| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
moshkito 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 17794
|
 Posted: November 24 2016 at 06:22 |
Hi,
There is no right or wrong answer for this one ... TODAY. Mostly because it can make some poor folks rich, as much as it might make some rich folks ... poorer to a degree.
But if we go back 100 years, when music was strictly carried by word of mouth and in the music halls (not many of them!), and mostly in the courts and palaces of the elite folks everywhere, specially in Europe, then the question changes and its application and conversation becomes more involved.
Today, there is no such thing as music is only for the rich, although now we would have to define two things ... the musician and the producer ... since we know of many company executives that made it big, and they still owe the artists some money, etc, etc, etc ...
There is one thing, that we are missing out on ... and it is the rich'ness of the soul.
I will not comment on Dean's remark, but I know very well, that if there is one thing he does not lack is the soul behind it, and in his music. So, if all we can discuss is the money behind it ... I don't care, because for me, the most important side of it, is the inner love/satisfaction and ability to be able to create a piece ... and live with it. I do not look at any of my poems, reviews, or writing ... as money ... I look at it as a part of my heart and soul, and if you don't see that ... that is not my concern!
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
 |
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: November 24 2016 at 06:25 |
awesome man... it is a great forum day when Mosh drops in from the heavens to deliver his unique brand of wisdom. 
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 24 2016 at 23:29 |
 moshkito wrote:
Hi,
There is no right or wrong answer for this one ... TODAY. Mostly because it can make some poor folks rich, as much as it might make some rich folks ... poorer to a degree.
But if we go back 100 years, when music was strictly carried by word of mouth and in the music halls (not many of them!), and mostly in the courts and palaces of the elite folks everywhere, specially in Europe, then the question changes and its application and conversation becomes more involved.
Today, there is no such thing as music is only for the rich, although now we would have to define two things ... the musician and the producer ... since we know of many company executives that made it big, and they still owe the artists some money, etc, etc, etc ...
There is one thing, that we are missing out on ... and it is the rich'ness of the soul.
I will not comment on Dean's remark, but I know very well, that if there is one thing he does not lack is the soul behind it, and in his music. So, if all we can discuss is the money behind it ... I don't care, because for me, the most important side of it, is the inner love/satisfaction and ability to be able to create a piece ... and live with it. I do not look at any of my poems, reviews, or writing ... as money ... I look at it as a part of my heart and soul, and if you don't see that ... that is not my concern! |
Good grief Penfold, your knowledge of history is unstounding.  100 years ago was 1916 you ruddy muppet, you know, World War One and all that. Bill Caxton had invented the printing press 443 years earlier and it was put to good use producing sheet music and song books such as the one of folk songs published by jolly Frankie Child in the closing decades of the 19th century. Thomas Edison's phonograph was approaching it's 40th birthday and by 1916 both cylindrical and disc recordings of popular and classical music were commonplace - Victor Talking Machine Company (that would later be purchased by the Radio Corporation of America) had granted licence to print gramophone discs to Columbia Records 15 years earlier and to His Master's Voice some 10 years before that... Word of mouth? Sorry chum, not quite true.
Yup - music halls existed, and there were lots of them and many many "poor" people went to them; bars, pubs and cafes also existed in huge number where music was played and sung. Street musicians were everywhere throughout Europe though thanks to the efforts of Chuck's Babbage and Dickens such performer were only permitted in London with a licence. Such was the Chuckle Brothers passionate dislike for street music they wanted the government to ban it, but in the end settled for strict regulation ["I have spared neither expense nor personal trouble in endeavouring to put a stop to this nuisance" (Babbage) "... daily interrupted, harassed, worried, wearied, driven nearly mad, by street musicians. ... brazen performers on brazen instruments" (Dickens)]. Though not all Vickytorians were against street music: "Perhaps the pleasantest of all the out-door accessories of a London life are the strains of fugitive music which one hears in the quiet by-streets or suburban highways – strains born of the skill of some of our wandering artists, who, with flute, violin, harp, or brazen tube of various shape and designation, make the brick-walls of the busy city responsive with the echoes of harmony." (Chuckles Mamby-Smith 1852). Musical theatre was celebrating its 60th birthday in 1916, and unlike stuffy opera, this wasn't the preserve of the idle rich but was experienced and enjoyed by the lower classes. But then when it comes to classical music and opera this had been accessible to "poor" people since the time of Handel and Tchaikovsky works were often given public outdoor performance for all to hear and enjoy.
But aside from all that... words eh? What little buggers they are, each one having so many different meanings and connotations that are further compounded and confused deliberate punning and double-meaning for the purposes of humorous and witty rejoinder. Music will make you poor - Ah, how many ways can we interpret this little phrase I wonder? 
|
|
What?
|
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: November 26 2016 at 05:30 |
|
Just think of Modest Mussorgsky - Picture of An Exhibitions and Night On Bald Mountain (prog classics) and he dies in obscurity an' poverty being employed by the Russian postal service.
This guy was so good that Rimsky Korsakov spent a bit of time tutting over Modest's mistakes that he had a real head slap moment when he realized they were not mistakes but strokes of genius.
There will always be those divides.
Record company support is not support, it seems like it but they want acts to generate income and bands have the vig to repay (if they can) while they are shackled to some dodgy licensing outfit.
If you have a band, risk life and limb on the road and halls and maybe sell some CDs so far so good. Most bands have an effective life (all going well) of say 5 or so years.
Competition is fierce, cut throat and supremely subjective. Those with some position in the music industry like to remind everyone of that; there is a hierarchy and those making music are near the bottom of it.
And watch out for download sites that take your recordings and sell them without telling the artist. Just found one... It's as bad as those publishers who go bust (maybe) sell to another (on the face of it) all a company's licensed content, re-title it and keep everything for themselves without paying those to whom money is really owed.
God help you; no one else will.
|
|
Flight123
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2010
Location: Sohar, Oman
Status: Offline
Points: 1399
|
Posted: November 26 2016 at 06:31 |
|
Wealth is a relative concept, but the answer is 'no'. As this is a prog board, it is clear that access to wealth helps a lot but again, it is very hard to make generalisations. One of the most informative pieces I've read about the economics of a rock band come from the notes accompanying Henry Cow's Box Set, especially those written by Chris Cutler. In a more humorous vein, Jimmy Carl Black in 'If we'd all be living in California' (Frank Zappa) says it all!
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 27 2016 at 05:06 |
|
When I was young there was much I got to listen to but could not afford. I got to listen to a lot thanks to friends. I am 51 and there is even more great music out there than I can acquire. I find it rewarding to focus on a few...
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
bcshelton72
Forum Newbie
Joined: June 05 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 7
|
Posted: November 30 2016 at 07:57 |
For a musically inclined person, it's part of your soul. I can and do sing, clap, play percussion on my body, etc. pretty much daily. No wealth required except spiritually (being right with oneself and the world).
At the same time, my talent was developed in a school. It was a public school which was provided for free in the United States. So at that level, my family benefited from the wealth of the country and it's ability to provide a public education. My family also had the wealth to provide for me my first instrument (a saxophone).
Music is something accessible by all. Developing a musical talent requires some investment of money to hear music and have instrument(s). This investment could be minimal for most people.
Playing in bands & recording is a whole different discussion for me, and yes, it takes money to do it.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is music only for the rich?