unless a different and workable revenue model comes along at he same time.

How about pulp novels at $1 a pop via iTunes?

These electronic books could be a huge problem for the industry if people took to them in a significant way. Fortunately, books are still the low tech preference for the vast majority. People enjoy the feel, look, heft, smell, and general physicality of a book. Should it change, I can’t see an obvious way to prevent widespread theft of copyright. They say newspapers will disappear in ten years. It’s not a good time to be a writer. The increasing screen sizes of iPods/iPhones, and the whole way that technology is leading us to a portable multimedia format, suitable for everything from newspapers, books, comic, films, and music, the harder it will be for writers to earn money from their work unless a different and workable revenue model comes along at he same time.

“Where’s the money?” is of course they key, something I didn’t address above. I’m not envisaging a situation where every music producer gets instant fame and fortune. I still think the ‘apprenticeship’ model would remain. I just hope that the point at which people find it a profitable venture arrives earlier, and that more people reach this point. The down-side to this is that the ‘fortune’ aspect may diminish. As Momus says in the essay I linked to: “Everyone will be famous for fifteen people.” The small number of millionaire musicians are replaced by a large number of artists who are simply ’salaried’.

Linking in with the ideas of culture and shared experiences we’ve discussed elsewhere - yes, this is perhaps where the the model is left wanting. But as I’ve said above, if gigs and festivals remain, then one would hope that those seminal moments continue. Although albums are very famous, its usually only one or two songs that become the “track of the summer”.

Finally, you’re right about the MP3 quality. But these problems have always been with us, what with people listening to songs on cassette, or taping the Top 40 countdown off the radio. I think, much like the demand for opera, classical concerts, or even the organic fruit & veg section at Waitrose, there will always be a residual demand for vinyl, played on a high-end hi-fi.

interestingly, MP3s also suffer from similar restraints to vinyl or CD. At current broadband speeds, a five or six megabyte file is the sort of thing that can be e-mailed or downloaded quickly, and therefore conveniently, by the consumer. For a three or four minute music track, 192 kbps has become the norm. But there is no reason why, as hard-drive space and broadband speeds increase, that 320 kbps should not rise in popularity… or even delivery in the richer, bigger .WAV formats.

Firstly, the sound quality. Mp3s sound ok on an ipod, with minimal amplification and, at best average, earphones, but plug them into any decent system and they sound awful. Tinny, lacking in depth, no dynamics, and in fact with some of the frequencies missing.

Secondly - In creative terms, I think the album is still a benchmark of excellence, capturing a creative peak in a signature body of work recorded over a relatively short period of time, often, although increasingly not always, in one place. Most people still associate Jimi Hendrix with Electric Ladyland, the Beatles with Sgt Pepper, Pink Floyd with DSOM, The Smiths with Hatfull of Hollow, Blur with Parklife, The Verve with Urban Hymns, Radiohead with ok computer etc etc. Albums are about capturing a time and a place as much as showcasing the technical talents of the musicians.

Thirdly, the limitations of the album were indeed initially set by the physics of viynl recording, but the 12 ish track, 2 side format was kept long after it became technologically possible to go much further. CDs have been around since mid/late 80s and are still by far the dominant format. Maybe this is because, coincidentally or not, 45-60 minutes feels like about the right amount of time to listen to one artist. Long enough to become absorbing but short enough not to become boring. Like it and you can play it again, don’t and you can change it.

Thirdly, the business model will have to change and, as you say, it’s not clear how. Only 10 years ago the standard way to make it in music was to spend an apprentiship, anything from a month to a decade, touring pubs and dodgy clubs, in the back of a van up and down motorways, playing to often unnapreciative audiences, whilst holding down a menial job or living in penury. This went on until you got spotted by an A&R man or a manager who thought you had potential, you got a recording contract which either ripped you off or set you up with lifelong fame and fortune. You could argue that this created an elite, or that it created musical excellence. I would argue that this apprentiship system has served Uk music well, and enabled one of the smaller countries in the world to produce a disproportiante amount of the best popular music on the planet for over 40 years. If being a musician now simply involves recording in your bedroom on a laptop and then uploading to the internet, where is the talent, the perseverance or the passion ? More importantly for the musicians, where is the money ?

Fourthly. I think digitisation has changed what used to be the social nature of music. There’s something about sitting in a social space and isolating yourself with your own individual soundtrack that I find horribly clinical and, in it’s true sense, anti-social. It makes music disposable, transient lines of machine code, and inevitably de-values it. Music is not meant to be solitary and bespoke, it is meant to be social and democratic.

As someone who remembers the saturday morning ritual of going to a record shop, to browse, chat and maybe buy some music, or the teenage thrill of playing a coveted album one for the first time, I could well be drifting into nostaliga - arguments about technology killing the music industry have been going on since the advent of the casette tape. Even synthesisers were initially seen as a threat to “real” music - but at the same time is it a coincidence that the Uks relevance as producers of popular music has coincided with the most recent paradigm shift, and mainstream music is dominanted by reheated established acts, and the products of TV “talent” shows ?

The afterthought is a good point, but the layout of many blogs makes finding historic posts difficult and time consuming, plus you always feel a bit of a berk commenting on something that was last commented on x years ago.