Patrons

It seems like a while since this sort of article has come around: "...Why Spotify, Amazon and iTunes Can't Save Musical Artists." Although it might be better to consider that musical artists aren't going anywhere - but what will society get from them? Will it be lowest-common-denominator happy-joy songs, dance hooks, and breakup ballads?  Will the results be different enough to notice?

One might say that recorded music undercut the need for individuals to learn how to play. There are millions of songs available to be purchased and inexpensive streaming options. Add in still-free-but-for-the-ads over-the-air radio and nobody has needed to play music to hear it for a very long time. The question is, what now? The cost of delivering (recorded) music has greatly decreased. The cost of production of music has a lower bound, though, measured in the number of hours required and the return on that investment. Compare that with a minimum  amount required to stay alive, particularly in an already difficult economy,  and one might realize that new production is likely to decrease. Unless other options are out there.

And so music and other artistic endeavors may return to patronage of various sorts. Some people can depend on already-available cash-flows to support them while they try their luck in a grueling business. Kickstarter has people asking for donations on plays, books, films, and musical endeavors. Petreon lets "creators" request ongoing donations from "patrons" based on output - release a video, get a dollar.

It is likely that one person's brilliant synthesis is the next person's lowest-common-denominator. Not everyone will like the new situation - already, many people do not. As long as there are those willing to pay for enjoying music, there will be incentive to create it. As ever, how the two balance out will determine what art looks like in the future.