| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
bcshelton72 
Forum Newbie
Joined: June 05 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 7
|
 Topic: Is music only for the rich?
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.
|
 |
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... 
|
|
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!
|
|
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.
|
|
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?
|
|
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
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17795
|
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 05:55 |
The T wrote:
To play and listen to music is not just for the rich
To make money off of music is almost only for the rich. |
very well said. I can agree completely with that. Outside of rap and country lifting up the dregs of urban and rural America into the laps of luxury as a rule you don't get rich playing music anymore. The crash of the labels took care of that. Now any band can do albums ... record them.. and market them... but the downside is unless you are well off.. or the very 1%r's of music and are good enough to build a substantial fan base... don't give up the day job in ones dream of being a rock and roll star.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: November 24 2016 at 05:08 |
|
No.
I've got more CD's and vinyl than I can manage and I'm not wealthy at all. I earn quite good money, but it ALL goes..Every penny of it.
As for being rich to be a musician? No, there's been plenty of musicians who have started out without a pot to p!ss in and made a career out of music. I suppose if you want to be a prog rock musician these days, you're not going to be doing it for money anyway. You're doing it for the pleasure of doing it, which I guess should be the reason to make music anyway.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
Warthur
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 06 2008
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 617
|
Posted: November 24 2016 at 04:52 |
The T wrote:
To play and listen to music is not just for the rich
To make money off of music is almost only for the rich. |
This is a good example right here.
Thanks to the fact that we are entering an age where you don't have to be rich to have a decent internet connection and computing equipment (this still varies a lot from country to country, mind), and when artists use places like Bandcamp to showcase their work (and sometimes even give out albums on a pay-what-you-want basis), we're practically living in a golden age when it comes to wide access to new and archival music, and being able to get your music out there for people to appreciate.
But the narrow window when a variety of people had a shot of going from nowhere to become a super-rich ROCK STAR - which only really started up in the 1950s/1960s to begin with - seems to be closing. It is easy to forget that this time period was an anomaly, because it's taken up most of our lifetimes, but when you consider how short it is compared to the uncounted ages when people have been making music, it's clear that on a historical scale it's a bit of an oddity.
Moreover, if you want to actually make a living exclusively out of performing your own music (rather than, say, being a session musician), then you're looking at a very limited set of options:
1: Accept that you will be very poor. This is far and away the least stable option; it's hard, it grinds you down, and the question of "is this worth it?" will grow and more and more on you the more setbacks you face. One bad run of luck could make it impossible for you to keep going and still survive and force you to bite the bullet and get a day job. 2: Have a record contract, and make the compromises necessary to do that. Which does at least give you the support of a record label, but also involves all of the label input and pressure to go broad in your appeal rather than staying niche that comes with that. 3: Be independently wealthy enough to devote yourself to your art without worrying about paying the bills. I would say that this would qualify you as "rich" even if your lifestyle was pretty modest, simply because having enough money that you'd be OK even if you never got another paycheque again is a level of financial security most people will never attain.
So of the above options, number 1 is incredibly precarious, number 2 requires the blessing of a record company, and number 3 is simply going to be out of the reach of most people. So I would definitely say that being a full-time performer of your own material will in the long run require you to either be rich or require the patronage of the rich.
But the thing is, you don't have to go full-time. To take a non-prog example: look at Fenris from Darkthrone. He's the mastermind of one of the most infamous black metal bands, one which everyone in that particular musical scene wants to emulate. He works full-time in the Norwegian postal service, and when asked about that he gives a really compelling explanation of why he's never tried to give that up: he points out that if an artist or group becomes entirely dependent on the proceeds from their music sales for their livelihoods, then that commercial consideration ends up becoming a big constraint on their artistic expression, because they have to craft music with an eye to number of sales in order to eat. By having a day job to pay the bills, Fenris doesn't have to let such commercial considerations skew his art towards the mainstream, and he believes his work is better for it.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 23 2016 at 08:02 |
To play and listen to music is not just for the rich
To make money off of music is almost only for the rich.
|
|
|
|
A_Flower
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 18 2015
Location: 2112
Status: Offline
Points: 1199
|
Posted: November 23 2016 at 07:46 |
|
I saw on a television program once, children in a lower-developed country in Africa created instruments out of recycled garbage, and had a teacher show them how to play. So no, as long as the rich are greatful to the poor
|
|
User Banned for this Post
|
|
Kingsnake
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 03 2006
Location: Rockpommelland
Status: Offline
Points: 1578
|
Posted: November 23 2016 at 07:32 |
A lot of music is free. Streetmusicians, festivals, etc.
