it, they destroyed it. Instantly, copycats surfaced and where you had one platform serving everyone now you had a huge assortment of different programs all providing free music. Suddenly their problem became infinity worse.

The music industry chose to fight their customers rather than try to work with them or support them for being interested in their product. They filed ridiculous lawsuits putting an unlucky few in debt peonage to set an example to the world that you MUST BUY THEIR MUSIC or risk these sorts of repercussions. However, the tidal wave of internet downloading was much more than they could stop just by these mafia like tactics (using the strong arm of government to do their bidding - see http://www.wired.com/threatlev...ng-appeal/).

Furthermore, the types of artists they promote have naturally led to declining sales. The artists that are top 40 hits these days do not make good albums. They make singles, and that is it. Rihanna, Bieber, Selena Gomez, One Direction, Drake, Ke$ha, etc. -- all of these artists are singles artists. They don't produce an entire album that anyone would want to listen to. And thus people don't buy their albums. Why buy an album when 10 out of 12 songs are terrible? No one does this.

Back in the day, every highly promoted band or artist made both singles and after the Beatles and Bob Dylan they made albums that were desirable. People wanted the entire album, not just the top tracks. Today that is no longer the case, except in rare exceptions (see Kanye West, or Adele -- they sell millions of albums because they can put together more than one hit song).

So if the geniuses who run these failing music companies would promote actual artistic talents rather than Disney artists who are single artists, who lack talent, who no one would ever listen to for a full album, then maybe they would have a legitimate complaint. But since they don't, and we keep getting things like Rebecca Black's Friday, then who cares? Let them rot and go out of business.

Music will survive. Artists can record and release online. They don't need the music industry. The good bands will rise to the top, and perhaps without the music industry we will be spared the terrible yet popular due to payola and advertising bands like Nickelback, Staind, Hinder, Puddle of Mudd, etc.

The music industry is busy killing every viable monetary model out there? Piracy is WAAAYYY down from 1999, it was up to around 17%, now it hits at around 9%. Even if no one pirated, that still means the amount of sales would be abysmal. The average American spends 17 dollars on music.

So the step has been to move music into streaming services like Pandora and Spotify, which has in turn, reduced the economic incentive to pirate music. However, the music industry has fought tooth and nail against Spotify and Pandora. Netflix has likewise had the exact same problem. People who listen on Spotify spend less of an even smaller pie on regular CDs and outlets, and Record Labels aren't that fond of Apple's iTunes either.

Ultimately, the music industry has a major problem they can't address. Because they are the problem. Record labels existed to allow people to discover bands and music. That is no longer necessary. Ergo, they are no longer necessary. But they still want to make money and they hold the copyrights.

"Creative Workers Need to Be Paid, the Question Is How"

What exactly is an "Un-creative" worker?

Who gets paid how much from that?

Middlepersons in the performance and recording industry between creative workers and the audience tended to use a winner-take-all model by selecting a few from the vast oversupply of wanna-be stars to groom and advance them into blockbuster status.

Whether some workers were underpaid given the aggressive overexposure remains a question but it certainly barred many others from entry at all. After internet technology creatively destroyed this arrangement it appears ironically even fewer could enter successfully given the reaction of the industry to attack consumers in order to preserve revenue and its substantial cut of profit, now taken more clearly at the expense of workers via abuse of their intellectual property.

Whether a voucher system could solve this problem raises several questions:

Free riders who don't contribute but consume the benefits, claimed by the industry to be the same problem as now.

High transaction costs for those who like many different creative workers as well as high absolute costs in order to make effective contributions. It's similar to the micropayment problem on the internet.

Unintended effect of barring unknown but skilled creative workers who can't be liked and vouched for until they're known in a Catch-22 sort of way. Part of the voucher payments would need to support various contests or whatever necessary to select those with potential to receive full voucher support.

I agree with the commenter above. I don't think the voucher system would work.

It's almost like the music industry asked for this problem. Consumers got burned for years buying overpriced music that had one or two good songs. They don't even have to physically produce CDs, tapes, or albums but still charge the same price for downloads. Now, consumers are reluctant to buy anything without sampling it first and now they can get the whole thing without buying. The record companies need to add more value to motivate people to buy. How about throwing in a small autographed photo, access to exclusive content, or randomly include a voucher for concert tickets? Although, I doubt this makes a difference until the music industry adapts to its adult audience instead of force feeding it what it wants to make popular with teenagers.

Does the iTunes model not work?

One problem with the music industry is that what's popular isn't necessarily what's good. Sometimes the two coincide as with the Rolling Stones, but usually and especially today, it's not the case.

There's plenty of great new music out there, e.g., The Waco Brothers, Jon Langford's Skull Orchard, Jacuzzi Boys, The Ettes, Thee Oh Sees, The Lords of Altamont, The 1990s (the band, not the decade), The Rakes, Throw Rag, The Turbo Fruits, The Briefs, King Kahn & the BBQ Show, The Insomniacs, Carbon/Silicon, The Clutters, Fucked Up (on the soundtrack of the movie,Cedar Rapids, Peelander Z, The Features, Those Darlins, Best Coast, Soft Pack, Dex Romwebber Duo and so on. You or your friends just have to invest time and money and work to find it because the capitalist music industry is most interested in exchange value (price, including profit) and completely indifferent to the use value (the music itself). Thus, the popularity of vapid, insipid, sing songy, sad sack shit, e.g., Three Doors Down and those bands mentioned by Brett above.

