I actually think that this article is confusing two things, the fact that the technology has evolved to make music more accessible (even omnipresent), and the f

I actually think that this article is confusing two things, the fact that the technology has evolved to make music more accessible (even omnipresent), and the fact that there are a lot of people producing music at the moment. Whilst one may have facilitated the other, the effects the author describes in the article are due sometimes to one, sometimes to the other (e.g. the overwhelming amount of bands at SXSW is due to the large amount of music being produced at the moment, the fact that music is now everywhere -in shops, on the radio, on screens in public places, on YouTube or MySpace- is due to the technology facilitating music distribution.) My problem is not so much with the fact that music is available everywhere as with the fact that most of it isn't very good - the commercial impetus behind most modern (pop) music means that there isn't a lot of variety (because record companies apply their own fitness functions, going for 'proven' formulas), and the emphasis on immediate commercial success puts more emphasis on tangential factors (production values, marketing etc) than on the music itself. So, I'm worried that although the availability of music has increased, its value to society (i.e. its cultural and intellectual benefits) may actually have diminished.