your post makes sense to a certain degree, but i think you got the cause and effect relationship of the economic devaluing wrong. you make it seem like because music is being released for free, it's inherently devaluing and thus being less culturally influential, etc. but i'd argue that the music-consuming public diminished the return they got from paying for music so much that people began releasing it for free to get that attention you talk about.

it's a chicken and egg problem, but i don't blame the free music for the devaluing: i think the devaluing brought on the free music.