# Is music/should music be a consumer product?



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

This topic has been brought up in another thread, I think this will be a better place for that conversation. 

Personally, I think that CDs, tickets, CD players, turntables etc. are consumer products. The music on the CDs and the live performance of music are not consumer products but rather a presentation of art from a collaboration of creative minds.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I don't think there's any "should" about this. My view is that a particular piece of music is a consumer product when the consumer has to pay to hear the music. That doesn't mean that the music isn't other things as well such as a true work of art.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It is a feature of capitalism to reduce everything people make, do and even think to "product."

In the case of music, and art generally, I believe this should be resisted, not embraced.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> I don't think there's any "should" about this. My view is that a particular piece of music is a consumer product when the consumer has to pay to hear the music. That doesn't mean that the music isn't other things as well such as a true work of art.


A very good point. It seems to me that music is almost always a "consumer product" except when composed by somebody who has neither the inclination nor the need to make money from it. Either way, it's intent does not preclude it from being "art" or even "great art", however we want to define those terms.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

As long as I support ITunes, music is always a consumer product. As long as quality still exists.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> It is a feature of capitalism to reduce everything people make, do and even think to "product."


Capitalism? In what way did the Soviets not consider music a "product"?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Capitalism? In what way did the Soviets not consider music a "product"?


They had a completely different view of the function of art - art serves the state. Also bad. Fortunately that's not our problem in contemporary America.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> They had a completely different view of the function of art - art serves the state. Also bad. Fortunately that's not our problem in contemporary America.


That has nothing to do with whether they treated music as a "product." Just the purpose of the product.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

KenOC said:


> That has nothing to do with whether they treated music as a "product."


The Soviets had one idea of what art does (it glorifies the state). American mass culture has another idea (it satisfies demands in the market). I thought "art is a consumer product" meant the second idea. I disagree with both of them.

If you're defining "consumer product" so broadly that it means anything anyone makes, then I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> The Soviets had one idea of what art does (it glorifies the state). American mass culture has another idea (it satisfies demands in the market). I thought "art is a consumer product" meant the second idea. I disagree with both of them.
> 
> If you're defining "consumer product" so broadly that it means anything anyone makes, then I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore.


Anyone who defines anything anyone makes as a "consumer product" is basically just shouting out to the world that they've only ever experienced a world in which capitalism has been thrown at them so forcefully that they subconsciously glorify the system 

Not saying that KenOC is one of thos people though 

Personally I think that both the communist and the capitalist versions of "what art should be" are both incredibly detrimental to the importance of art as really the history and creativity of being human.


----------



## GhenghisKhan (Dec 25, 2014)

Would selling lower the quality of your offering? Only if you decided to consciously make it worse to please in which case the fault lay with the artist, and not commercialization.

Doubly so because it is the job of the artist to turn others around to his point of view and tastes, to make people explore instead of society's job to support any individual artist's POV.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> The Soviets had one idea of what art does (it glorifies the state). American mass culture has another idea (it satisfies demands in the market). I thought "art is a consumer product" meant the second idea. I disagree with both of them.


The way I see it, the Soviet authorities (primarily the Composers Union) stood in the position of the publishers like Peters, Hartel, and Schlesinger in Beethven's day. The major difference was that the earlier publishers wanted what they could sell the most of (kind of a democratic idea); the Soviets wanted only what they thought people *should* listen to. And that's a pretty big difference! But product is product either way. Intended for consumers either way.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

KenOC said:


> The way I see it, the Soviet authorities (primarily the Composers Union) stood in the position of the publishers like Peters, Hartel, and Schlesinger in Beethven's day. The major difference was that the earlier publishers wanted what they could sell the most of (kind of a democratic idea); the Soviets wanted only what they thought people *should* listen to. And that's a pretty big difference! But product is product either way. Intended for consumers either way.


OK, but in the other thread you were distinguishing your view of music-as-product from the opposing idea that audiences should be regularly exposed to stuff they might not like. Now it seems like you're dropping this distinction, rendering this discussion empty.

Anyway I need to check out of the discussion for a while because I'm about to be buried in a historic blizzard and need to buy some provisions while I still can.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A very good point. It seems to me that music is almost always a "consumer product" except when composed by somebody who has neither the inclination nor the need to make money from it. Either way, it's intent does not preclude it from being "art" or even "great art", however we want to define those terms.


I guess the subtlety is that the composers don't sell _ the music_, they sell recordings of the music and copies of the sheet music and tickets to performances of the music and so forth. A CD of _The Rite of Spring_ is not the same thing as _The Rite of Spring_.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ahammel said:


> I guess the subtlety is that the composers don't sell _ the music_, they sell recordings of the music and copies of the sheet music and tickets to performances of the music and so forth. A CD of _The Rite of Spring_ is not the same thing as _The Rite of Spring_.


One could argue that they don't even sell it. They just compose the piece and then collect royalties/money from the commission once tickets and CDs are sold.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> OK, but in the other thread you were distinguishing your view of music-as-product from the opposing idea that audiences should be regularly exposed to stuff they might not like. Now it seems like you're dropping this distinction, rendering this discussion empty.


I don't believe I ever said anything about what audiences "should" be exposed to. Sounds kind of Commie to me!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I don't believe I ever said anything about what audiences "should" be exposed to. Sounds kind of Commie to me!


You mean "authoritarian?" The left and the right both have equally disturbing authoritarian "shoulds" throughout history.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> I don't think there's any "should" about this. My view is that a particular piece of music is a consumer product when the consumer has to pay to hear the music. That doesn't mean that the music isn't other things as well such as a true work of art.


So the thread is finished.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> It is a feature of capitalism to reduce everything people make, do and even think to "product."
> 
> In the case of music, and art generally, I believe this should be resisted, not embraced.


That's lovely. Whose money are you going to take to fund your art if your resistance succeeds?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

If an artist doesn't try to get money for her art, then it's not a product. It's just art. It's whatever supernatural zeppelin thing people are trying to portray art as. 

The microsecond when the artist wants some money, her art is a product, the same as my teaching which is also glorious supernatural zeppelin thing, and a prostitute's sex, which is also a supernatural glorious zeppelin thing, and a church's religion, which is also a glorious supernatural zeppelin thing. From food to fashion to healthcare to art, there are many things that are part of being human, and all of them become a product the moment someone tries to get money for them.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> You mean "authoritarian?" The left and the right both have equally disturbing authoritarian "shoulds" throughout history.


No, I meant "Commie". An echo of my youth, when any vaguely left-wing idea was attacked as pinko. Maybe the resonance of the word isn't the same to the younger sprouts! You really had to grow up during the early cold war.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Who cares? Authoritarian is good enough. Communism is deader than Marx himself, but authoritarianism is alive and well, even on this our dear message board.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

science said:


> Who cares? Authoritarian is good enough. Communism is deader than Marx himself, but authoritarianism is alive and well, even on this our dear message board.


