7 ms·

Who paid for the great works of music in the period between 1700 and 1918? From such musicians as Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart, Bartok, Handel, Debussy, Bach etc...

by ohiovr 4y ago

Who paid for the great works of music in the period between 1700 and 1918? From such musicians as Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart, Bartok, Handel, Debussy, Bach etc... there were a heck of a lot of great composers in that period. I was analyzing Bach the other day. His Brandenburg Concerto #2 has tens of thousands of notes. That is a heck of a lot of work.

klipt 4y ago
Rich patrons mostly.
- ohiovr 4y ago
  I think a lot of them were royalty. But they competed with other royalty. See I have the best music!
- runevault 4y ago
  I feel like the patron system of old ended up turning into the modern professional sports system instead of supporting the arts. Which sort of shows the shift in priorities at least the rich have had in more recent years.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - buscoquadnary 4y ago
    Eh I don't know, I think to an extent Patreon which is explicitly this model has helped allow anyone to patronize artists they support.
    - runevault 4y ago
      The patron system of old was rich people/nobility, not large swaths of people. Patreon is named AFTER the idea, but isn't quite the same thing.
  - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
    Except it's really local governments bankrolling the stadiums and upgrades. And then ticket and merchandise sales are mostly the fan base, not some patronage class. Maybe sponsorships are closest to patronage but those are still more of business transactions. It's all just business, and the wealthy aren't donating anything (unlike arts patronage).
    - runevault 4y ago
      The stadiums yes (and that's a rant I could go on for hours) but the salaries are based on the actual money coming into the league. And if you argue that isn't the same thing, what makes it any different from Kings funding patrons using tax money?
      - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
        I draw the distinction because the fans themselves are (at least in theory) voluntarily choosing to support their hometown team, whereas the decision to apply taxes towards patronage is unilaterally made by the king. Though we could probably debate over whether the descriptor of a "hometown team" is truly honest, since it's more accurately a wealthy owner's team that happens to be located in / named after a city which benefits very little from the team's success.
- dimitrios1 4y ago
  They were also something that most modern artists and writers are not: good.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    In 100-300 years people will probably only know the names of the "good" modern writers and artists too.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    I am quite sure there were a lot of bad contemporaries, but they never ended up in the history books. One of the new genres that really impresses me, is 3D art. The art form is getting quite mature, and often requires as much work as any Dutch Master oil painting. One of my favorite 3D renderings, is Worth Enough, by radoxist[0]. Nowadays, I'm sure that there are works that beat it, but it was quite amazing, when he posted it. [0] https://www.deviantart.com/radoxist/art/Worth-enough-73247873 https://www.deviantart.com/radoxist/art/Worth-enough-7324787...
    - pojzon 4y ago
      We have now pretty successful art creators like Alan Walker, but overall I dont see them ever being in the art history books. Ppl also dont see art where it is in its pure form -Engineering.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Also, the church(es) which employed many of them. On top of that, music was not a commodity back then. Live performances literally made a living for many of them as these performances were the only source of music. (And a church needs this music for every mass, for instance.) Now music is abundant, recordings are cheap / free, and the best performance is easily available in a recorded form. Live performances are still a thing and still feed many of the music creators. Royalties, too. But you better be a superstar for that to bring enough. (Liszt and Mozart were superstars, in a sense.) Wait until a Dall-E equivalent for music emerges though.