While reading the comments to Michael Arrington's positive review of MySpace Music at TechCrunch (seen via Idolator), I came across two comments that perfectly sum up the worries about free music. The move toward free music (free streaming, actually, not free everything) is an inevitable and positive step, but it brings with it permanent changes. Both comments point to the public's attention going to the most popular artists at the expense of everyone else. Here's the first comment:

I make music for a small record company in the UK that has occasionally had some good support from radio shows and DJs, but are light years away from thinking about chart positions, premium advertisers, merchandise and sold-out concerts… all we’ve got is the music. Ten or fifteen years ago this would have been less of a problem - people would happily spend an hour thumbing through new releases in a local record store - but with the proliferation of free music I think there’ll be a gulf between those who are earning a lot and those who are making nothing.

Right below it is a comment from a manager. Here's just a sample:

Given that no pure socially networked album release will ever recoup a million dollars of recording costs and several million in marketing from advertising, I personally think we bite the hand that feeds us at our peril, by de-valuing what Record Labels do. Sure some of them are blood sucking b****s, take my word for it, but actually most provide a filter against the overwhelming sea of average and as long as millions of people still check in at the same time every day for Sex and The City, Friends or Eastenders etc. then I also feel we are still a long way off people not wanting ‘blockbuster artists’ and do hope that once all the idealists have finished watching their anarchy play out, they’ll once again look for quality, scale and exclusivity for the very best musicians.

The first comment is about the income gap in music, and I agree. Instead of promoting the discovery of the deep niches of MySpace, the site will push the popular to greater popularity. The short tail will become a bit shorter. New and obscure acts will find it harder to get meaningful attention. (Getting some attention isn't the problem. Getting lasting attention is more problematic.) Whether that is good or bad is up for debate, but it's going to happen. The second comment about "blockbuster artists" brings up a good question, Will blockbusters get a disproportionate amount of the attention? Food for thought.