In the 19th century there was a much higher percentage of people who could play rudimentary musical forms.
The quality of music and choice available to consumers has increased steadily. People would rather hear the best musicians in the world than the best musicians in their household or neighborhood.
There is plenty of historical research on this topic beyond the common sense explanation I'm offering here.
Amendeum:
I assume you live in a media hub like NYC, SF or LA, where there is a concentration of mass media professionals.
If you drive out to a small town you will find a very low number of local musicians. Before mass media there would have been a number of local music groups. Today people living in small towns listen to what the mass media professionals are making for them.
These are the same kind of basic economic principles that lead to any kind of concentrated specialization, and on a global scale, comparative advantage.
The decline in music-making over the past century has been astonishing, in small ways and large. Whistling used to be a common sound on the street, but is now almost extinct. Social singing is now a rarity and would be difficult to revive, because there is no longer a shared repertoire of song to draw from. A vast chasm has opened up between "musicians" and "non-musicians".
It is incredibly rewarding and gives me a very real sense of participating and contributing to my culture and community.
When I was a social media addict living my life through a screen while theoretically living in San Francisco I was frequently pulled down by bouts of depression.
Ever since I quit social media, got rid of my smartphone, discovered bluegrass and country music and moved to a place where these musical cultures are a fundamental part of society my life has gotten so much more rich and satisfying.
If "people would rather hear the best musicians in the world than the best musicians in their household or neighborhood" than why are local acts booming in places like Portland, ME? Why are small bands filling out the bottom portion of huge festivals or starting their own?
Your post reads to me like someone who doesn't seem very aware or involved in music and mostly gets their information from online source and so called historical research rather than first-hand live experience.
At one time there was live music in every single pub in the country, if only just some drunk playing sing-a-longs on one of the ubiquitous pianos of the era. Nowadays the vast majority of restaurants, bars and private gatherings utilize recorded music instead of a live band.
I am most definitely in direct competition with DJs for wedding gigs, and they have less costs and a greater range of song materials to choose from.
Your posts read like someone who is convinced that technological "progress" never has any negative repercussions.
It was a fantastic experience but it made me realize I didn't really like life on the road and that I needed a more secure source of income.
That's just incorrect due to the sheer exponential increase of humans alive, not to mention the many cultural factors you are ignoring. Thousands of bands were started because kids heard old blues music over the radio and became inspired.
I'd wager there's more bands and venues than ever now and if anything, I'm seeing more and more people make a living off their music thanks to the network effects of social media combined with touring. I've watched two of my friend's bands - pretty weirdo stoner pop music - go on national tours supporting major acts (Of Montreal was one) and it most likely would've never happened if not for the exposure and channels of the internet.