In caveman times, if there was someone that could beat on a rock in a particular way and please people in a particular way, Neanderthals would surely hand over their prized skins and … I don’t know what Neanderthals traded in, but they would have handed them over. The product was scarce, thereby creating demand. Prices were high in dinosaur days. Today, we consume music in so many ways. On tv, on radio, while shopping in the mall, in the elevator, and on, and on….. In fact, here is a list of free streaming music sites from mashable:

http://mashable.com/2008/07/09/streaming-music-sites/

Since free product is plenty, demand for music product must be less, right?. So, it seems to me that the problem is not about distribution, the problem lies in aggregation of audience Much like everything else on the Internet now. I think about the big musicians out there now, and how they are a “brand” of music. They represent a lifestyle and audience. Jay-Z is a brand of music that encompasses his own art as well as the lifestyle image of “successful music mogul” and roots from the street.

Does the music sell the image? Or does the image sell the music?

What I think will and or is happening is that music can’t be partitioned out the way that it has in the past. You know how films sell soundtracks? They benefit from each other. Perhaps “acts” in the future will encompass more than just a recording. Perhaps “acts” will encompass movies? User generated content for concerts? Interactive concert experiences? Sell the image, sell the niche audience, be successful?