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Also most people were pretty poor at that time. Honestly being a live performer probably wasn't that horrible job comparatively. Think of farming or manual labour or low rung artisan. Grinding making some parts in poorly lit conditions.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    Dall-E for music will be interesting, but I think it's different. In a sense I think we're already there. Not in the sense that AI makes music but that music is so abundant, and there already aren't a ton of jobs in music writing. It's not a trade in the same way that like graphic design is. I mean, maybe Hans Zimmer loses his job but socially it doesn't seem like that big of an impact. Musicians don't tend to make money from streaming, and if you like going to shows to see performances, you're probably not going to watch a server rack on stage (Maybe, who knows what the future will bring!).
    - nine_k 4y ago
      A "Dall-E for music" will put much of the control into hands of listeners. That is, you will not search for the music that matches your mood, you will ask for it directly, and maybe adjust in near-real time. A DJ will arrive with a unique set, likely with every track custom-made for a given gig. Selling any records at all will become very-very hard, except for rare hits with outstanding human vocal performance. In music clips, music will be relegated to the position of a movie soundtrack, if not lower.
buscoquadnary 4y ago
Patronage. Honestly music was profitable for a very brief period of time between around 1940s-1990's. Every other time in history it's required someone rich to like you enough to pay you to do it, or be a traveling minstrel who lived on the edge of society. Like even Wagner who is arguably one of the most influential and popular composers of all time spent most of his life destitute and only was stable when the Kaiser himself was sponsoring him. I think in the same way though this speaks to something deep and profound about music, I once heard the saying "You can buy anything in this world for money" and I think that the problem we have pricing music has to do with how transcendental it is, it is designed specifically to convey or share something that transcends mere language or description, musics purpose is to communicate from one soul to another in a way that is deep and meaningful, that touches people and brings them in alignment and helps people see that which we can't quite understand in normal life. It is beautiful, and I think the attempt to commoditize music, make it corporate and subjugate it to the whims.of the market end up making music a little less musical.
- watwut 4y ago
  Neither Mozart nor Bach were poor. Quite a lot of these were basically middle class - respectable good paid job, but you are not Elon Muck rich. And some of them earned less then they could due to own habit of alienate people (Beethoven).
  - nosianu 4y ago
    Both examples you picked were at the very top of their profession - and then some - even at their time. I'm not sure if looking at the Newtons, Einsteins, or Mozarts and Bachs of the past tells us all that much for the current discussion. Not to leave it at criticism, while highly specialized, the excellent lectures of Professor Christopher Page of Gresham College linked on the bottom of https://www.gresham.ac.uk/speakers/professor-christopher-page https://www.gresham.ac.uk/speakers/professor-christopher-pag... include a lot of details that tell us a lot about more ordinary musicians and (here: guitar) teachers, even if it's mostly about one instrument and a few limited locations and periods of time. A very interesting anecdote in any case, especially given the quality of the presentation(s). It is not explicitly or even mostly about the economic situation, but enough can be deduced from the context.
squeaky-clean 4y ago
Bach had a salary while he was the Cantor at Thomasschule, but most of his income came from funerals and weddings. https://bachnetwork.org/ub12/ub12-heber.pdf https://bachnetwork.org/ub12/ub12-heber.pdf There were a lot of great composers in that period, but that's over 200 years and there were probably many more who are forgotten or were never even given the opportunity. And today there are probably more songs released on Spotify daily than were written in all of the 1700s.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Backs descendants worked as court musicians for the various Germanic states right up until WWI. Wagoners family is still in charge of the Bayreuth festival in Germany.

