Whether you want it to be free or not, it's effectively impossible to enforce scarcity over resources that can be trivially digitized. People don't pay for music anymore because it's very easy and low-risk to get it without paying for it, and the internet guarantees it's going to stay that way. Even if you can get everyone to pay for Google Music, that's $10/mo from someone who used to spend $20/CD and potentially bought several of those each month.
The fact is that it's now much harder to collect money for musical recordings. I don't think anything is going to change about that.
But so many $10/month people are people like I am who rarely buy new stuff and just listen to older stuff and the radio. I listen to music a lot, but most of the bands I prefer have ceased to exist for a while. That being said, I don't subscribe to any services because I'm cheap and I hate the way I can't get everything I want in once place so I run off of my own storage.
> if you enjoy music that features live instruments I just
> don't see how it could be free. There's too many people
> involved who need to eat.
One model people talk about is where recorded music is free, this boosts popularity, you fund the recordings through more people coming to your live shows. If you do 40 live shows a year, and giving away your music brings in 30 more people at each show paying $20 each, that's $24k: enough for a new album each year.
However, if you enjoy music that features live instruments I just don't see how it could be free. There's too many people involved who need to eat.