Indeed... consider the plight of Seth Rogen who confronted this very issue against the North Koreans.

To get back on point, consumerism is not my thing but I realize that I buy stuff and am glad to support the artist if I can.

Every CD or iTunes album is a consumer product. When DG decides to add extra tracks to the iTunes version, there is no doubt that it is a marketing way to get people to prefer the iTunes version over the compact disc.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I listen to, and consume, what I like merely because the world is imperfect. Now, what I really should be doing would be to only listen to things that the Absolute Spirit likes. But since it hasn't manifested yet, let's continue mstrbtng on the altar of the Id. Who knows, Baal may yet appear and send a fire. _Rufet lauter!_

But really, "What do you want?" is a dangerous, dangerous question. Best not touch it too much. The gray mist between the black letters may swallow you whole.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Personally, I think that CDs, tickets, CD players, turntables etc. are consumer products. The music on the CDs and the live performance of music are not consumer products but rather a presentation of art from a collaboration of creative minds.

How does this apply to other art forms? The book is a consumer product... but not the words? The canvas is a consumer product... but not the paint?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I think that CDs, tickets, CD players, turntables etc. are consumer products. The music on the CDs and the live performance of music are not consumer products but rather a presentation of art from a collaboration of creative minds.
> 
> How does this apply to other art forms? The book is a consumer product... but not the words? The canvas is a consumer product... but not the paint?


The images and meanings behind the creations aren't to be valued as a "consumer product" really, the customer can never be right in allowing their judgements of an artwork to be more important than the artist's intention. Imagine if an art gallery only showed art that its visitors wanted to see, or a bookshop that only ever sold what's on the bestseller list?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It is a feature of capitalism to reduce everything people make, do and even think to "product." In the case of music, and art generally, I believe this should be resisted, not embraced.

And how do you propose the artist support himself/herself let alone a family? I paint for myself... because I have a "day job"... so I don't need to sell my paintings. But that day job is no less of a compromise than if I were to accept a commission, work as an illustrator, or continue to churn out works in the same manner as what I find has sold in the past.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The images and meanings behind the creations aren't to be valued as a "consumer product" really, the customer can never be right in allowing their judgements of an artwork to be more important than the artist's intention. Imagine if an art gallery only showed art that its visitors wanted to see, or a bookshop that only ever sold what's on the bestseller list?


How would it even be possible for an art gallery to know exactly what its visitors wanted to see?

And the bookshop in question would be making a horrible economic decision, regardless of how you feel about it morally. That's why they don't do that. It's not because the world of bookshops is full of people who think literature is some holy thing that can't be sold.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How does this apply to other art forms? The book is a consumer product... but not the words? The canvas is a consumer product... but not the paint?


As a matter of fact, the metaphor transfers pretty readily to other media.

The book is a consumer product; the text is not.
The physical painting can be used as a consumer product; the image is not.

The CD is a consumer product; the music is not.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I guess y'all can rest assured - if everyone continues downloading music or getting it from youtube, and people stop actually purchasing it, music could actually cease to be a consumer product. You'll have what you want: a bunch of great musicians working at Starbucks, and no one buying or selling any music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The images and meanings behind the creations aren't to be valued as a "consumer product" really, the customer can never be right in allowing their judgements of an artwork to be more important than the artist's intention. Imagine if an art gallery only showed art that its visitors wanted to see, or a bookshop that only ever sold what's on the bestseller list?

Art galleries only exhibit what they think they can sell. I can tell you this as a former owner/curator of an art gallery. I only ever showed work that I liked... but I also needed to consider whether I could sell it. There were paintings that were too big for the market... and there were some that were too expensive. I remember some fabulous works rooted in calligraphy... huge minimalist script paintings done in gold and silver ink that were simply stunning... yet ultimately both I and the artist agreed that our gallery wasn't the right venue. I simply didn't have enough patrons who could shell out the $50,000-$75,000 price tag.

Book stores are the same. They don't carry something if they don't think they can sell it... or if it is likely to lose them money.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

As a matter of fact, the metaphor transfers pretty readily to other media.

The book is a consumer product; the text is not.

So if I buy a book... they don't have to include the text? Even if we are speaking in terms of copyright, the text is just as much of a product that can be bought and sold as anything else.

The same is true of the image in painting.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So if I buy a book... they don't have to include the text? Even if we are speaking in terms of copyright, the text is just as much of a product that can be bought and sold as anything else.
> 
> The same is true of the image in painting.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

The text can exist independently of any book; in manuscript, in Notepad file, whatever.
The image can exist independently of being a salable item, although paintings themselves, the physical objects, are indeed bought and sold.

The music can and does exist independently of any normally salable consumer item, and it is only once such things are produced that they become products. These products (including sheet music), of course, depend on the music for their existence, but in any case the music itself is not sold.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
> 
> The text can exist independently of any book; in manuscript, in Notepad file, whatever.
> The image can exist independently of being a salable item, although paintings themselves, the physical objects, are indeed bought and sold.
> ...


Is your idea that only physical objects can be bought and sold?

When I teach a writing class, what is being bought and sold?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> As a matter of fact, the metaphor transfers pretty readily to other media.
> 
> The book is a consumer product; the text is not.
> The physical painting can be used as a consumer product; the image is not.
> ...


A book -- the text is certainly a consumer product, even divorced from the book, when I can sell it for Kindle publication with the expectation that it will be bought that way. Music on a CD, same thing.

The image on a painting can be licensed for making and selling prints...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> Is your idea that only physical objects can be bought and sold?
> 
> When I teach a writing class, what is being bought and sold?


Is your teaching a consumer product?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Is your teaching a consumer product?


Yes! I make money doing it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've long suspected that one of the reason teaching is underpaid is because it is a field (like the arts) laden with too many Romantics who imagine it to be a calling... something they would do even if they weren't paid. I don't think anyone here is glorifying capitalism... rather they are simply being realistic.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A book -- the text is certainly a consumer product, even divorced from the book, when I can sell it for Kindle publication with the expectation that it will be bought that way.


Sure, but a Kindle copy of _Finnegans Wake_, or even the right to produce sell access to such things, is not the same thing as the text of _Finnegans Wake_.



KenOC said:


> The image on a painting can be licensed for making and selling prints...


But the right to reproduce the image is not the image.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I've long suspected that one of the reason teaching is underpaid is because it is a field (like the arts) laden with too many Romantics who imagine it to be a calling... something they would do even if they weren't paid. I don't think anyone here is glorifying capitalism... rather they are simply being realistic.


