An Excellent New Read: "A Brief History Of Why Artists Are No Longer Making A Living..."

One of the author’s points was that MTV reclassified music videos as "advertising" for the music industry and the artists and in fact were "pay-to-play" for the artists - money that had to be counted against royalties.

Not sure MTV was he boogey man. Several excellent bands, in my opinion, thrived during those years. REM, Dire Straits, U2.

I'm also not sure I agree with the premise that artists can't make a living. I don't think anything has changed substantially in that regard in centuries. It takes tons of talent but it also takes being in the right place at the right time with the right people to do anything with that talent. Some make it some don't.

I've been following a glam/pop band from England for about a year. They've been at it in their current configuration for about 5 or 6 years.  They've been on late night TV, they've opened for big bands in big arenas. And still, most people have never heard of them. And yet, as far as I can tell they are making money and a fair amount of it. Even in the age of streaming, ear buds and three second attention spans they are making it. And according to them it isn't just the writing and playing and talent. That's all there but they will tell you its about hard work and perseverance. I saw them last October and I'll see them again in May. And all you have to do is look at their tour schedule and you'll see a big part of their formula for success. Work, work, work, work. I don't know how they do it.

I think another critical aspect about them is that they get along with each others, they don't seem overtly into drugs and despite the swagger of the lead singer they don't seem to take themselves too seriously.

That's how they're making it.

and Elvis didn't place an emphasis on looks and theatrics and sexuality instead of quality music?  Did he not rip off black people's music for the most part and monetize their craft at a level they could never have dreamed of?

I think we are being a bit too simplistic here.  It's never been easy separating form from function.  Things are no different today than they ever have been. You think it's ever been easy making money from music????

Very few musicians create and survive because of the industry, they do so in spite of it. 
Some of the great "record men" like Mo Ostin, Ahmet Ertegun and Chris Blackwell, to name three, were able to run a business that fostered some great music.
Today, I'm sure there are others who people can identify as producers or small label owners that are cultivating and helping to commercialize music. 
But the market is so fragmented, music is not even a commodity most people are wiling to pay for, and the make up-- on the road, touring, is a hard way to live.
Songwriters tend to do better, particularly if they can compose for film or other niche business to business markets.
I don't lament the death of music as an art form, but the days of record labels handing out 1/2 million dollar advances on spec to no name artists are long gone.
Every once in a while, there's a surprise. And in my experience, that was as true when the business was humming along swimmingly- the business of music isn't really about music. That's just a coincidence of talent and the right things happening. If someone knew how to predict taste, they'd be swinging. And I think that was always so. 
I do like a lot of eras from the 20th century, though.