So this article is largely about the changes in technology, namely that with a high barrier to entry and when distribution was predicated on moving physical pro

So this article is largely about the changes in technology, namely that with a high barrier to entry and when distribution was predicated on moving physical products, times were good for musicians selling the media of the time (records, CDs). But this article makes the same mistake pretty much every article decrying the zero cost of distribution (ie the Internet) and the inevitable piracy, it ignores a key point: at probably every point in this era only a very few musicians could ever earn a living just from selling recorded music. The primary source of income for the majority of musicians has been for performances. Even in the Internet/MP3 era, people still want to see live music. Maybe that's not attractive to those who want to sit at home collecting royalties but getting in front of a live audience and playing music was, is and will continue to be a potential source of a living. And while the income from recorded music situation is unquestionably worse than, say, 50 years ago, we also no longer have record companies and radio stations as the gatekeepers of taste. Anyone can publish digital music to Spotify, Youtube, Soundcloud, etc so it's not all bad. So whenever you see any articles complaining about low royalties paid by streaming services or the unfairness of record contracts, look at that article and see if it anything about income from performances because almost always it doesn't.