Well, I am neither underpaid nor romantic, but I would do what I do (at least a little) even if I weren't paid. In that sense, it is something like art might be to an artist. I am not a teacher because it is my job; it is my job because I am a teacher. If no one wants to pay me for my services - which is unlikely because I am a great teacher, and not only do I know it, my students know it, my coworkers know it, my students' parents know it - I will find another way to pay my bills. But I will still be a teacher.

I am also a traveller. No one is paying for me that at present....


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> It is a feature of capitalism to reduce everything people make, do and even think to "product." In the case of music, and art generally, I believe this should be resisted, not embraced.
> 
> And how do you propose the artist support himself/herself let alone a family? I paint for myself... because I have a "day job"... so I don't need to sell my paintings. But that day job is no less of a compromise than if I were to accept a commission, work as an illustrator, or continue to churn out works in the same manner as what I find has sold in the past.


If art were really a consumer product, then "painting for yourself" would be a meaningless concept.

But I don't understand how working a day job could be an artistic compromise. It's a lifestyle compromise.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> If art were really a consumer product, then "painting for yourself" would be a meaningless concept.


Not at all. You're making an unnecessary dichotomy.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

In the parent thread to this I posted about governments supporting scientists and artists. Scientists, in general, produce general knowledge, and that knowledge is not a consumer product. (Yes, some knowledge can be written into patents, but that's a very small percentage). One might view art, especially music, in similar terms. Today even composed music is a consumer product because one must purchase the music to perform or hear it, but we could imagine a world where music is like knowledge. Composers produce the music, and others are welcome to turn that music into products. Of course, it generally requires much more work to turn knowledge into products than, for example, to create a CD. Still, in that world many composers would be funded by the government to produce music which, by itself, would not be a consumer product. It's a different question of whether that model would benefit society (or how much).

This model is much harder, As StLukes suggested, for art other than music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> But the right to reproduce the image is not the image.


Absolutely true. You cannot transfer (so far as I know) full ownership rights to the image without transferring the painting itself. Every town has galleries doing just this, selling paintings, even very famous and valuable ones, to...consumers.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> If art were really a consumer product, then "painting for yourself" would be a meaningless concept.


That doesnt sound right. Pizza is certainly a commercial product. Is making pizza for myself therefore a meaningless concept?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Absolutely true. You cannot transfer (so far as I know) full ownership rights to the image without transferring the painting itself. Every town has galleries doing just this, selling paintings, even very famous and valuable ones, to...consumers.


I guess the difference is that you can own a painting in a way that you can't own a work of art that has to be recreated in some sense to be consumed. If I told you that I own _Hamlet_, _Finnegans Wake_ and Mahler's Ninth Symphony, I don't think you would be wrong to say, "No, what you own is a copy of the script of _Hamlet_, a first edition of _Finnegans Wake_ and the right to collect royalties on performances of Mahler's Ninth Symphony". Whereas if I told you I own _Les Demoiselles D'Avignon_ and I keep it hanging in my living room, I don't think I'd buy it if you told me that _Les Demoiselles D'Avignon_ is not any particular painting, but rather an abstract concept.

Of course the question that I think the OP is getting at is actually " are composers primarily motivated by the desire to make a lot of money, and should they be?" To which I think the answer is probably no, on the grounds that your average composer could probably make more money doing almost anything else.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

so far, I read a lot of differentiated semantic qualifications about 'what is a product.'

Those who teach, consult, are selling _a service._ They bring what they know, impart the knowledge, tutor a student or client in developing skills in the particular area needed, and though concentrated thought and real effort go into it (the work part) the teacher or consultant does not walk away from that job with less of that product needing to be resupplied. That is very different from manufacturing gross upon gross of ceramic mugs to supply diners and restaurants, or stores, throughout a large area.

A singular work of art is also 'product,' but it is a one-off. Recreations of that work (concerts, plays, ballets, recordings, etc.) remain 'product' while the original work, currently under copyright, is not essentially 'sold off' like the ceramic mugs.

An artist takes a commission for a work from an individual, musician, group of musicians or a symphonic organization, and it is understood that 'the product' will be delivered as per contract stipulations. This is more clearly 'product,' and 'consumer,' or customer. Commissions are by nature specific, as to at least the instrumentation and duration of the work to be produced. Often, in the fine arts arena, those are the only stipulations, with perhaps a request from one player or ensemble that the work's content will show off a player's particular strengths, or an ensembles' particularly strong brass section, for example. In this area, artists are well aware of 'creating a product to order,' and many do just that. Still, this is all a very far cry from the more commercial aspects of marketing, study upon study before any money is spent on a prototype which is then tested on a selected group of potential buyers.

I do think it healthy for artists to realize what they make is, if to be sold, a product of sorts... as some do not realize even that much, though it is usually the youngest amateur or student who does not 'quite get that... yet.' When I schooled, there were constant reminders from my comp teacher about the pragmatica of the business, i.e. writing first for smaller ensembles where you had a chance of directly finding your own performers; not using that mandolin for just one bar of an entire piece because that would call for a separate union player not a usual part of the orchestra and rack up another full union wage; that the moment the score called for the multi-instrumentalist (third flute going to alto flute) the player in rehearsals and in performance, as per union regs, would be payed time and a half; that if you are established like Stravinsky you could ask for and expect to get a contrabass Sarrusophone in that large orchestral work and the additional cost would readily be met -- if you were not yet established, not to even think about it, etc.

Many pros in the arts routinely work within these types of restrictions, commissions now often coming from two orchestras, which can 'flatten out' what instruments are available, i.e. what is common to both, and there is no telling from the work there were any limitations whatsoever. This is radically unlike the more commercial end of commissioned music like scores for film and video games, where the director has a full say in the type, style, mood, etc. and the composer must comply. Relatively, the classical composer who is commissioned still has parsecs of latitude in what they write and how it sounds.

I don't know why that distinction is so difficult to make, or why a proposal of how to market a singular work of art should be pounced upon as if it could / should be marketed following the model of selling the ceramic mugs. Both the mugs and art are sold, the model from one mode of marketing just about as foreign to the other as could be. Multiple copies of artworks, recordings, repeated concerts are in another realm yet again.

When it comes to music, multiple copies of the score might be sold or rented (like buying those more generic blueprints to make a house, someone other than the composer / architect still must provide the necessary tools and labor to realize it), but the rights to the piece or architectural plan itself are not 'sold.' It is not anything like the ceramic mug, i.e. when the demand for another piece or another blueprint comes in, you don't just run off another exactly like the last one... and there I get some sense those coming from the more consumer-product angle of marketing seem to ignore that completely.

