Not sure why this article is flagged. It's legitimate and accurate in my opinion. He's not saying it's bad to democratize music, he's saying that nobody has the

Not sure why this article is flagged. It's legitimate and accurate in my opinion. He's not saying it's bad to democratize music, he's saying that nobody has the money or the inclination anymore to DEVELOP new artists. As a result, we don't have a good soundtrack for our lives anymore. There's presently just very little comparable to past decades in terms of artistry or performance. There are quite a lot of current artists that would benefit from better management, better oversight, and honest feedback. Put another way, the songs that get popular will always be the most accessible of the set of songs created in a particular year, but the sheer amount of quality songs we have to choose from is 5% of what it was in 1974, 1984, or 1994. That's not a subjective boomer or xer opinion that's simply an objective fact. And the reason for that is the lack of curation and oversight that the labels, love them or hate them, used to do. Ever listen to the first album of a now-famous artist? It was often only so-so. Very rarely did an debut album come out well. Most of the time it took 2-3 albums and many years of performing before an artist really found their sound. There are 100s of examples. Yes, occasionally there's going to be a Boston record, or a Billie Eilish, or Appetite for Destruction, or Pearl Jam's Ten, but it's actually quite rare and when you read into it you find out that those artists were often working musicians for many years first and the band was manufactured by the studio to ensure complete success.