5 ms·

Arts have another problem. Although I’m not even sure if it is a problem. Lots and lots of people can create arts. In old era when people would just gather tog

by mantas 1y ago

Arts have another problem. Although I’m not even sure if it is a problem. Lots and lots of people can create arts. In old era when people would just gather together and sing. Nobody would make a living off that. Very very few people were making a living by performing to nobility. Modern recording industry with specialized instruments distorted this by allowing more talented people make a living. Yet it destroyed a lot of community singing by not-highly-talented people. On one hand more people could make a living, on the other hand much much less people were creating arts. Nowadays it feels like we’re returning back to the natural flow. More people are creating arts since modern instruments are widely accessible. But fewer people can make a living. Overall, I’d say more people creating arts is preferable outcome. And best art is created for the sake of it as a hobby.

watwut 1y ago
Afaik, it is opposite. You coulf live off being musician, because people liked music. Bars and such paid live music, weddings, funerals, middle class birthsdays too. That stopped when we started to play from record.
- mantas 1y ago
  I’m talking pre industrial society. You’d have your neighbors singing at funeral or weddings. Unless you’re nobility of course. But that’s a tiny portion of society.
- usrusr 1y ago
  Had any of those pre-recording entertainers been even remotely close to making a living off it? Outside of apex apex courts? I guess busking has existed in many societies, but that's hardly making a living, and certainly not middle class. Weddings, funerals and birthdays, that's where i see community contribution, not full time professionals. Perhaps community contribution involving a little side income, but chances are, in pre-recording days, not even that. Not much other entertainment possibilities to spend your Sunday on other than being part of the band. (it's funny how middle class is often portaied as a modern achievement, when the past is so full of examples of population that isn't the ruling elite, but economically still far above another layer of dropouts that would just move from opportunity to opportunity until an early death, at least unless they end up at some form of monastery)
  - noelwelsh 1y ago
    Most societies have professional musicians. Ancient Greece did, and so did Victorian England (see the music halls).
  - decimalenough 1y ago
    Absolutely. For example, Romani (gypsy) musicians are justly famous and many made and continue to make a living performing at weddings, parties, etc.
  - watwut 1y ago
    They lived from it, full stop. It was middle class sort of occupation. You was not rich nor poor, you was respected but not a leader. > Weddings, funerals and birthdays, that's where i see community contribution, not full time professionals. These were definitely professionals and these events were seen as important. Even if you was poor, you threw money on it. People in the past had ears just like we do. The amateur singing after 5th beer is fun for singers, but not fun for anyone else. > Not much other entertainment possibilities to spend your Sunday on other than being part of the band. They had plenty of opportunities, we did not invented fun. All generations before us had fun. Socializing and drinking would be the easy straightforward one. Listening to a professional band as you drink and chat.
- HocusLocus 1y ago
  > You could live off being musician, because people liked music I like how you're turning the article around a bit. So many voices you hear these days are saying thing like, "My father was a [x]. I've been an [x] all my life. Since [y] it's been harder than ever to make a living. I've always looked up to successful [x]s as more able or refined in some way, but now I have stratification on the brain and I start to think that those [x]s are taking too big a piece of the pie, and they should give me some." If you approached a club owner in 1960 and said "Look, you don't have to hire a band. I'll set you up with one of those open reel mag tape gizmos and you can spend $300 on a tape library and spend hours nursing it." They'd look at you and reply "That's a crazy joke. I'll hire a band." Then in 1990 the club owner doesn't even participate in the music, and expects the bartender to keep the CD/cassette deck loaded. Or they play the radio. In 1960 that would result in jibes about the club owner promoting the radio station. In 1990 it just happens and goes unnoticed. The problem is there has never really been a mass expectation of original live music in all these drinking-places. There has only been a social demand that music be present, which can be fulfilled in so many other ways now. It's sad that it can be stated in such a simple way that is an assault to the ego. But it probably helps if you can allude to society changing in undesirable ways despite your best efforts, class struggles, or bad government.
decimalenough 1y ago
> Yet it destroyed a lot of community singing by not-highly-talented people. There is almost certainly a choir near you that would love to have more singers, especially if they're male. (Membership skews female and geriatric.)

by mantas 1y ago

watwut 1y ago

Afaik, it is opposite. You coulf live off being musician, because people liked music. Bars and such paid live music, weddings, funerals, middle class birthsdays too. That stopped when we started to play from record.

mantas 1y ago
I’m talking pre industrial society. You’d have your neighbors singing at funeral or weddings. Unless you’re nobility of course. But that’s a tiny portion of society.
usrusr 1y ago
Had any of those pre-recording entertainers been even remotely close to making a living off it? Outside of apex apex courts? I guess busking has existed in many societies, but that's hardly making a living, and certainly not middle class. Weddings, funerals and birthdays, that's where i see community contribution, not full time professionals. Perhaps community contribution involving a little side income, but chances are, in pre-recording days, not even that. Not much other entertainment possibilities to spend your Sunday on other than being part of the band. (it's funny how middle class is often portaied as a modern achievement, when the past is so full of examples of population that isn't the ruling elite, but economically still far above another layer of dropouts that would just move from opportunity to opportunity until an early death, at least unless they end up at some form of monastery)
- noelwelsh 1y ago
  Most societies have professional musicians. Ancient Greece did, and so did Victorian England (see the music halls).
- decimalenough 1y ago
  Absolutely. For example, Romani (gypsy) musicians are justly famous and many made and continue to make a living performing at weddings, parties, etc.
- watwut 1y ago
  They lived from it, full stop. It was middle class sort of occupation. You was not rich nor poor, you was respected but not a leader. > Weddings, funerals and birthdays, that's where i see community contribution, not full time professionals. These were definitely professionals and these events were seen as important. Even if you was poor, you threw money on it. People in the past had ears just like we do. The amateur singing after 5th beer is fun for singers, but not fun for anyone else. > Not much other entertainment possibilities to spend your Sunday on other than being part of the band. They had plenty of opportunities, we did not invented fun. All generations before us had fun. Socializing and drinking would be the easy straightforward one. Listening to a professional band as you drink and chat.
HocusLocus 1y ago
> You could live off being musician, because people liked music I like how you're turning the article around a bit. So many voices you hear these days are saying thing like, "My father was a [x]. I've been an [x] all my life. Since [y] it's been harder than ever to make a living. I've always looked up to successful [x]s as more able or refined in some way, but now I have stratification on the brain and I start to think that those [x]s are taking too big a piece of the pie, and they should give me some." If you approached a club owner in 1960 and said "Look, you don't have to hire a band. I'll set you up with one of those open reel mag tape gizmos and you can spend $300 on a tape library and spend hours nursing it." They'd look at you and reply "That's a crazy joke. I'll hire a band." Then in 1990 the club owner doesn't even participate in the music, and expects the bartender to keep the CD/cassette deck loaded. Or they play the radio. In 1960 that would result in jibes about the club owner promoting the radio station. In 1990 it just happens and goes unnoticed. The problem is there has never really been a mass expectation of original live music in all these drinking-places. There has only been a social demand that music be present, which can be fulfilled in so many other ways now. It's sad that it can be stated in such a simple way that is an assault to the ego. But it probably helps if you can allude to society changing in undesirable ways despite your best efforts, class struggles, or bad government.

decimalenough 1y ago

> Yet it destroyed a lot of community singing by not-highly-talented people. There is almost certainly a choir near you that would love to have more singers, especially if they're male. (Membership skews female and geriatric.)