It is not stunning news that what a teacher or consultant or artist provides is not a mass-manufactured ceramic mug, but I find it rather stunning some would reduce all of those and plunk them under the same category of "product" and then apply the same principles of marketing for the mug to the more singular types of services or works of art.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ahammel said:


> I guess the difference is that you can own a painting in a way that you can't own a work of art that has to be recreated in some sense to be consumed. If I told you that I own _Hamlet_, _Finnegans Wake_ and Mahler's Ninth Symphony, I don't think you would be wrong to say, "No, what you own is a copy of the script of _Hamlet_, a first edition of _Finnegans Wake_ and the right to collect royalties on performances of Mahler's Ninth Symphony". Whereas if I told you I own _Les Demoiselles D'Avignon_ and I keep it hanging in my living room, I don't think I'd buy it if you told me that _Les Demoiselles D'Avignon_ is not any particular painting, but rather an abstract concept.
> 
> Of course the question that I think the OP is getting at is actually " are composers primarily motivated by the desire to make a lot of money, and should they be?" To which I think the answer is probably no, on the grounds that your average composer could probably make more money doing almost anything else.


This makes a lot of sense. Thanks, ahammel


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't understand how working a day job could be an artistic compromise. It's a lifestyle compromise.

Whether I spend my time making illustrations for a commercial firm, or I work a "day job" teaching art I am giving up valuable time and energy which I could/would rather be spending upon the art I personally love. But I live in the real world, not some 19th century Romantic fantasy.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The audience is the whole reason why an artist creates. If an artist isn't connecting with the audience, they aren't doing their job. Communication is different than commerce. I'm talking about the former, not the latter here. If you are successful enough communicating with an audience, chances are you can parlay that into making money. But not always. And making money isn't the point of it. It's the side effect of it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Whether I spend my time making illustrations for a commercial firm, or I work a "day job" teaching art I am giving up valuable time and energy which I could/would rather be spending upon the art I personally love. But I live in the real world, not some 19th century Romantic fantasy.




If you find the synergy between both sides, you can serve both masters at once. Just look at Maxfield Parrish. When he was working at his peak, there were more prints of his work in American homes than there were Americans. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being successful at doing what you love. That's been my goal in the animation business, and it's worked out fine so far.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

That doesnt sound right. Pizza is certainly a commercial product. Is making pizza for myself therefore a meaningless concept?

Sounds like something else I do on a regular basis. :lol:


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

science said:


> if everyone continues downloading music or getting it from youtube, and people stop actually purchasing it, music could actually cease to be a consumer product.


Not in my opinion. It is still a consumer product, because those sites exist through the revenue generated from advertising. It is a paid for commodity, hence a consumer product. The same, if it is delivered via a monthly streaming subscription.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> ...the question that I think the OP is getting at is actually, "Are composers primarily motivated by the desire to make a lot of money, and should they be?" To which I think the answer is probably no, on the grounds that your average composer could probably make more money doing almost anything else.


Here, here and Hear, hear. With the usual training for professional classical musicians, and many composers started out first as a player with a similar long-haul training from childhood, that time thus spent ends up being far longer (and the cumulative expenses of that training greater) than if one had studied to become a physician.

With an average intelligence applied to any number of disciplines 'not music,' the surety of a regular job and a regular average or more income is so much greater than any artist can rely upon, that those who end up doing it are not primarily motivated by the jobs' potential income. (Most I know who have done the full training and became professional tell me they did not once even think about 'income.') I don't think may who take that route are even motivated by SugarPlumFairyCartoon notions of 'fame.' Once the common reality of a working artist's life dawns on those in training to be, the most reaction is a shrug of the shoulder re: potential fame and income, realizing they are that far in and not about to change plans... it stuck with them and they are stuck with it, and all that gets pretty well accepted by those who stay with it. Most thoughts of the more normally owned and possessed 'things,' whether the necessity of a dwelling or that newer model car, go by the wayside in favor of 'what will make my life more interesting to me, at least.' -- and Bob's your uncle.

I recall one post where a college student said she was studying with the hopes of later getting in to some high level conservatory as a piano performance major, the hope and plan being to become a professional player at some level beyond 'anonymous local teacher, etc.' She also said she had a double major in, I think business, or something which is rightly deemed much safer and more pragmatic than music -- could have been music education, that masters degree with the certificate allowing you to teach general music courses in primary and high schools.

I told her that if she had any realistic hopes of getting into the higher end music schools or conservatories and establishing a career as a classical pianist, _there could be "no plan B" or hedging the bet with doing the double major._ Simple fact, really.

Who would take such a risk -- especially when the same intelligence and applied industry put to another area of study is so much more certain a secure job and salary payoff -- putting it all on the line in classical music as a career performer or composer other than the completely possessed?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brotagonist said:


> Not in my opinion. It is still a consumer product, because those sites exist through the revenue generated from advertising. It is a paid for commodity, hence a consumer product. The same, if it is delivered via a monthly streaming subscription.


People aren't paying for these things. They're uploading music they didn't produce to youtube, and then other people are watching the videos. It is actually possible for one single recording to be sold to someone who uploads it to places like youtube and torrent sites, and then the entire world get the music for free. Every day we get closer to that being the reality. If it keeps happening, eventually musicians won't be able to make a living. The music will be free and new music will be nonexistent.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Of course the question that I think the OP is getting at is actually " are composers primarily motivated by the desire to make a lot of money, and should they be?"


If that's what the OP meant, that's what the OP should've said.

The OP was literally asking whether music is or should be bought and sold.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

science said:


> People aren't paying for these things. They're uploading music they didn't produce to youtube, and then other people are watching the videos. It is actually possible for one single recording to be sold to someone who uploads it to places like youtube and torrent sites, and then the entire world get the music for free. Every day we get closer to that being the reality. If it keeps happening, eventually musicians won't be able to make a living. The music will be free and new music will be nonexistent.


I suppose it's much better just to visit the public library for free music then?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I suppose it's much better just to visit the public library for free music then?


Well, if everyone were depending on public libraries for their music - and not on copies they made of the public library's collection - then the libraries would probably have to order enough copies to actually support the musicians.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

science said:


> If that's what the OP meant, that's what the OP should've said.
> 
> The OP was literally asking whether music is or should be bought and sold.


The OP knows that recordings of music, and tickets to performances will always be bought and sold, the OP knows that services such as training in music is something which must be paid for as well. The OP is asking whether we should really be agreeing with the philosophy that all music, the composition and performance of music, should be something in which the production of music should meet people's demand.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The OP knows that recordings of music, and tickets to performances will always be bought and sold, the OP knows that services such as training in music is something which must be paid for as well. The OP is asking whether we should really be agreeing with the philosophy that all music, the composition and performance of music, should be something in which the production of music should meet people's demand.


