4 ms·

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

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.
  - watwut 4y ago
    All examples in the original comment are people at the top of the profession. Literally none of them is average music teacher. And the question was "who paid for the great music of the period". Einstein was not richer then other physicians. His fame could have help him when emigrating and at keeping employment, but afaik it was not rewarded by super unusual riches.
    - nosianu 4y ago
      > All examples in the original comment are people at the top of the profession. And how does that invalidate the argument? "Others made the same mistake!" - Yes, and? > Einstein was not richer then other physicians. How is this relevant to the argument? (Rhetorical question - it is not) > And the question was "who paid for the great music of the period". OP wrote "there were a heck of a lot of great composers in that period". Which is correct - most of the works were from regular people. They were not as outstanding as Mozart or Bach, but still produced a lot of the great music. People like Johann Pachelbel, to give an example. Not in the same league as Mozart, but there were many of the same type and they produced most of the music of the period. I play recorder and violin and most of the sheet music I play is from those more normal people. Oh and the parent (buscoquadnary) is not quite correct when he only points to "patronage". A lot, if not most of those people made money with performances (Mozart too! - https://www.biography.com/news/mozart-pauper-lost-fortune https://www.biography.com/news/mozart-pauper-lost-fortune) and with teaching.
      - watwut 4y ago
        Others did not made mistake. Others asked different question then the one you answered. Others asked about specifically about musicians such as Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart, Bartok, Handel, Debussy, Bach - the top of the top. You answered about salary of guitar teacher, someone whose work you do not play, because it never even got recorded.
- antognini 4y ago
  The astronomer William Herschel had a fairly successful career as a musician in Bath and was able to afford a nice middle class home. When King George appointed him Royal Astronomer so he could do astronomy full time, the salary he earned from that position was half what he made as a musician.
tjs8rj 4y ago
Hypothetically music should be priced like medicine or drugs. What you "get" out of it is a mood, like a stimulant or depressant (but with more complexity and side effects). "For $20, I can sell you this audio file that makes you yearn for the deep friendships you created that summer a few years ago. Side effects may include vivid visual memories and internal hallucinations of what could have been, sudden mood swings including finding them on Facebook to see what they are up to, and in some cases: crying".
- tschwimmer 4y ago
  The problem with this approach is that unlike drugs, the effects of music are heavily influenced by the taste of the consumer. Some people find Celene Dion inspiring and heartwarming. Personally I find it to be sappy, generic garbage. Just because you're telling me it's inspiring doesn't mean it will be. That ambiguity leads to much higher price elasticity than a drug.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- HKH2 4y ago
  You'd need to collect a lot of data for that, and there is no guarantee that the person listening hasn't built up a tolerance to it already.
wwweston 4y ago
> Honestly music was profitable for a very brief period of time between around 1940s-1990's. And having a market like this for a while bought us an incredible bounty of all kinds of music, some incredibly sophisticated, some with subtle & important things to say, some with all the art of a schoolyard taunt, some finding both wide and deep appeal. If the conditions were unusual, so was the harvest -- bountiful enough that hopefully people will give a second thought about dismissing such conditions simply because they're potentially ephemeral (especially given that so are we). As for commodification: it's different from monetization. It's distinguished by fungibility; muzak for grocery stores, elevators, hotel lobbies, customer service calls, etc being the greatest example, but of course some pop music is disposable too. And yet people don't always know the difference in advance (art is tricky in that way). In any case, monetization which rewards successful indelible efforts provides a powerful reinforcement for creators who have a knack for things people value or even find transcendent. > You can buy anything in this world for money In the story where I heard this, that's something the devil says, and while the devil isn't above telling you the truth, he's much more likely to say whatever he needs to (true or false) in order to get you focused on a model/direction that serves malevolent purposes, like the Cthaeh.
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  > In the story where I heard this, that's something the devil says I appreciate you pointing this out the full quote I am referring is "You can by anything in this world for money, so if something can't be bought for money it is not of this world." I feel like music tries to give us something that is not of this world, which is why we have so many problems when trying to figure out how to price music.

