The change in attitudes regarding live music came about with the widespread distribution of recorded music, in the second quarter of the 20th century, and radio. Whether it's distributed on a disc or via the Net isn't that significant.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the general lack of time? Even now, there are those audiophiles who spend hours listening to their favorite artist(s), scouring the internet for copies of obscure performances, and ambushing their friends with "have you heard this????" Grateful Dead fans perhaps are some of the most dedicated, but even they have to succumb to the time demands present in this society.

My uncle (now retired) still spends evenings when one of his favorite teams isn't playing listening to favorite classical performances that he knows backwards and forwards, but I think it's because he makes the time to listen instead of using his time for television or other things. Of course, he also gets up at 5:30 in the morning to run, but that's just crazy talk.... ;)

I am certain that my own musical tastes are far more refined for having been able to access virtually any sound recording I'd care to find than if my choices were limited to the CD collection at Best Buy, or, God-forbid, the local Clear Channel radio station. I suspect that this experience is common.

The distinction should be made: recorded music is ubiquitous. We enjoy recorded music as if it were the real McCoy.

What if we had a local economy of music rather than Best Buy purchases and ITunes? Real performances verify real talent as well as the real "human element."

The distinction should be made: recorded music is ubiquitous. We enjoy recorded music as if it were the real McCoy.

What if we had a local economy of music rather than Best Buy purchases and ITunes? Real performances verify real talent as well as the real "human element."

Geez, I don't know. Patti Page vs. Arcade Fire? Do people really think our musical tastes are degenerating?

I suspect mp3s will eventually mean the downfall of the music business as we now know it.

Bands in the future will likely use their recordings as ways to promote their live shows, the wy the Rolling Stones now do, and the Greatful Dead and the Ramones did in the past. Those two bands never sold many albums, but made mostly all of their piles of moolah on the road.

I'm sure that new entities that can spot talent and exploit and promote that talent (and I mean it in a good way) will arise. Music lawyers will still have careers. Recording studios and enginers will stay in business, along with Ron Delsner. The show will go on, just without Sony in the picture, hopefully.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone else think that the general (objective) quality of music has deteriorated in the last, say, 75-100 years? It's just a question - I know that people will generally always have something they just like to listen to, regardless of whether it has objective artistic merit, but it just seems that more and more "modern" or "popular" music has no structure, lyrical content, or texture (other than "loud"), and while I suspect that it's just me, I wondered.....

I don't know that I can say the general objective quality of music has deteriorated in the last century, but I'm sure that our ability to listen actively, or attentively to music is being eroded. I think too that we are in danger of loosing our ability to appreciate acoustic music. I've written more about this in my blog....for whoever is interestd.