Then, again, that's what the OP should've asked.

If it is bought and sold, it is a consumer product. Full fracking stop. Given how intelligent the people here are, this shouldn't need to be said.

If someone wants to do something - art or anything else - and not for sale, of course that's fine. Given how intelligent the people here are, this shouldn't need to be said.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

science said:


> People aren't paying for these things. They're uploading music they didn't produce to youtube, and then other people are watching the videos. It is actually possible for one single recording to be sold to someone who uploads it to places like youtube and torrent sites, and then the entire world get the music for free. Every day we get closer to that being the reality. If it keeps happening, eventually musicians won't be able to make a living. The music will be free and new music will be nonexistent.


YouTube is advertising sponsored. Even most torrent sites are. Someone is making money off it, but you are correct that it is not necessarily, or often, the artists.

The truth comes out: this is theft. It is up to the listeners to decide if they can live with themselves, if they feel that they are behaving in an ethical manner, or if they are motivated by greed to the point of supporting and engaging in criminal behaviour.

I made this decision years ago. I vowed to purchase the music I want to own. I recognized that this meant not having everything, that this meant having to be very selective, that this meant paying for things that are easily obtainable for free, that this meant people likely think me stupid for doing so.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brotagonist said:


> YouTube is advertising sponsored. Even most torrent sites are. Someone is making money off it, but you are correct that it is not necessarily, or often, the artists. The truth comes out: this is theft. It is up to the listeners to decide if they can live with themselves, if they feel that they are behaving in an ethical manner, or if they are motivated by greed to the point of supporting and engaging in criminal behaviour. I made this decision years ago. I vowed to purchase the music I want to own. I recognized that this meant not having everything, that this meant having to be very selective, that this meant paying for things that are easily obtainable for free, that this meant people likely think me stupid for doing so.


Recently I've had to compromise on this a bit in order to participate in the tinychat sessions. It is evidently impossible for me to play my own music - music that I have legally purchased and would be allowed to play for anyone if they were in my home - through such a service.

Why can't something like iTunes allow a group chat situation in which we can play our legally purchased music for each other?

It's very interesting that the music industry is incentivizing us to do things illegally. I'm reminded of those Nonesuch and Apex albums that have that write-protect thing on them so that an Apple CD-player won't upload them. Because Apple and some record labels want to make it just a touch harder for someone somewhere to upload that CD and distribute it illegally, they punish the people who actually legally pay for it. I understand that they're in a hard spot, but they really need to do some grown-up thinking about their situation rather than throwing tantrums like that.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> YouTube is advertising sponsored. Even most torrent sites are. Someone is making money off it, but you are correct that it is not necessarily, or often, the artists. The truth comes out: this is theft. It is up to the listeners to decide if they can live with themselves, if they feel that they are behaving in an ethical manner, or if they are motivated by greed to the point of supporting and engaging in criminal behaviour. I made this decision years ago. I vowed to purchase the music I want to own. I recognized that this meant not having everything, that this meant having to be very selective, that this meant paying for things that are easily obtainable for free, that this meant people likely think me stupid for doing so.


Copyright laws in most cases actually inhibit creativity, the freedom to share information, knowledge, images, music etc. in the real world artists/creators are more satisfied with acknowledgement of their work than money that is made from it. And even so, a lot of the money made ends up going to companies rather than original creators of the work.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Copyright laws in most cases actually inhibit creativity, the freedom to share information, knowledge, images, music etc. in the real world artists/creators are more satisfied with acknowledgement of their work than money that is made from it. And even so, a lot of the money made ends up going to companies rather than original creators of the work.


Maybe so. But "some" is better than "none."

Especially when people have bills to pay.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> If it is bought and sold, it is a consumer product. Full fracking stop. Given how intelligent the people here are, this shouldn't need to be said.


Human organs are sold on the black market. Are they consumer products? It isn't nearly so cut-and-dried.

Furthermore, the music cannot be sold. It is impossible. Products can be sold based on the music, but the music itself cannot be sold.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> Then, again, that's what the OP should've asked.


As it turns out, what people mean is not always exactly the same thing as the most strictly literal interpretation of what they say.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> The audience is the whole reason why an artist creates.
> Not at all a primary motivator or concern of many an artist, that includes some of the very most successful ones.
> 
> If an artist isn't connecting with the audience, they aren't doing their job.
> ...


_____________________________________


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Human organs are sold on the black market. Are they consumer products? It isn't nearly so cut-and-dried.
> 
> Furthermore, the music cannot be sold. It is impossible. Products can be sold based on the music, but the music itself cannot be sold.


A service (not only material goods) can be a commodity. If someone is paid for composing or performing music, it is a commodity. If they do it for free, it is not.

Maybe they should do it for free. I don't know. That's an ethical question that doesn't much interest me. I like some music (and some other things) enough that I'm willing to exchange some money for them, and I'm pretty happy to do so because I like the idea that, as a result of people like me making exchanges like that, more music that I like is going to be made.

When human organs or anything else are bought and sold, they are commodities too. That doesn't mean they should be bought and sold, but if they are bought and sold, they are commodities.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

science said:


> Recently I've had to compromise on this a bit in order to participate in the tinychat sessions. It is evidently impossible for me to play my own music - music that I have legally purchased and would be allowed to play for anyone if they were in my home - through such a service.
> 
> Why can't something like iTunes allow a group chat situation in which we can play our legally purchased music for each other?
> 
> It's very interesting that the music industry is incentivizing us to do things illegally. I'm reminded of those Nonesuch and Apex albums that have that write-protect thing on them so that an Apple CD-player won't upload them. Because Apple and some record labels want to make it just a touch harder for someone somewhere to upload that CD and distribute it illegally, they punish the people who actually legally pay for it. I understand that they're in a hard spot, but they really need to do some grown-up thinking about their situation rather than throwing tantrums like that.


I think you need to separate the physical (CD) from the virtual. I don't know how that system works, but doesn't Apple allow you to play iTunes purchases for other iTunes users (aka share)? Apple wants you to be in their system.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> As it turns out, what people mean is not always exactly the same thing as the most strictly literal interpretation of what they say.


I'm sorry, man. I just really cannot see that the OP meant what you say it meant. Anyway, it didn't use any ambiguous words.

Is music a consumer product? Yes it is, when it is bought and sold.

Should music be a consumer product? I don't know, maybe my favorite musicians should do (or should have done) what they do for free, and paid their bills some other way, but I know I'm eager to pay for it if that means I get more of what I like.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Responding to: If an artist isn't connecting with the audience, they aren't doing their job.



PetrB said:


> Turnabout is fair play on that one.