by ohiovr 4y ago

klipt 4y ago

Rich patrons mostly.

ohiovr 4y ago
I think a lot of them were royalty. But they competed with other royalty. See I have the best music!
runevault 4y ago
I feel like the patron system of old ended up turning into the modern professional sports system instead of supporting the arts. Which sort of shows the shift in priorities at least the rich have had in more recent years.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  Eh I don't know, I think to an extent Patreon which is explicitly this model has helped allow anyone to patronize artists they support.
  - runevault 4y ago
    The patron system of old was rich people/nobility, not large swaths of people. Patreon is named AFTER the idea, but isn't quite the same thing.
- texaslonghorn5 4y ago
  Except it's really local governments bankrolling the stadiums and upgrades. And then ticket and merchandise sales are mostly the fan base, not some patronage class. Maybe sponsorships are closest to patronage but those are still more of business transactions. It's all just business, and the wealthy aren't donating anything (unlike arts patronage).
  - runevault 4y ago
    The stadiums yes (and that's a rant I could go on for hours) but the salaries are based on the actual money coming into the league. And if you argue that isn't the same thing, what makes it any different from Kings funding patrons using tax money?
    - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
      I draw the distinction because the fans themselves are (at least in theory) voluntarily choosing to support their hometown team, whereas the decision to apply taxes towards patronage is unilaterally made by the king. Though we could probably debate over whether the descriptor of a "hometown team" is truly honest, since it's more accurately a wealthy owner's team that happens to be located in / named after a city which benefits very little from the team's success.
dimitrios1 4y ago
They were also something that most modern artists and writers are not: good.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  In 100-300 years people will probably only know the names of the "good" modern writers and artists too.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  I am quite sure there were a lot of bad contemporaries, but they never ended up in the history books. One of the new genres that really impresses me, is 3D art. The art form is getting quite mature, and often requires as much work as any Dutch Master oil painting. One of my favorite 3D renderings, is Worth Enough, by radoxist[0]. Nowadays, I'm sure that there are works that beat it, but it was quite amazing, when he posted it. [0] https://www.deviantart.com/radoxist/art/Worth-enough-73247873 https://www.deviantart.com/radoxist/art/Worth-enough-7324787...
  - pojzon 4y ago
    We have now pretty successful art creators like Alan Walker, but overall I dont see them ever being in the art history books. Ppl also dont see art where it is in its pure form -Engineering.
nine_k 4y ago
Also, the church(es) which employed many of them. On top of that, music was not a commodity back then. Live performances literally made a living for many of them as these performances were the only source of music. (And a church needs this music for every mass, for instance.) Now music is abundant, recordings are cheap / free, and the best performance is easily available in a recorded form. Live performances are still a thing and still feed many of the music creators. Royalties, too. But you better be a superstar for that to bring enough. (Liszt and Mozart were superstars, in a sense.) Wait until a Dall-E equivalent for music emerges though.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Also most people were pretty poor at that time. Honestly being a live performer probably wasn't that horrible job comparatively. Think of farming or manual labour or low rung artisan. Grinding making some parts in poorly lit conditions.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  Dall-E for music will be interesting, but I think it's different. In a sense I think we're already there. Not in the sense that AI makes music but that music is so abundant, and there already aren't a ton of jobs in music writing. It's not a trade in the same way that like graphic design is. I mean, maybe Hans Zimmer loses his job but socially it doesn't seem like that big of an impact. Musicians don't tend to make money from streaming, and if you like going to shows to see performances, you're probably not going to watch a server rack on stage (Maybe, who knows what the future will bring!).
  - nine_k 4y ago
    A "Dall-E for music" will put much of the control into hands of listeners. That is, you will not search for the music that matches your mood, you will ask for it directly, and maybe adjust in near-real time. A DJ will arrive with a unique set, likely with every track custom-made for a given gig. Selling any records at all will become very-very hard, except for rare hits with outstanding human vocal performance. In music clips, music will be relegated to the position of a movie soundtrack, if not lower.

buscoquadnary 4y ago

Patronage. Honestly music was profitable for a very brief period of time between around 1940s-1990's. Every other time in history it's required someone rich to like you enough to pay you to do it, or be a traveling minstrel who lived on the edge of society. Like even Wagner who is arguably one of the most influential and popular composers of all time spent most of his life destitute and only was stable when the Kaiser himself was sponsoring him. I think in the same way though this speaks to something deep and profound about music, I once heard the saying "You can buy anything in this world for money" and I think that the problem we have pricing music has to do with how transcendental it is, it is designed specifically to convey or share something that transcends mere language or description, musics purpose is to communicate from one soul to another in a way that is deep and meaningful, that touches people and brings them in alignment and helps people see that which we can't quite understand in normal life. It is beautiful, and I think the attempt to commoditize music, make it corporate and subjugate it to the whims.of the market end up making music a little less musical.

watwut 4y ago
Neither Mozart nor Bach were poor. Quite a lot of these were basically middle class - respectable good paid job, but you are not Elon Muck rich. And some of them earned less then they could due to own habit of alienate people (Beethoven).
- nosianu 4y ago
  Both examples you picked were at the very top of their profession - and then some - even at their time. I'm not sure if looking at the Newtons, Einsteins, or Mozarts and Bachs of the past tells us all that much for the current discussion. Not to leave it at criticism, while highly specialized, the excellent lectures of Professor Christopher Page of Gresham College linked on the bottom of https://www.gresham.ac.uk/speakers/professor-christopher-page https://www.gresham.ac.uk/speakers/professor-christopher-pag... include a lot of details that tell us a lot about more ordinary musicians and (here: guitar) teachers, even if it's mostly about one instrument and a few limited locations and periods of time. A very interesting anecdote in any case, especially given the quality of the presentation(s). It is not explicitly or even mostly about the economic situation, but enough can be deduced from the context.

squeaky-clean 4y ago

Bach had a salary while he was the Cantor at Thomasschule, but most of his income came from funerals and weddings. https://bachnetwork.org/ub12/ub12-heber.pdf https://bachnetwork.org/ub12/ub12-heber.pdf There were a lot of great composers in that period, but that's over 200 years and there were probably many more who are forgotten or were never even given the opportunity. And today there are probably more songs released on Spotify daily than were written in all of the 1700s.

pyuser583 4y ago
Backs descendants worked as court musicians for the various Germanic states right up until WWI. Wagoners family is still in charge of the Bayreuth festival in Germany.