Thanks for that example refutation.

That essay seems to have some non-sequitors.

He says people don't dance any more and somehow thinks that is because we pay for performers but never explains the connection. Afaics, we don't dance any more because we have a zillion other things to do that wasn't the case before electricity and combustion engines back on the farm. Nostalgia is nice, but it isn't a justification that we will necessarily revert.

He argues that we should all be our own performers but then doesn't explain how we will justify it when we have such a great opportunity cost these days given all the means for us to be occupied. Has he ever heard of the inexorable trend of maximum-division-of-labor. Afaics, if we want a diversity of good quality indie artists, then we need to gift something to the artists so they can pay their expenses while producing music. I listened to the YouTube Hangout videos for Synereo, and the musicians point out that creating music is not without effort, time, and expense.

He fails to discuss the point that I may only like a few songs from an artist and may only be willing to transfer a $1 for that music to help the artist produce music. So I can't buy a T-shirt or go to a concert for $1. As well, I can't travel to India just to attend a concert for the interesting Indian music I can hear instantly at songdew.com.

There is no way I want to listen only to the absolute best musicians. I want to listen to 1000s of songs of diversity. I get bored fast listening to the same song over and over. I think that is a critical error of the essay.

Henry Ford jumpstarted the USA manufacturing economy by paying his employees more so they could afford to buy Ford cars.

In a world with 7 billion people and a $40 trillion annual GDP, we can afford to pay 7 million musicians $24,000 a year. That is only $24 per person (on average) per year spent on music. That is only $168 billion per year.

The only question I really have in mind is who should/will pay so we end up with that roughly $24 average per annum per music consumer. Current distribution schemes seem to indicate only about 5% of the people will pay anything significant for music. The rest want it free. But maybe they would pay a little if it was reasonably insignificant and hassle-free. So if the 95% is paying 1/20th of the 5% (and not getting all the frills that the 5% get) then that cmputes as  (95/20 + 5) x = 2400, so x = $246 for per annum for the 5% and $12 per annum for the 95%. See mathematically it doesn't make much sense to target the 5% as it requires 10X more spending from them just to double the revenue of the musician.

So perhaps the global economy can sustain 700,000 musicians (1/10,000 of the population-at-large) at $24,000 annually with every of the 7 billion expending $2.40 or $0.20 per month. As the developing world becomes wealthier then perhaps $24 per annum for 7 million musicians.

Be honest. I will not spend $246 per year on music. Will you? But I will surely spend $2.40 and probably $24 annually which is less than I spend on food in day or days.

But maybe the 95% just won't pay no matter the price. Then in that case focus on the 5% who pay, use free downloads to promote and be prepared to have 20X less musical diversity.