Well, just as the composer has no obligation to the audience, the audience has no obligation to the composer.

Why is it that everyone is trying to create obligations for everyone else? I guess the urge to manipulate other people for our own benefit is irresistible.

But in fact, while our fundamental freedoms remain, the composers can compose whatever they want in complete disregard for any audiences, and thank freedom for it. The audience can listen to whatever they want in complete disregard for any particular composer, and thank freedom for it.

When a composer happens to connect with an audience, thank freedom for that too.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

You can share iTunes tracks via AirPlay functionality.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> I'm sorry, man. I just really cannot see that the OP meant what you say it meant. Anyway, it didn't use any ambiguous words.


It used English words, which are often quite ambiguous, even before you start putting them one after the other. And if you're writing them down, depriving your audience of things like tone of voice and body language and the ability to interrupt with questions, that's where the real trouble starts

Communication is hard. Communication over the Internet about rather abstract concepts is really hard. Try to meet us halfway.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> It used English words, which are often quite ambiguous, even before you start putting them one after the other. And if you're writing them down, depriving your audience of things like tone of voice and body language and the ability to interrupt with questions, that's where the real trouble starts
> 
> Communication is hard. Communication over the Internet about rather abstract concepts is really hard. Try to meet us halfway.


Well, I literally cannot read minds.

If I thought the OP meant, "Should musicians do everything (or anything) with the market in mind?" I would've hopefully responded that it's entirely up to the musicians, but I'd hope that some wouldn't.

If I thought the OP meant, "Should people buy music?" I would've hopefully responded that it's entirely up to the people (though they shouldn't steal it).

If I thought the OP meant, "Should musicians get paid for making music?" I hopefully would've responded that it's certainly fine with me if they do, but it might not be easy for most musicians to persuade people to exchange money for their compositions or performances. I certainly don't hope to get paid for making music because no one is going to appreciate anything I come up with.

If I thought the OP meant - and this is what I think the OP actually, secretly meant - "Does the fact that much music is bought and sold undermine its status as high art?" I would've responded that it does not do so in any way at all (edit: especially given that there is no actual such thing as "high" art).

If I thought the OP meant, "Are the best-selling musicians the best?" I would've said that's inevitably a matter of opinion, but in my opinion not usually. I haven't bought any "bestselling" music in at least 20 years.

This is actually not a very abstract concept. The only thing that makes it at all "difficult" is that some people want to hate on capitalism, and some people want to create some pretentious status for "art" so that they can portray their tastes and themselves as superior to other people's tastes and other people. So we're going to do a lot of hard work to try to justify that in the teeth of what is actually a very simple issue.

If it is bought and sold, it is a commodity. That includes the composition and performance of music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

science said:


> Well, I literally cannot read minds.
> 
> If I thought the OP meant, "Should musicians do everything (or anything) with the market in mind?" I would've hopefully responded that it's entirely up to the musicians, but I'd hope that some wouldn't.
> 
> ...


I plead guilty, I admit defeat! The first one is closest to what I meant.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I plead guilty, I admit defeat! The first one is closest to what I meant.


It seems that a lot of us have been having an entirely different discussion than the one you intended 

I, too, would hope for the same as science. While I realize that everyone wants to make a buck (euro, etc.), music that exists only to make money is rarely, likely never, music I want to spend my bucks on. You're better off being yourself. If I don't get into it, someone else will. But if I do get into it, you've got a good bet on a repeat customer.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brotagonist said:


> It seems that a lot of us have been having an entirely different discussion than the one you intended
> 
> I, too, would hope for the same as science. While I realize that everyone wants to make a buck (euro, etc.), music that exists only to make money is rarely, likely never, music I want to spend my bucks on. You're better off being yourself. If I don't get into it, someone else will. But if I do get into it, you've got a good bet on a repeat customer.


I think 95% of us will agree. Why does this need to be problematized?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> Responding to: If an artist isn't connecting with the audience, they aren't doing their job.
> 
> Well, just as the composer has no obligation to the audience, the audience has no obligation to the composer.
> 
> ...


It wasn't me that brought up anything about 'obligation,' in either direction, and since it was brought up, may as well make clear that obligation (if there is one) is a two way street.

People should (and often do) make what they want, and others consume it -- if they want. There is nothing at all new about this, and hearing all of that (not from you) couched in some form of tone like that of a Business School Masters graduate who has just learned that in theory only, is both comical and a bit tedious.

_Of course artists 'make stuff' and hope people will like it and want it. Of course they like to get paid, at least enough so they have to do no other work and have time to work instead full-time to 'make more stuff.'_ Of course those who want art buy what they like.

Alrighty, then. Commodity of a sort it is, while it is not a ceramic cup sold by the gross and readily duplicated when there is a call for more.

We've thoroughly gone over the philosophicosemantical arena that the composer (or other copyright holder) owns the score, and copies of that (a set of directives to realize that score into music) are sold, recordings of the score (the score realized and recorded) and live musicians also charge money to people who want them to realize the score.

Now that all those deep profundities are out of the way, what is there really to discuss?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

ignore. redundant.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> It wasn't me that brought up anything about 'obligation,' in either direction, and since it was brought up, may as well make clear that obligation (if there is one) is a two way street.
> 
> People should (and often do) make what they want, and others consume it -- if they want. There is nothing at all new about this, and hearing all of that (not from you) couched in some form of tone like that of a Business School Masters graduate who has just learned that in theory only, is both comical and a bit tedious.
> 
> ...


Hopefully, nothing.

Except: "(if there is one)."

There is not. The _lack_ of obligation is a two-way street.

I might've been rough on the economics terminology. But I don't care.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Copyright laws in most cases actually inhibit creativity, the freedom to share information, knowledge, images, music etc. in the real world artists/creators are more satisfied with acknowledgement of their work than money that is made from it. And even so, a lot of the money made ends up going to companies rather than original creators of the work.












The antidote to fake capitalism is real capitalism:

http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Marschallin Blair said:


> The antidote to fake capitalism is real capitalism:


G'luck with that. I hope you get to try it, but not initially with a major economy!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In the spirit of this thread.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

science said:


> G'luck with that. I hope you get to try it, but not initially with a major economy!


I'm sorry, the ghetto patois is quite beyond me.

Do translate.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> This topic has been brought up in another thread, I think this will be a better place for that conversation.
> 
> Personally, I think that CDs, tickets, CD players, turntables etc. are consumer products. The music on the CDs and the live performance of music are not consumer products but rather a presentation of art from a collaboration of creative minds.


Yes, it is a consumer product in the sense that human beings - you, me, everybody else - consume music by listening to it primarily or exclusively, after making a choice to do so and usually giving up resources to do so (time, money, computer hard disk space, whatever).


