That's all true, but the IT revolution had another side effect: Small-time artists can have fan bases spread all over the country, in seemingly random places. When they tour, it's at places about the size of the Middle East Upstairs (194 ppl) or Sonia (~350 ppl), not MGM Music Hall (3,000 ppl) or Roadrunner (3,500 ppl). If we have a venue ecosystem slanted towards the latter, all we'll get are brand names -- fine if you're into that, but it definitely limits everyone's options in terms of out-of-town talent. I know I, personally, get a lot of enjoyment when a local act from one of the other cities I've lived in comes to town, even on a Tuesday night.
It feels like there's an analogue to the housing debate, here. One of the YIMBY crowd's most powerful ethical arguments is that restricted supply of low-barrier-to-entry (i.e. cheap, in the case of housing) is that it puts a straightjacket on people's potential via where they can work and what non-work things (arts, politics, community involvement, etc.) they are able to engage in because their time is sucked up commuting and their money is sucked up by housing.
Translated to the music world, that argument says small venues are important not because we want to regain some amorphous crown as the national seat of culture, but because so many people who already live here are being locked out of a chance to moonlight in a good mom band on Thursday nights at a local watering hole, even if they have no desire or ambition to get any bigger than that. It's a small-d democratic problem, under this line of thinking.
This isn't an argument for or against the Middle East being redeveloped, obviously, but it's certainly clear that a lot of municipalities in Boston don't seem to have much of a plan for encouraging more small live music venues.
