The Times gives us this headline and sub:

There has never been more music made — but most artists go hungry

Tech and streaming have made writing, recording and distributing a pop song easier than ever, yet reaching an audience of millions from your bedroom won’t necessarily make you rich

If only we had some form of human science that could explain this to us.

Ah, yes, that’s it, isn’t it? Supply and demand. Pages two and three (after the copyright page that is) of every introductory economics textbook ever. Econ 101 it’s called.

If there’s lots more supply - and if the cost of supply falls then there will be - then the price gained for that supply falls. A teen in a bedroom can now turn out a perfectly cromulent pop song on some few hundred pounds worth of equipment. We know this because some are indeed doing so.

Which is an interesting insight, no? Perhaps we should apply it to other things that we currently think are expensive in our society. Those that might, from those prices, be thought to be in short supply?

Houses? Make them cheaper to supply, see supply rise and prices fall.

We always did like the Sound of the Suburbs *

*No, not punk, competent musicians so disqualified