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Surely Bach's cantatas, Vivaldi's concertos, and Haydn's symphonies all can be regarded as consumer products?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I'm sorry, the ghetto patois is quite beyond me.
> 
> Do translate.


I just mean that I hope some country does experiment with the libertarian vision, but I hope that the first one to try it isn't a particularly large economy, just in case it doesn't go well.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

science said:


> I just mean that I hope some country does experiment with the libertarian vision, but I hope that the first one to try it isn't a particularly large economy, just in case it doesn't go well.


I would never blame capitalism for what in fact are the failures of socialism.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2015)

You aren't really paying for the music so much as the skill of the people who present that music to you. I have no skill, in and of myself, to stage an entire symphony to perform, for example, Mahler's 2nd symphony. As such, I rely on the services of another to allow me to appreciate it. Sure, I can go find the score, and try to appreciate the music all in my head, or go through the process of trying to learn each individual instrument, and thus achieve a "free" performance. But that won't work that well. So I am relying on others to provide me with that experience. In all reality, those people have chosen that as their vocation, and it is the way that they provide for their living - they exchange the performance of their skills for the means to provide for the necessities of life, through the intermediary of currency. Since it is art, must they provide their services free of charge? Do you provide your services free of charge, so long as they aren't art? Should only artists work pro bono? Can one not work to produce good art AND expect to be paid for it? Beethoven and Bach produced wonderful music - and I am sure they expected to be paid for it. Or, sometimes, they no doubt provided it for free to some patron in the hopes that it might generate interest in employing their talents in the future with accompanying compensation - in essence, an early version of the "loss-leader" model of marketing.

I don't get this notion that, if it is art, it belongs to all, and should not be subject to capitalistic forces. It may be art, but, first and foremost, it represents the effort of someone or someones, whether it be the composer who relies on it for their livelihood, or the performers that provide the service of helping me to appreciate the music in a way I might otherwise not be able to, or the recording industry that allows those who cannot travel across the globe to view various and sundry performances of classical masterworks.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2015)

science said:


> I just mean that I hope some country does experiment with the libertarian vision, but I hope that the first one to try it isn't a particularly large economy, just in case it doesn't go well.


Why? It seems most of the problems that large economies face loom more often than not, not from unfettered capitalism, but rather from the attempts to regulate capitalism. Look at the subprime mortgage crisis - risky lenders were given loans, not because so many banks thought it was such a good idea, but because the government pushed them to do it. Many times, as well, the problems stem from crony capitalism, where businesses prop themselves up by buying influence with politicians to support their own particular business to the detriment of others. Most people understand that corn-produced ethanol is a boondoggle that doesn't even help the environmental cause - and yet corn growers influence politicians to subsidize this. Companies like Boeing get government to prop them up through lending to them through the Ex-Im bank. Solyndra gets government money that it otherwise didn't deserve. Government steps in and tries to pick the winners. That isn't capitalism - that is crony capitalism.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Why? It seems most of the problems that large economies face loom more often than not, not from unfettered capitalism, but rather from the attempts to regulate capitalism. Look at the subprime mortgage crisis - risky lenders were given loans, not because so many banks thought it was such a good idea, but because the government pushed them to do it. Many times, as well, the problems stem from crony capitalism, where businesses prop themselves up by buying influence with politicians to support their own particular business to the detriment of others. Most people understand that corn-produced ethanol is a boondoggle that doesn't even help the environmental cause - and yet corn growers influence politicians to subsidize this. Companies like Boeing get government to prop them up through lending to them through the Ex-Im bank. Solyndra gets government money that it otherwise didn't deserve. Government steps in and tries to pick the winners. That isn't capitalism - that is crony capitalism.


You know how much I love arguing this stuff with you, I must be eager to do it even on this thread.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I somewhat agree with OPie COAG regarding an artistic bent, but only in the creative process. Once the artist decides to sell it, as in distribution, it then becomes a consumer product (with the usual restrictions of course). Some exceptions, no doubt...such as a private commission in which the client may choose to keep the work "silent". I don't know or wouldn't know the legalities of such "property".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vaneyes said:


> I somewhat agree with OPie COAG regarding an artistic bent, but only in the creative process. Once the artist decides to sell it, as in distribution, it then becomes a consumer product (with the usual restrictions of course). Some exceptions, no doubt...such as a private commission in which the client may choose to keep the work "silent". I don't know or wouldn't know the legalities of such "property".


An example of that: Paul Wittgenstein, a wealthy one-armed pianist, commissioned most or all of the left-hand concertos and other music we have from after WWI: Ravel, Prokofiev, Britten, Hindemith, and so forth. He insisted on sole performing rights in his lifetime; works he didn't like just didn't get performed at all, by him or anyone else. He wrote:

"You don't build a house just so that someone else can live in it. I commissioned and paid for the works, the whole idea was mine [...]. But those works to which I still have the exclusive performance rights are to remain mine as long as I still perform in public; that's only right and fair."

It seems that you _can _own music.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> An example of that: Paul Wittgenstein[…]


And brother to Ludwig Wittgenstein, the important philosopher. An interesting family, to say the least.



KenOC said:


> It seems that you _can _own music.


Well, you can own the _ right to perform_ a piece of music


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

^^^ I seem to remember the tale of Mozart hearing Allegri's _Miserere_ in the Sistine chapel - it had been jealously guarded and 'owned' by the chapel for years but Wolfie promptly went out and wrote it down from one hearing.

Then again, I guess Allegri's 15 minutes was a tad easier to remember than Hindemith's concerto .... which had to wait for over 40 years after Wittgenstein's death to be re-discovered because his widow kept his stuff under lock and key until she died much later.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I would never blame capitalism for what in fact are the failures of socialism.


 .... and some of us might not blame socialism for what in fact are the failures of capitalism :devil:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> .... and some of us might not blame socialism for what in fact are the failures of capitalism :devil:


Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. :angel: - Got an argument, Dear? _;D_


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Most composers only want to make a living doing something they are good at. Whether it's producing music by patronage, selling tickets to performances, getting royalties, or ancillary sales of CDs etc., they have an interest in eating. Some have the luxury of being able to write only what they want. Some have to compromise somewhat (or totally) to consumer taste. All of them hate having to go to bed hungry at night -- or having to sleep under a bridge.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2015)

To quote those wise sages, the rock band Everclear: I hate those people who love to tell you money is the root of all that kills. They have never been poor. They have never had the joy of a welfare Christmas.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DrMike said:


> To quote those wise sages, the rock band Everclear: I hate those people who love to tell you money is the root of all that kills. They have never been poor. They have never had the joy of a welfare Christmas.