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.
- watwut 4y ago
  All examples in the original comment are people at the top of the profession. Literally none of them is average music teacher. And the question was "who paid for the great music of the period". Einstein was not richer then other physicians. His fame could have help him when emigrating and at keeping employment, but afaik it was not rewarded by super unusual riches.
  - nosianu 4y ago
    > All examples in the original comment are people at the top of the profession. And how does that invalidate the argument? "Others made the same mistake!" - Yes, and? > Einstein was not richer then other physicians. How is this relevant to the argument? (Rhetorical question - it is not) > And the question was "who paid for the great music of the period". OP wrote "there were a heck of a lot of great composers in that period". Which is correct - most of the works were from regular people. They were not as outstanding as Mozart or Bach, but still produced a lot of the great music. People like Johann Pachelbel, to give an example. Not in the same league as Mozart, but there were many of the same type and they produced most of the music of the period. I play recorder and violin and most of the sheet music I play is from those more normal people. Oh and the parent (buscoquadnary) is not quite correct when he only points to "patronage". A lot, if not most of those people made money with performances (Mozart too! - https://www.biography.com/news/mozart-pauper-lost-fortune https://www.biography.com/news/mozart-pauper-lost-fortune) and with teaching.
    - watwut 4y ago
      Others did not made mistake. Others asked different question then the one you answered. Others asked about specifically about musicians such as Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart, Bartok, Handel, Debussy, Bach - the top of the top. You answered about salary of guitar teacher, someone whose work you do not play, because it never even got recorded.
antognini 4y ago
The astronomer William Herschel had a fairly successful career as a musician in Bath and was able to afford a nice middle class home. When King George appointed him Royal Astronomer so he could do astronomy full time, the salary he earned from that position was half what he made as a musician.

tjs8rj 4y ago

Hypothetically music should be priced like medicine or drugs. What you "get" out of it is a mood, like a stimulant or depressant (but with more complexity and side effects). "For $20, I can sell you this audio file that makes you yearn for the deep friendships you created that summer a few years ago. Side effects may include vivid visual memories and internal hallucinations of what could have been, sudden mood swings including finding them on Facebook to see what they are up to, and in some cases: crying".

tschwimmer 4y ago
The problem with this approach is that unlike drugs, the effects of music are heavily influenced by the taste of the consumer. Some people find Celene Dion inspiring and heartwarming. Personally I find it to be sappy, generic garbage. Just because you're telling me it's inspiring doesn't mean it will be. That ambiguity leads to much higher price elasticity than a drug.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
HKH2 4y ago
You'd need to collect a lot of data for that, and there is no guarantee that the person listening hasn't built up a tolerance to it already.

wwweston 4y ago

> Honestly music was profitable for a very brief period of time between around 1940s-1990's. And having a market like this for a while bought us an incredible bounty of all kinds of music, some incredibly sophisticated, some with subtle & important things to say, some with all the art of a schoolyard taunt, some finding both wide and deep appeal. If the conditions were unusual, so was the harvest -- bountiful enough that hopefully people will give a second thought about dismissing such conditions simply because they're potentially ephemeral (especially given that so are we). As for commodification: it's different from monetization. It's distinguished by fungibility; muzak for grocery stores, elevators, hotel lobbies, customer service calls, etc being the greatest example, but of course some pop music is disposable too. And yet people don't always know the difference in advance (art is tricky in that way). In any case, monetization which rewards successful indelible efforts provides a powerful reinforcement for creators who have a knack for things people value or even find transcendent. > You can buy anything in this world for money In the story where I heard this, that's something the devil says, and while the devil isn't above telling you the truth, he's much more likely to say whatever he needs to (true or false) in order to get you focused on a model/direction that serves malevolent purposes, like the Cthaeh.

buscoquadnary 4y ago
> In the story where I heard this, that's something the devil says I appreciate you pointing this out the full quote I am referring is "You can by anything in this world for money, so if something can't be bought for money it is not of this world." I feel like music tries to give us something that is not of this world, which is why we have so many problems when trying to figure out how to price music.