Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

rootsmusic.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 248 posts

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

#41

Post by RugnirViking »

Pfhreak wrote: post #18
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. This seems wildly improbable to me? People didn't get paid for art until a few hundred years ago? Are you suggesting artisans weren't a thing? That all the art produced globally outside of the past few hundred years was done just for love of doing?

For most of human history, MONEY wasn't a thing. And yet we still have cave paintings as well as clear evidence that tribepeople and pre-agricultaral societies made music, art, poetry and more.

Consider that this time could have been spent building shelter, or hunting for food. We make art because we enjoy it

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

#42

Post by saberience »

jedberg wrote: post #32
empath75 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You think Brittany Spears made music because she loves music? Or the Backstreet Boys? Or pretty much any K-Pop band these days? They're all out there because a record person wanted to sell personas.

That's a pretty cynical attitude you have there. You should try listening to all of the acapella recordings of Brittany Spears, or all of the videos of her singing and performing as a child.

As a child who was forced to play piano (and other instruments), in my opinion, you cannot force a child to become a "Brittany Spears," they have to want it too, or they will never perform and work hard enough to make it.

Brittany Spears, whatever you think of her, clearly loves singing and performing. The fact that you have this attitude either shows you have zero understanding of human nature or just are a very negative and cynical person. Either way, it's a sucky attitude.

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

#43

Post by rchaud »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #7

I would have included George Orwell as a successful futurist. For those that are younger: Courtney Love Does the Math ( https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ ). Hard to believe it's been (almost) 20 years since that was written. I'm watching a young, extremely talented guy make his bones on YouTube. He's now started touring extensively, and working with other up-and-comers. I'm hoping he can reach the tipping poin…

Aha! I have been looking for this article, I believe it's the same one Billy Corgan referenced in a podcast when he was going over the economics of Smashing Pumpkins' chart success in the '90s.

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

#44

Post by jedberg »

carpo wrote: post #39
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…

It wasn't all through patronage though. I just finished listening to a biography of Leonardo da Vinci, and he was taught in a workshop, essentially as an apprentice. They would do independent commissions for people - portraits, statues etc. It's true that the great artists would get patronage once they were great, but it seemed that there were a bunch of these workshops with apprentices that copied the master's paint…

Isn't a bespoke commission just an act of patronage though? If I hire you to make something for me, I'm your patron.

I guess the main difference is that back then, you would sell the work and then make it. Nowadays, you make the work and then hope to sell it over and over again.

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

#45

Post by insickness »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #16
MereInterest wrote: post #8

> However, with a sampling rate of 44,000 samples per second, there were overtones of sound now missing. Human hearing only goes up to 20 kHz when you are young, dropping to about 12 kHz at the age of 50. 44 kHz sampling gives a Nyquist frequency of 22 kHz, easily encompassing the full range of human hearing. Any overtones that are missing in the recording are overtones that didn't make it through the human ear in th…

This stuff again. I have several friends who are convinced that a $2,000 HDMI cable can produce "better" audio and video. I've grown so tired of these debates, that I just nod my head and move on when they start down these roads. Because of these arguments, I've been saving articles about them when I run across them. When I retire, I may make a web site devoted to debunking this nonsense forever. One good example was…

> it's just an EQ on the original recording

EQ along with a bit of harmonic distortion and record player noise.

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

#46

Post by jedberg »

saberience wrote: post #42
jedberg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Brittany Spears made music because she loves music? Or the Backstreet Boys? Or pretty much any K-Pop band these days? They're all out there because a record person wanted to sell personas.

That's a pretty cynical attitude you have there. You should try listening to all of the acapella recordings of Brittany Spears, or all of the videos of her singing and performing as a child. As a child who was forced to play piano (and other instruments), in my opinion, you cannot force a child to become a "Brittany Spears," they have to want it too, or they will never perform and work hard enough to make it. Brittan…

She's a talented singer, but they forced her to change her range higher to fit the "cute little girl" package. So while she may enjoy music, she changed her music to make more money. And now she's changed it back and it's better, but she's already successful so she can take risks now.

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

#47

Post by Pfhreak »

jedberg wrote: post #38
Pfhreak wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This seems wildly improbable to me? People didn't get paid for art until a few hundred years ago? Are you suggesting artisans weren't a thing? That all the art produced globally outside of the past few hundred years was done just for love of doing?

> 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 humble line, winning however the highest glory that it had to bring. He painted barbers' shops, cobblers' stalls, asses, eatables and similar subjects, earning for himself the name of rhyparographos [painter of dirt/low things]. In these subjects he could give consummate pleasure, selling them for more than other artists received for their large pictures.

Polygnotus? Apollodorus? Zeuxis and Parrhasius?

That's drawing just from Greek history.

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

#49

Post by Pfhreak »

RugnirViking wrote: post #41
Pfhreak wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This seems wildly improbable to me? People didn't get paid for art until a few hundred years ago? Are you suggesting artisans weren't a thing? That all the art produced globally outside of the past few hundred years was done just for love of doing?

For most of human history, MONEY wasn't a thing. And yet we still have cave paintings as well as clear evidence that tribepeople and pre-agricultaral societies made music, art, poetry and more. Consider that this time could have been spent building shelter, or hunting for food. We make art because we enjoy it

You misunderstand my point. I never said we do art only for money. I specifically objected to the idea that artists have only been able to do art for the money for the past few hundred years.

Sumeria had coinage thousands of years before common era. So money has definitely been a thing for more than a few hundred years.

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

#50

Post by barbecue_sauce »

jedberg wrote: post #44
carpo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't all through patronage though. I just finished listening to a biography of Leonardo da Vinci, and he was taught in a workshop, essentially as an apprentice. They would do independent commissions for people - portraits, statues etc. It's true that the great artists would get patronage once they were great, but it seemed that there were a bunch of these workshops with apprentices that copied the master's paint…

Isn't a bespoke commission just an act of patronage though? If I hire you to make something for me, I'm your patron. I guess the main difference is that back then, you would sell the work and then make it. Nowadays, you make the work and then hope to sell it over and over again.

Well, I guess you could say that's a form of patronage, but "arts patronage" as a concept is more of a general sponsorship of an artist in the hope that they will produce significant works (and maybe have some influence over their production), rather than a transactional relationship where you are paying for a specific piece.
Post reply on HN