This article reeks of blaming new technology for killing an industry (it didn't), and resistance to change (i.e. things were so much better when I was young).

This article reeks of blaming new technology for killing an industry (it didn't), and resistance to change (i.e. things were so much better when I was young). He actually (sort-of) acknowledges this in the last paragraph when he mentions theatre taking a hit when films came about, but music hasn't been replaced like theatre has so the comparison is moot. > Now everybody can make a record – and maybe that’s not a good thing No, that is a very good thing. High studio costs mean that you had to get funded by a record company to get anything recorded and released. Record companies were the gatekeepers. Now, you can make a decent sounding record with only a few thousand dollars worth of recording equipment and a laptop. No, it will not sound as good as one recorded at a proper studio, but Joe/Jane Consumer generally won't be able to tell the difference anyway. The magic of music is not how high quality the recording is, but how well the artists composed the music and how they played it. I think the punk recordings he mentions showed that the best, because they objectively sound bad from a traditional music production standpoint, but that was the whole point those punk artists were making. There have been some absolutely great records made in people's home studios, even as early as the 90's. The key ingredient of good music is creativity, not sound quality, and having decent recording gear for cheap just lets more people be more creative.