Kids, starting around age 10 give or take, who compete in festivals and contests are not rewarded gratuitously. It's cut throat and if you screw up you're out. 5 year olds however, are encouraged as much as possible. Slamming them with failure isn't productive and teaches nothing. I'd say the same thing about kid sports.. I don't agree with the Waiting For Superman framework. Tiger moms abound. I went to an elite college, said college wouldn't admit me were I applying today. The pie has gotten smaller, and people are fighting harder than ever to make it to the top of the scrap heap.

Also, it's mystery why Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart (and the others) emerged in a short time frame. Genius's tend to show up in batches throughout history. Some confluence of environment and luck. There's the golden age of physics and other examples of brief periods of creativity. History we tell us what golden era we now inhabit. I'm guessing we live in the golden age of mobile phone apps.

@Mark_the_Harp

Also a lot of people think that "creativity" comes from nowhere or is hardcoded in DNA only.
And also same people think that potential talent is enough, while in real life ability to produce high quality (or even outstanding) product in time and with certain constrains is much more important.

Because 77% of the mass listens to only 1% of the music available. The mass is an ass, no doubt, so herding is not the hard part.

As for Beethoven and the trifecta of German geniuses, the difference is while kids today are learning smoke on the water or Bach's prelude in D minor, they were learning composition (harmony, counterpoint, etc) and were writing for multiple instruments when they barely beyond the sperm stage. Drilling a kid to play Chopin at the age of 3 just makes him a very precise machine but does nothing for his creativity.

For most people, if they are being constantly feed, there is little motivation to hunt/gather. The entertainment business is similar. Many people are happy with their choice of 15 station on their car radio, rather than hunt/gather music when not driving.

The record labels are like fashion models. It's not that you have a bad face, it's just not the face we are looking for today. Music or media is the same. It's more cost effective to market styles than individual artists. Most small labels get a few relative artists, and are bought up by larger labels, who can package similar artists, and leverage their marketing/touring relationships. It's just good business. They are making a ton of money. They just aren't telling the artists.

Which produces large numbers of technically accomplished musicians, a few good ones, and the occasional great one. But no Mozarts or Beethovens.

How do you know? Today life is just different, first you have much more to do with your time, and second - it is very hard to live writing music, such thing as rich and personal sponsors is very rare.

If "prodding and pressuring" kids produced even passable composers, there would be as many accomplished composers as there are accomplished musicians.

It is now not very common to have parents who pressure their children to do something really useful. Most of the time under pressure they understand short home lectures that they must do during watching TV in parallel.

There are the socalled "Tastemakers", the suits, that tell people what to consume, what to download, and what to like on their Instagrams. The sheep analogy is very much a reality.

I don't agree with the conclusion the author makes - "Instead the marketplace has shown us that humans are just as much wandering sheep in need of herding online as they are offline." The data in the chart simply shows the % of money earned by acts such a Spears, The Rolling Stones, etc. There's nothing in that data that proves/disproves a herd mentality.

It is not this numbers alone. Knowledge of humans really suggest that people like to behave like hamsters (or sheeps) in guided properly. They like to turn off their mind and just follow the lead or suggestion.

Since the advent of MTV the music industry is more akin to the 'fashion' industry.

I think most consumers are not that interested in music. They are interested in fashion and how they will be perceived by their peers.

As such there can only be a few major trends. Thus the wealth stays confined to a small group of people even though the ability to distribute and create music has been democratized by the digital revolution.

Seems like the music industry has become similar to a "winner take all market" where the revenue and profits accrue to a small number of players, and everyone else gets very little.

The Android app marketplace is said to be something like this too - a small # of apps are accounting for the bulk of revenue and profits and most apps do not break even.

What's the evidential basis that consumers aren't enjoying the music and films that they are purchasing?

I don't care for Beiber's music in the least, but he's not really selling music. He's a teen-beat popstar, selling a musical entertainment package... one that millions of girls enjoy and pay for. The fact that he's no Yo-Yo Ma doesn't make it any less enjoyable to teen girls.

Music is one of those personal things; talent and success - and financial rewards - are no so clear-cut. I can't stand Radiohead, but understand many do. My dislike of them doesn't mean there's no talent there, nor a market for it.

I always joke about getting that yacht catalogue out every time I get a gig (for my measly fee). I quite like Bob Lefsetz's letters - you can subscribe here - http://www.lefsetz.com/ - for his view on the music "industry". It's a bit US-centric but quite entertaining.

If you hear anyone talking about an artist, reviewing an artist, social media about an artist, or even hating on an established artist, you can be pretty confident that this is a result of well proven marketing plans.

I can even say that you do not need too many people to spread the word, as most people do it for free and just follow authority. But you need good money and proper infrastructure and people.