[stephancoral]

>Before the advent of radio and recorded music there were many more musicians and bands.

That's just incorrect due to the sheer exponential increase of humans alive, not to mention the many cultural factors you are ignoring. Thousands of bands were started because kids heard old blues music over the radio and became inspired.

I'd wager there's more bands and venues than ever now and if anything, I'm seeing more and more people make a living off their music thanks to the network effects of social media combined with touring. I've watched two of my friend's bands - pretty weirdo stoner pop music - go on national tours supporting major acts (Of Montreal was one) and it most likely would've never happened if not for the exposure and channels of the internet.

[throwawaycopy]

You're wrong.

In the 19th century there was a much higher percentage of people who could play rudimentary musical forms.

The quality of music and choice available to consumers has increased steadily. People would rather hear the best musicians in the world than the best musicians in their household or neighborhood.

There is plenty of historical research on this topic beyond the common sense explanation I'm offering here.

Amendeum:

I assume you live in a media hub like NYC, SF or LA, where there is a concentration of mass media professionals.

If you drive out to a small town you will find a very low number of local musicians. Before mass media there would have been a number of local music groups. Today people living in small towns listen to what the mass media professionals are making for them.

These are the same kind of basic economic principles that lead to any kind of concentrated specialization, and on a global scale, comparative advantage.

[jdietrich]

Before the widespread adoption of radio, pianos were an essential part of any household that could afford one. Pianos were a common sight in pubs, village halls, workplace canteens and practically anywhere that people would gather. Nearly everyone participated in social singing to some extent. The streets were filled with buskers, most pubs had a pianist or accordionist, most families had at least one person who could play an instrument. Music was as omnipresent as it is today, but it was performed live by whoever happened to be around.

The decline in music-making over the past century has been astonishing, in small ways and large. Whistling used to be a common sound on the street, but is now almost extinct. Social singing is now a rarity and would be difficult to revive, because there is no longer a shared repertoire of song to draw from. A vast chasm has opened up between "musicians" and "non-musicians".

[stephancoral]

Small towns are where music happens. I live in Western, MA - I can see music every night. If I drive out to a small town in upstate New York, I guarantee you there will be a bar with live music. Even a run down shithole like Poughkeepsie or Catskill has plenty of local bands. Some huge names in music have come from small towns in Georgia or in Ohio or in Michigan. One of the biggest indie record labels is based out of Nebraska.

If "people would rather hear the best musicians in the world than the best musicians in their household or neighborhood" than why are local acts booming in places like Portland, ME? Why are small bands filling out the bottom portion of huge festivals or starting their own?

Your post reads to me like someone who doesn't seem very aware or involved in music and mostly gets their information from online source and so called historical research rather than first-hand live experience.