Some of these individuals, after purchasing loads of expensive music equipment or entire recording studios, feel that doing so grants them the right to appoint themselves the title of "producer." I was always under the impression that a producer had extensive and well developed organizational skills and a general knowledge of every aspect of the studio itself and the music business. Today, the producer identification refers to someone that makes "beats, which more times than not, requires absolutely no musical aptitude or training whatsoever. Given that these individuals don't actually write anything original other than possibly rhyme verses, or that they "borrow" snippets of preexisting works in order to craft sonic collages, so to speak, I have chosen to refer to them as "reducers." Mind you, I am not dismissing their abilities nor rights to expression, I just know that their education and trajectory is markedly different than my own or anyone else that I deem to be a legitimate producer or composer of original works. Mine is an argument concerning nomenclature.
Just imagine, if you will, the prospect of being treated by a doctor who started his own practice simply because he was able to afford the equipment? Or imagine being represented in a courtroom legal battle by someone with no legal background or knowledge, who self-appointed himself as an attorney - simply because he showed up dressed for the role and declared it to be so. It is a ludicrous concept and should be hastily rejected without hesitation. Instead, not only is it allowed to continue in music circles, it has become the acceptable and expected standard that unqualified persons will occupy positions once held by skilled and talented specialists.
And yet the question remains; why is the music industry the only professional undertaking in our time that allows amateurs, self appointed "producers" and weekend warriors to prosper and even dominate the ranks? Whose fault is this, and doesn't the audience deserve better? Why are the standards of acceptance so low? Why are charlatans and amateurs celebrated and revered to the degree that they have outright displaced capable and accomplished actual artists? On that note, why are persons who do not compose or have any knowledge of music forms, art constructs or it's history, considered "artists." Is the actual signing of a person to a binding contract the new and only criteria for identification under the title of "artist?" If so, then the floodgates that have been opened which allow hordes of talentless, unskilled posers in to invade the musical arena will possibly never be shut again UNLESS the bars of achievement and expectations are raised. The standards of acceptance have to be changed and there should be no allowances of compromise made. And for that matter, consumers themselves should demand more of those who request their support and patronage.
The following is an article that examines several reasons for the decline in quality.
Or, for even more clarification, you can simply check out just about ANY Frank Zappa interview on video for even more illumination on this subject. He was brutally honest, was absolutely very demanding and pulled no punches in his criticisms of the industry or participants who were unprepared or unqualified.