Also what I actually said was: > a decline in published music quality
Music will have to be published on the cheap = bad quality. Yes there will be lots of great music online (there already is) but no one will sieze it and market in the same way. In the future I think there will be lots of user-centric acts who get little coverage outside their sites and genre's.
So this is the thing: your pitching promotion on a free-ish model potentially awash with thousands of good artists. It could be argued a large percentage of the gig attendance was from people who listened to your CD's - and again it's not a huge stretch to say that in many cases they were driven to the CD by advertising (especially for bands who are relativewly "unknown") - by advertising I include radio plays (which are often prompted by press releases etc.) and other hype. It is in the interest of the producers to sell the CD's so they invest in marketing the bands. In a free model there isnt any point in marketing the band - so the vast majority will never achieve the critical mass to make live gigs worthwhile.
I could well be wrong - but then again I think it's more a case of a "bit of both". I suspect we will see a decline in large music publishers, and will see a lot less "global bands".
So yes it was an emotional reaction (it's hot and the office has 20 computers in it compounding the issue :D) Im just somewhat fed up of the many people who keep bemoaning the media industry despite huge leaps forwards in the last 18 months - it's getting their slowly but is constantly hampered (as I see it) by those who just want something for nothing (and argument I just havent had sold to me yet :P).
Im not saying a free model cannot work (im sure it can). I just argue that some of the main exponents of the model consider it their right to access media for free on their terms - again something I personally strongly disagree with. Copyright is broken: but no protection at all? That's just wrong IMO.