Well, I think the tech changes have probably been good for the musicians on the artistic level in giving them access to studios cheaply, but not so good with the shrinkage in live, paying work (and, I think it is safe to say) the increase in professional & hope to be professional musicians as a % of the population in the past few decades. And then there are the cultural shifts away from music as a social focus, replaced by gaming, etc.  

--- On Sun, 2/6/11, Lou Judson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Lou Judson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sony appetite, was EMI demise
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011, 12:04 PM
> That was part of my point, Eugene. I
> was including musicians in the general population of
> humanity, which has not been served well by the corporate
> system and acquisitions... The performers and and the
> listeners suffer.
> 
> <L>
> 
> On Feb 6, 2011, at 7:52 AM, eugene hayhoe wrote:
> 
> Re: Music 'industry'
> 
> I guess my interest would be 'how are the musicians
> faring?' At the moment, musicians have way more access in
> many ways than they once did. Home digital recording, the
> internet - bands can easily go from basement to global w/o
> corporate help. Doesn't however, necessarily bring them any
> money to cover bills. As pianist Andrew Hill once said, it
> wasn't until he'd made several well regarded records for
> Blue Note in the '60s that he realized it was possible to be
> famous & poor.
>