The only thing that bothers me is that classical music is so darn expensive. But in the Netherlands, rightwing politics cut back on cultural subsidizing. So no hope for the future, to make livemusic and a lot of entertainment accesible. I love that certain great musical styles; blues, jazz, hiphop, folk is mostly free. As for owning music; a lot of people are minimilizing, I sold and gave away all my cds and lps. I only stream, and that costs me 10 euros per month. Not really expensive.
|
|
ginodi
Forum Groupie
Joined: September 13 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Posted: November 23 2016 at 07:27 |
I guess my family would have been considered poor. My parents divorced and it was rough...food stamps and all. I was still able to save up for cheap guitars by doing work around the neighborhood for people. Our first house party was when I was 17...one brother played bass (a cheap, no name model), and my other brother played drums...a cardboard box. I kid you not. I knew a kid in high school that came from a well-to-do family. He had a whole room filled with musical stuff, and as time would tell...he never really did anything other more than play in that room (he did a few local gigs). We (my brothers and I) kept going for it, and made a small run of it.
To be rich means you can afford to purchase all the name brand gear; to be poor means you have to use your head and get by with what you can...junk gear, used gear, etc. If you are bitten, no matter what station life places you, you will find ways to play what your soul wants to get out. Proud to say we never stole anything.
|
|
Manuel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 09 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13481
|
Posted: November 22 2016 at 20:36 |
|
I've never been a rich man, but my CD collection is near 5000 at this point. I guess I prioritize music over other things, like magazines and stuff. Since I'm not a party animal, I don't spend much money outside from my needs, and my music collection. My guitar collection is still growing too.
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: November 22 2016 at 07:23 |
Dean wrote:
Music will make you poor. That's an incontrovertible fact. |
That's true. Even without costing all the LPs and CDs I've bought over the years, there's my career as a semi-pro musician which has yet to bring in enough cash to trouble the tax man.
Edited by chopper - November 22 2016 at 07:23
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 22 2016 at 06:51 |
|
Music will make you poor. That's an incontrovertible fact.
|
|
What?
|
|
surrogate people
Forum Groupie
Joined: October 02 2013
Location: uruguay
Status: Offline
Points: 45
|
Posted: November 22 2016 at 03:46 |
|
Absolutely not!. There are millions of poor musicians in the world. In many thirld world countries where people actually starve there are thrieving musical scenes. And that was even so before the internet. Many times they have to improvise their own instruments because they can`t afford to buy actual ones.
|
|
Surrogate People they walk on by, they walk on by
When they replace you
They live your life, they live your life
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20313
|
Posted: November 22 2016 at 03:11 |
I'm from a middle-class background, and I'm the only one (with my dad and granddad) that has a music passion. None of us are musicians rather (though I tried bass, kb, flute & congas, but never persevered) I'd say that music collecting might not be for the poor (financially-speaking), but nowadays, with music dematerialization and pirating even the poor can collect punk and rap came from lesser neighbourorhood, and this hasn't quenched their music thirst - though it was probably more seen as a way out of the ghetto more than for "prog" or jazz musos
octopus-4 wrote:
I'm not rich and I think Trump doesn't understand anything about music, so the answer is "no" |
He probably likes country & western stuff, with KKK-axed lyrics 
|
|
Magnum Vaeltaja
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 01 2015
Location: Out East
Status: Offline
Points: 6777
|
Posted: November 21 2016 at 22:25 |
Certainly not. I'm firmly middle class my whole family is firmly involved in music, listening, collecting and playing.
As for people with lower incomes, it obviously isn't fiscally responsible to buy the latest SWilson remaster boxset every month, or flashy new effects pedals to mess around with, but I've known people who are far less fortunate than I am who have far more extensive collections of music, instruments and gadgetry, all while still getting by. Getting stuff secondhand and used can go a long way.
Also, buying prog digitally can save a lot of money in many cases. There are a fair number of classic/obscure prog albums available on iTunes for under $5, like Per Un Amico, Ys, Palepoli, and It'll All Work Out In Boomland.
|
|
when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is music only for the rich?