Music companies aren't necessary anymore. Bands can record and distribute their music themselves. People will buy it if they hear it and it's good enough. Plus the money goes directly to the band members (I don't know that they're "artists"). The days of Allen Klein screwing the Rolling Stones out of royalties and Hesh screwing over Massive G's cousin and aunt are over.

How about *big shocker* people start being creative simply for the sake of creativity, and not because they're expecting to be paid. We need the return of the starving artist, or maybe the marginally attached artist. The way Hollywood and record studios work today is so formulaic and predictable, big-budget movies with absurd special effects that are insanely over-advertised. Just absolutely mind-numbing crap.

Dean has his latest book available for free, but guess what, I paid for it because I appreciate what he does. I have donated to truth-out.org, I've donated to Occupy, I've donated to wikipedia, along with many other donors I'm sure. Let people decide what they like and if they want to see more of it, they will pay for it, instead of having mass-produced garbage shoved down their throat relentlessly every commercial break.

I still buy CDs, and have some old records lying 'round too, but I full well understand why young people don't pay for music. [Sound of rocking chair creaking] When I was a girl, musicians made albums with a bunch of good pieces on them. Sometimes one or two would be a little weak, but most of the stuff was worth listening to (and paying for). Today the cretins who make up most of the music industry are too busy suing college students to produce a good series of songs placed on the same CD and sold for a reasonable price. Instead they put out an overpriced CD with, maybe, three pieces worth listening to and a bunch of junk. No one will pay for that, and it's not because they are immoral. They just don't like being ripped off. [End creaking]

In the 15th century, artists of all types had patrons - it was the only method of making such a living. Even though everyone can sing, only a few were so supported. Modern technology (printing press, record players, radio) gave the fruits of their efforts, with assistance from the law, a cut of all the proceeds not only from their original effort, but all SUBSEQUENT Performances, for which the artist expended no effort whatsoever. Only because we have been indoctrinated, do we somehow think this state of affairs is normal or just. I don't pay the guy who invented the hammer a fee every time I pound a nail, and I shouldn't pay a fee for playing a recording.

Now technology has advanced even more. Anybody can write and distribute over the internet essentially for free - same for music. Newspapers are discovering that their monopoly on ads, which supported their model, has collapsed.

Anybody can write, and in general I find the comments were interesting, and often more informed, than the "professional."

Their is more sources of news and music than ever before. Its ubiquity demonstrates that it is not rare, and certainly of little value.
Buggywhip makers lost a lucrative living and I am afraid the same will happen to most musicians and authors.

Like the buggy whip industry before it, the recorded music industry has been made obsolete by the easy exchange of music files. Musicians will use recorded music to promote their real business, playing shows. And they can sell CDs or other media at these shows to their fans. Music will become a much more local industry. My music dollar is almost entirely spent watching live shows. Many musicians have been well and truly screwed by the industry, and many talented people have gone unrecognized, so it's no loss.

okay, a big subject here. the reason a lot of great musicians get nowhere is they may be great slashers on the guitar, but they have no business sense on how to promote themselves. many are highschool dropouts, drug users, had horrible homelives as teenagers when they were developing their skill, & can't find other musicians that like the same stuff they do, or want to drink instead of practice. part of the reason so many people don't buy a lot of what's out today is, there are no guitar riffs by many of the bands you see on late night tv. most of the classic bands have old people in their 60s or 70s. nobody replaced them. oh, okay you have guys in their 50s who are the best in the world like batio, satch, vai & malmsteen. but there are only a few in their 20s or 30s that are really good, tom morello is great as well as very intelligent & stands for the right stuff. we need more like him.

It would make more sense if I said, "Like the buggy whip industry before it, the recorded music industry has been made obsolete by technology, in this case the easy exchange of music files." Sorry!

I think you're right: copyright is an antiquated form for providing incentive to produce. However copyright also can preserve the integrity/quality of the copies of a piece, it's not just an economic incentive, for the creator anyway. But creative commons licenses seem to cover that issue, which then only leaves the issue of how to eat and live well/happily while creating works (practice time, equipment, studio, etc. -- plenty of costs).

I think Dean is also right that there must be a better way, an other way, than vouchers. I can see the temptation to go with vouchers, as a near-cash substitute; but vouchers for schools seems to be an abject failure as far as I can tell, so why should it do any better for artists than for educators? On the other hand, I've not the slightest idea (yet) of what to proffer in the place of vouchers.

This comment is sadly lacking in substance. It seems like a rote defense of existing beliefs - more characteristic in who you argue with, than you. I suggest some supporting data that this would work, or refrain from using your blog as your echo chamber.

I speak as an artist who has witnessed the collapse of the creative economy.