4 ms·
I've never heard of artisans getting wealthy before the 20th century.
by skookumchuck 8y ago
I've never heard of artisans getting wealthy before the 20th century.
- Pfhreak 8y ago"Wealthy" is a different goalpost than "doing art/music for money". But even then, artisans in antiquity definitely reached middle classes. (And it's plausible to assume that at least a few individuals were wealthier or converted their artisanship into a bigger merchant operation.)
- usrusr 8y agoSure, but isn't wealthy the undertone that goes into all these laments that music does not pay anymore? (the original doesn't seems much like a lament though, I read it more like a counter to those laments) The whole "Let your creative juices flow, somehow gain access to recording equipment and distribution, have a hit record, be made for life", that's mostly over it seems. But it hasn't been with us for that long to begin with. Except for those brief few decades of industrial recording, getting paid for music has always been hard. Depending on economical overall productivity (excess food for entertainment specialists), maybe some or even a relatively high number of musicians would get paid, but hardly ever (or more likely "never"?) so much that their incomes would be envied by productive middle class, including artisans in decorative fields. Remember that before recording (well, before printed scores), music was entirely transient, whereas the products of artisans would routinely be investments in intergenerational status.
- anigbrowl 8y agoWedgewood pottery. Charles Dickens.
- ken 8y agoNot even Antonio Stradivari?