That is the story and we would be delighted were it not for a suspicion that if you sell something for virtually nothing, lots of people will buy it. I suspect there is less good music than ever before; and more people streaming or buying it at stunningly low prices with very little effort on improving quality and mass appeal. But that's just guess work and nobody could deny the deserved success of Ed Sheeran.

You see, in the good old Tip Sheet days this thread would have had 122,000 views (not a mere 122) and a huge amount of replies. These days - who cares?

You are completely wrong here JK and this is what's wrong with the music industry. You think it has to work the way it has worked in the past 40 odd years and that change is not good. Well you are completely wrong and the majors and indies are getting it wrong time and time again. They will spend themselves into bankruptcy because they don't know how to evolve and still expect things to run the same way.

Not so. The masses have taken over. The public have won. Mass appeal is gone because there is no such thing as such. It's all niches and genres and non-genres. YouTube have taken over from TV/Radio/Press etc and while the old media is still around and important to some people (people like you) the fact is the real miracles are taking place without the mainstream even knowing or noticing. Of course a monster hit will cross genres, media and demographics but the difference is nothing is as it seemed. Go ahead and appeal to the youth or kids and you will go bust within a few years. Pandering to the mainstream media is NOT how it should be. The music industry still hasn't learnt from football. The industry needs to shift from worshipping the media and concentrate on building its own tribe (whatever that means) and then make the media chase it to get in on it.

Michael Dapaah (whom no one on here gave a rat's arse about) has created a fantastic hit out of a minor appearance of one of his characters on One Extra. It was pure comedy gold but boom! the Ting went Skraa!! and this is what a genuine hit is these days. Not contrived, not focus grouped, not written with a battery of same old same old writers, using a beat anyone could have leased. But what people may not know is the kid has developed a series of other characters and was just doing his Ting online. Build and they will come. Look of course Island Records are in on it somewhere but that is pretty irrelevant because it took off here in Australia propelled by social media. Selling it for nothing (which isn't exactly true) had everything to do with propelling the song all over the world. Streaming is the future for music and getting rid of the easily manipulated sales model is the best thing for the industry which is why I mentioned football. Music needs investment but the wonderful thing is that anyone can invest in it as long as they learn this. You need to be in it for the long haul and you need to LOVE what you are backing. So no more nondescript acts anymore and hopefully we can get more interesting artists other than the "music by numbers" types and formulaic artists. This is the video that kicked it all off.

You're not seeing my point KZ - yes, the industry has changed; nothing wrong with that. Yes; niches are now the key and specialist music is appealing to smaller groups; nothing wrong with that either. But by allowing music virtually for free and enabling people to make and release music at tiny cost means two things have happened. Music is less important to most people and quality control is missing, so much music is not as good as it could be.

We have no way of sorting the wheat from the chaff.
How do you think this could be overcome?

Indeed if I were still in the music industry, that would be one of my key challenges.

Both of these statements are ridiculous beyond belief and shows really how out of touch you really are:

1. People listen to more music now than ever. The only reason niches thrive is because people listen and support it. I am sure you wish you could run things in a monopoly. You wish that you could control what people could listen to or not. That is just arrogant nonsense.

2. Quality control is another red herring. If you controlled what people listened to in terms of distribution then you control the quality and therefore what you say goes. No doubt in the past when all the DJs were 'gods' at Radio and could do what they liked, they controlled the output and ensured that only their 'mates' music thrived. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and quality boils down to who you ask. As far as I am concerned the only people who should determine the quality are the ARTISTS and thank God they have been liberated from their 'masters'.

Nothing is stopping you or anyone else putting your brand of music out there and doing the same thing as everyone else. The old tricks you boast about often are redundant and you can't manipulate the charts as you used to. Welcome to the real world now your music (and indeed everyone else's) lives or dies on its own merits. You can of course spend as much as you want to promote your music. Cowell does that and so do the majors. But the public have choice and options and that is a great thing as far as I am concerned.

You don't. The public are not stupid. If they don't like something guess what? they don't buy it. Quit trying to manipulate and control people. Those days are gone and not before time.

Ah the dominance of artistes! Yes we shall have to agree to differ there KZ; I've always believed that people under estimate the importance of contribution in art. For every great Charles Dickens there will be a million others who need training, help, guidance and positive criticism. The importance of arrangers, producers, co writers, engineers, musicians and others in my biggest hits was totally essential. I'm sure there are a few who can do it all on their own but they are rare.

Simplistic world. The possibility that there are millions of people who will buy some music seems to escape you. Even the appalling WING (down there) sold a few records.

Most artists are not doing it all by themselves. The producers, arrangers, managers etc haven't dropped off the planet. They are still there. The difference is that now you have a more collaborative team rather than the svengali at the top dictating to the artist. This does still happen in some circles such as Cowell's label Syco. If you listen to the radio you'll see the model you're clamouring for is very much alive and well. One type of sound, the same songwriters, the same rappers (featuring) the same sounds etc. All of this is pretty much the norm in the major led part of the industry that you see in the charts and hear on the radio. But there is another world out there quietly doing its thing. This world does not need the mainstream media (if they come on board all good). They don't need to chase them. In this world the creators are bosses of their own destiny and they utilise social media very well and make a decent living flying under the radar. This is what Michael Dapaah was doing until his Big Shack record took off and this is the new model at play as far as I am concerned.

No I am not the one who is out of touch. The world is going streaming for many reasons. The main one being piracy but also costs. Streaming generates more money and profit than the sales model which is why the industry is moving in that direction. Apple are getting rid of downloads and going streaming. Yes some will buy physical copies but they can always buy online from the artist/label website or even Amazon. No need for the bulky and corrupt distribution/shop system of the past. The future is bright not bleak and the industry is coping quite well without you JK.

Is it coping very well? I'm pleased to hear it. Nurturing and developing artists, funding the improvement of new talent, boosting the profile of music to the public, increasing the value of music, both as an art form and as a talent of value? You, like the BPI and most others, seem to agree that the music industry is better than ever, as this thread asks. You're all in it. I'm not. I do hope you're right and this outside observer is wrong. We do tend to wear rose coloured glasses about the music world of the 60s and 70s.