They didn't "kill" music -- which is impossible as long as it's an activity that has inherent value for humans -- but several of these inventions have dramatically changed the economic value of musical skills and therefore, to some extent, the viability of investment in developing those skills. That has second order effects on what kind of music can get made (and by who) and find its way into the culture.

Maybe a lot of these are reasonable tradeoffs. I sure love recorded music, even though it did hit the livelihood of gigging musicians. I like having an orchestra I can arrange for in my computer, even though it reduces the demand for studio musicians. I don't want to un-invent these things (nor do I think that's possible). But I recognize the impact and know that musicians who saw threats weren't wrong.

I do, however, want to uninvent Spotify and any services like it -- or at least radically change the cost structure. As they're now constituted, they're not a reasonable tradeoff; they don't really introduce a new opportunity, they're simply plays to combine the power of a new centralized distribution channel that has both broadcast and on-demand capabilities with arbitrage opportunities from externalized and/or sunk production costs and digital licensing loopholes to push the economic rewards for producing recordings down to fractional rates previous reserved for non-demand broadcast levels. Consumers love it, of course, because it's only marginally more expensive than piracy, more convenient, and has the imprimatur of legitimacy, but that's largely because services like Spotify are splitting some of the cost externalizations with us as they overall subtract value from the sector.