5 ms·

Rich patrons mostly.

by klipt 4y ago

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.

Rich patrons mostly.

by 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.