The Economics of Rock's Downfall

[MathOfInsects]

1 hour ago, Jim Alfredson said:

Not directly but it reflects how much money was in the business at the time. And this person was not famous yet.
 

In a way, though at that time the record label was historically the money-losing portion of the entertainment corporations. Fewer artists were signed and labels generally relied only on huge-name artists as opposed to developing baby bands. Only when Tommy Matolla signed (and did other things with) with Mariah Carey did this start to change. After his deal with her and others, labels began making more money themselves instead of existing off the other divisions' profits. 

So in that sense the change isn't really that there's less money in the the business. It's that that money began to be distributed differently, which ended up INCREASING the $$$ in the pool, though decreasing the up-front pay for individual artists (because more were signed). 

[MathOfInsects]

1 minute ago, jazzpiano88 said:

That was my whole question from Ricks video when it first came out.    
The profits haven’t gone down, they are just in different peoples’ hands, correct?

Well, back then (late 1980s through maybe 2000's). I don't think the labels are doing so great right now. I'm not sure. I didn't watch the Beato video.