For the most part, yes. Even going back to "Thriller" and "Rumours", the public loves the music but doesn't bother to question what went into the recordings: the huge budgets, the politics, interpersonal challenges, extreme production times and perfectionism, not to mention studio innovations and 'tricks'. More recently, people come to expect the "T-Pain" AutoTune vocal artifacts and "beatz" where music used to be, "vinyl scratches" (or whatever they call that rhythmic whooshing in hip-hop), and heavily over-produced music that is mostly synths.
I wasn't suggesting that they owe an explanation, only that it was the honest way to present Andrew's OP situation to the public, should they choose to go that route. Whether the public cares, who knows, but some audiophile or musicologist at some point is going to get wise and publish the info.
I think capitalism already has. Look at an Apple Store. A new iPhone comes out every year making the old one obsolete, so that thousands of people stand in line around corners blocking traffic just to have the newest coolest thing. Flat screens too. Accessories that can connect anything under the sun. I'm not picking on Apple, I like their products. Just the point that if thousands of bozo's will buy something let's suck resources out of the earth and plop it on the shelf. Eventually the constant influx of newest coolest has to go somewhere. Recycling or a landfill. Lots of that stuff is made in China, sent elsewhere, then the "trashed" components and electronics end up on barges back to China where they are illegally dumped in rural areas. Recycling is a great idea, but at some point the volume or cost becomes unsustainable and people shirk the regulations.
Yes, it's inspiring. I think we're going in the right direction. But for the most part they are still using "yucky" sales techniques and marketing: "panic" and scarcity sales deadlines, email subscription blasting, bait-and-switch pricing and/or discount techniques. And there are plenty of hawkers marketing to those people for "six figure income" and "living the dream" programs and shortcuts etc. It's a weird blend of idealistic intentions and "what's in it for me" at the same time.
No, it doesn't have to. But to make it healthy there has to be an intention to make it so. I think we're experiencing Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock", where society becomes unbalanced by the pace of change and innovation, social norms and relationship dynamics changing faster than humans can adapt, and the emptiness of consumerism.
Toffler defines the term "future shock" as a certain psychological state of individuals and entire societies. His shortest definition for the term is a personal perception of "too much change in too short a period of time".
BTW, Toffler's book was published in 1970!
Our moral responsibility is not to stop future, but to shape it...to channel our destiny in humane directions and to ease the trauma of transition. - Alvin Toffler
What, you mean your time machine is broken???
Frankly, I haven't either, but I did a lot of genealogy research and the German immigrants in the late 1700's and early 1800's were experiencing bumper crops and a vibrant social life in Pennsylvania. It was an exciting, yet simple, time. Of course, if you happened to be an Irish potato farmer ...