I think you have made your position unnecessarily confusing by bringing "good" into it. You have entered a conversation about changing the music industry so tha

I think you have made your position unnecessarily confusing by bringing "good" into it. You have entered a conversation about changing the music industry so that it provides a greater reward to certain artists that it currently does. You then said "well, if they're good, they're at the top, so why do you want to change who's at the top?". That's a very confused thing to say, because everyone else in the thread is arguing that by their definition of good, the good people are not at the top. If you are actually trying to argue that we cannot have a music industry where people are rewarded more evenly, you have provided absolutely no justification for it. You just said that since success attracts, it will naturally pool to a smaller and smaller group. Well why is there more than one artist, then? Why is it distributed in exactly the way it is now? When the distribution changes, why does it change? It seems obvious that the world we are in is not the only one that could possibly exist, and that changes in the structure of the industry, or the laws, could modify it. Do you want to have that argument, or no?