A brief history of why artists are no longer making a living making music

Post by philipov » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:02 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #60

jedberg wrote: post #6

For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. For a few hundred years, there was the patronage era, where if you were really good you could get a rich person to feed and clothe and house you while you made art. Or you traveled around giving performances for money or food or clothes or shelter. Then only in the last 100ish years ha…

>I think people making money making music was an aberration in history, not "the way it should be". Absolute nonsense. We have evidence of professional musicians dating back to at least ancient Egypt. Plato complained in his writings about popular musicians holding unruly concerts. The invention of recorded music was a disaster for professional musicians, because it rendered most of them unemployed. People of the pas…

Post by tacon » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #19

jedberg wrote: post #6

For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. For a few hundred years, there was the patronage era, where if you were really good you could get a rich person to feed and clothe and house you while you made art. Or you traveled around giving performances for money or food or clothes or shelter. Then only in the last 100ish years ha…

I don’t know of anyone who has made any worthwhile music who did it to make money. You’d be an idiot to do it for the money, even in the golden age of music labels. The vast majority of musicians made nothing and a few got super wealthy. You had to practice for years, putting aside any other career in order for a small chance to get discovered. Now once you’re discovered and you have a career, you might continue to d…

Post by Hoasi » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #35

jedberg wrote: post #6

For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. For a few hundred years, there was the patronage era, where if you were really good you could get a rich person to feed and clothe and house you while you made art. Or you traveled around giving performances for money or food or clothes or shelter. Then only in the last 100ish years ha…

> For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. I would challenge you almost precisely the opposite. The vast majority of the "great art" was in fact done for money. For example, walk through the Parthenon and its museum, most of the art was commissioned. Look at the wall murals of Pompeii--again, done for hire. I can go on and on…

Post by dmitriid » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #36

Causality1 wrote: post #27

Sounds like sour grapes to me. "I'm done arguing about it, but analog sounded better" as if he has any evidence to back up his claim. Not all of us can tolerate music with an assload of white noise splattered all over it. I've yet to listen to a vinyl without the experience being ruined by analog hiss.

My daughter got an inexpensive record player (Audio Technica) and some records for Christmas and I was shocked by how great it sounds. I remember playing records 30 years ago and just accepting pops and hisses and skips. Plus I owned a lot of crappy records (anybody remember K-Tel?) Going to the record store with her has gotten me back into buying music as well. She shops the vinyl section and I buy CDs. I think CDs…

Post by marshray » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #47

jedberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting artisans weren't a thing? Historically, anyone who made something by hand was an artisan, so the hammer maker and the sword maker. I suppose you could consider that art, but when I say I art I'm talking music, paining, sculpture, etc. Things that only have aesthetic use, not functional use. And I don't believe there are any examples of people making aesthetic works as their only source of income…

Grecian pots are covered in paintings. Greek and roman sculpture was considered one of the highest forms of art by Pliny. Pliny said this of Peiraikos: It is well to add an account of the artists who won fame with the brush in painting smaller pictures. Amongst them was Peiraikos. In mastery of his art but few take rank above him, yet by his choice of a path he has perhaps marred his own success, for he followed a hu…