Since the producers are obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders under most corporate structures by supreme court decisions, their focus will be to reduce labor costs while maximizing total revenue from consumers.
There are no winners here except the distributors. Some kind of artist cooperative is a necessity. Then at least the smaller creators will get paid fairly.
It's also worth noting that part of the reason the UK has/had such a vibrant music scene is the dole. That is, they pay their artists to let them do their thing.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/money-are-y...
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/art-and-design/role-of-th...
Right now, I'm following maybe 10 or so artists on social media, youtube, bandcamp, etc.
I pay a handful of them $1-$10 a month via patreon in return for them releasing their music for free via youtube (I generally also get clean, high quality versions out of this).
There's another handful I follow who release albums on Bandcamp and I can listen, and if I like it I can pay $5-$10 to download and keep forever.
I don't use Spotify or similar services, but my friends who do tell me about a huge world of similar small artists and variety of tastes they discovered through that service.
The music industry no longer takes a few select artists and makes them superstars everyone has heard of, yes. But in return there's something for everyone, and lots of artists making ends meet rather than a few artists getting rich. I think this is a net positive.
This is ok, perhaps even desirable. Ultimately, the market for music is already so oversaturated that more artists aren't really "needed" (that is to say, there is much more than enough music to service demand, not that more good art isn't valuable), and most non-elite artists would welcome reduced competition.
> There aren't many people arguing that the 2010s have been a better decade for music than the 60s to 90s.
Well either way that is a totally subjective argument that cannot ever be concluded definitively, there is so much more music produced today than in the 60s-90s that it'd be impossible to even make a fair subjective judgement regarding which decades produced "better" music. Certainly, I think everyone can agree that stronger economic incentives do not necessarily mean better work is produced and there are those who suggest that the opposite is true.
Costs of prediction are pretty low now, everything except the cheapest indy albums sounds great.
That may be true for music, but simultaneously, we have another "golden age" of western TV series (both live-action and animated). What's the difference? From what I can see, TV series are just as heavily pirated as music is.
The difference is those series have still enough paid subscribers to make the production costs and handsome profits worth it.
There aren't many people arguing that the 2010s have been a better decade for music than the 60s to 90s.
Of course, this assumes consumers and content distributors can join the dots - and so far there isn't much evidence they can.