There's no Moore's Law for music. Why should new music displace old? Baroque music is still great. So is Bebop. I have a thought, which is that modern music pr

There's no Moore's Law for music. Why should new music displace old? Baroque music is still great. So is Bebop. I have a thought, which is that modern music production and distribution have blurred the lines between "recorded" and "live" music. I'm a musician. The only way to hear my band is to attend one of our concerts. There's no reason for us to even attempt to commercialize our music. It doesn't need to have any lasting or widespread appeal. If we get an audience of 100 people, that's huge for us. Because of the novelty of our performances (never the same mistake twice), we don't have to be perfect in order to interest the audience. Nothing we play is "produced." Prior to online music distribution, there was a sharp distinction between live and recorded music. If you wanted to reach beyond those 100 people, it cost an arm and a leg to get your music into commercial distribution, so it had to be targeted to a mass audience, or at least a big enough audience of enthusiasts to cover your costs. There was an economic reason to be good in the sense of having that widespread and lasting value. Today, it costs no more to stream your music than to play it live. Maybe less. So it may just be that the financial incentives weigh towards creating throw-away recordings that last long enough to replace them with the next one. Just like with live music, your job isn't so much "the performance of a lifetime," as it is, "get them to come back next time." Today, if you move outside of mass commercial music, there is plenty of great new music just like there always was. That's because, while the economics of popular music have changed, the economics of great new music really haven't. Disclaimer: When I'm not playing jazz, I'm accompanying fiddlers and folk musicians. I've opted out of the popular music scene.