16th July 2013
When it was more about having to actually have the skills to play the music (and even if you used the, vastly less powerful, tools of the studio to help you out, you still generally had to get up and play it), that meant that it was more likely to be rarer, and therefore more valuable. People looked up to musicians who were good musicians (not necessarily 'shredders', just good musicians could perform their music well.)
Now, there's so much music out there, and it's being made for so much less effort and sacrifice, that the value of it is dropping rapidly. And the more people become convinced that it's all basically made with little effort, the easier it is to devalue it and steal it.
Now, you can argue that everyone has the right to make music for their own enjoyment if they want, and that's true. And it's always been true before the internet and DAWs. People made music at home, or at the local coffee shop on open mic night. It didn't dilute the value of those folks who are really trying to do it for real. Now everyone can have delusions of stardom, putting up their very heavily edited music, all over the net. It's created massive over-supply, and it does dilute the value of those really trying to do it as a profession.
And, BTW, I'm not one of those people trying to do it for real, so I'm not just supporting my own position here. I'm arguing for what's best for music as a whole, and having millions more people putting out songs isn't really that. As I've said elsewhere, and I don't mean to be ugly about it, what the digital tools available today are mostly doing is serving the egos of the people putting up music that makes them seem vastly more competent than they really are, not the art of music.
If everyone was putting up honest reflections of their actual talent, things would be a lot different.