Its the love of other people's money that is the root of all evil.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2015)

I think it is fine and dandy to talk about how the fruit of another's labor should not carry a cost for others to enjoy. It sure is easy to give away for free the efforts of others. Pray tell - how did you afford the cost of the computer you are using to post such statements? Monetary compensation for me, but not for thee, if you happen to be an artist, because, by definition, art should not have a price tag.

Money is nothing more than a medium of exchange. Thank goodness I don't live in a time, any more, when one has to be able to procure every means of one's survival. My skill set does not lie in hunting or gathering, or in shelter-building. So I would be screwed. But I do have some skills - but microbiology does not directly provide food for myself or my family, or a roof over our head. So I find someone who is willing to pay me for my skills, and use that money to buy the things I need. That is all any of us do. That is all musicians and composers do. And thank goodness - if we all had to directly provide for our own subsistence, I doubt we would have as many artistic works as we now do. Farmers and hunters don't have as much time to paint or compose. Luckily we have a diverse society, where people can explore other occupations with which they can still earn a living. And so yes - we pay people to write and perform music. And they expect compensation. If somebody wants to do it and willingly forego monetary compensation, more power to them. Or stage a free performance? Spectacular! But I will not begrudge them charging for their efforts. That is how they procure the means to put food on their table and a roof over their head.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> Well, you can own the _ right to perform_ a piece of music


If it's not published and you don't allow a recording (both of which apply in Wittgenstein's case) then you pretty well own it all. In some cases W evidently allowed performances or recordings -- in others, not.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> If it's not published and you don't allow a recording (both of which apply in Wittgenstein's case) then you pretty well own it all.


No, you own the performance rights. The performance rights are not the same thing as the music. For one thing, you can't listen to performance rights.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> An example of that: Paul Wittgenstein, a wealthy one-armed pianist, commissioned most or all of the left-hand concertos and other music we have from after WWI: Ravel, Prokofiev, Britten, Hindemith, and so forth. He insisted on sole performing rights in his lifetime; works he didn't like just didn't get performed at all, by him or anyone else. He wrote:
> 
> "You don't build a house just so that someone else can live in it. I commissioned and paid for the works, the whole idea was mine [...]. But those works to which I still have the exclusive performance rights are to remain mine as long as I still perform in public; that's only right and fair."
> 
> It seems that you _can_ own music.





ahammel said:


> No, you own the performance rights. The performance rights are not the same thing as the music. For one thing, you can't listen to performance rights.


Ahammel has straightened that one out.... but it seems that Wittgenstein had obtained performance rights for the duration of his life!
It is perhaps the example of Wittgenstein which has no composer today in his right mind writing on commission for one performer exclusively _without a clause in that contract designating that the performer's exclusive performing and recording rights has a specific and finite time period with a beginning and an end from the moment the score is delivered._

Barber's piano concerto was commissioned for John Browning, who had exclusive rights of performance and recording it for a number of years, five, I think. But, the composer retained the full copyright, the performer only having that exclusive right to perform and record it for the stated time period.

Currently with this same type of arrangement, that time limit of exclusive performing / recording right is often no more than one or two years.

The Hollywood way with film scores is quite different. (I'm guessing a lot of video game scoring goes along a duplicate path.) The composer is hired, the score delivered, the composer is paid one lump sum, the orchestrator is paid one lump sum (each of those signing a specific form option present on the standard copyright forms, i.e. they are acknowledged as author while signing over all other copyrights to the employer / purchaser) and the studio retains all copyright, score, recordings, and all gains thereafter. Flat out 'commercial product,' then, I think applies directly to this kind of commissioned music.

There are I'm sure, exceptions, where the composer retains at least some of the copyright and therefore later royalties from their work, but I'm guessing that has to be but with those few composers whose reputation makes them so desirable that the standard 'own it all' of the studio goes to this different sort of arrangement, and this development is only relatively lately, i.e. I doubt if Bernard Herrmann got paid more than once for his scores.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> LOL, it is perhaps the example of Wittgenstein which has no composer today in his right mind writing on commission for one performer exclusively _without a clause in that contract designating that the performer has a specific time period with a beginning and end after delivery with the exclusive rights to perform it_.


This was a common practice in the classical period, through Beethoven's earlier years in Vienna. The composer would agree to give the person commissioning a work sole performing rights for a period, usually six months, after which the composer could sell the work to a publisher, play if for gain, or whatever. I don't remember reading of any difficulties with this except for the cock-up with Mozart's Requiem.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

...in the real world artists/creators are more satisfied with acknowledgement of their work than money that is made from it.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! :lol:

Which "real" world is this?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...in the real world artists/creators are more satisfied with acknowledgement of their work than money that is made from it.
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! :lol:
> 
> Which "real" world is this?


Utopia Unlimited.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...in the real world artists/creators are more satisfied with acknowledgement of their work than money that is made from it.
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! :lol:
> 
> Which "real" world is this?


Those lucky artists who are living off of trust funds set up by wealthy parents, of course.

To paraphrase/quote other great minds, the punk band Lagwagon, from their song Knowitall, referring to pop/rock bands, but the sentiment is the same:
"The [artists/creators] are good 'til they make enough cash to eat food and get a pad. Then they're sold out and their [music/art] is cliche. 'Cause talent's exclusive to [artists/creators] without pay."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...in the real world artists/creators are more satisfied with acknowledgement of their work than money that is made from it.
> 
> Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! :lol:


Okeedoh, cynic artists and laypeople -- That sentence construction might have not been clear enough, but it was nonetheless clearly implicit.

Laid out more directly:
"...in the real world artists/creators are more satisfied with acknowledgement of their work _*than they are satisfied with the money that is made from it.*_

Yeah, the money is great, good, and necessary, but I think it is a no-brainer which is more memorable for the artist, and from which anyone in that position would get / take 'more satisfaction.'


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2015)

Maybe - but I think it is very difficult to separate the two. Sure, people do things in their life all the time from which they derive immense joy and satisfaction independent of compensation. I would point to my family and my experiences with my children. But in my professional field, I can still get immense satisfaction for recognition of my work, but that can be quite tempered if it doesn't also translate into improving my situation financially, either immediately, in the form of direct compensation, or delayed, in the form of future interest in my work, for which I might expect pay.

Yes, money is not as memorable, because it isn't necessarily what we our end goal is, rather what the money can get us. For example, my first real job after finishing college brought me immense satisfaction as a "reward" for my studying so many years. The money I got, not so much, except that I also got satisfaction from the fact that the studying and effort paid off in such a way that I got a job that allowed me to buy my first house and first new car. Had I only received a job that paid poorly, it might still reflect a vindication of my years spent studying, but would be considerably less satisfying than a job that afforded me a higher standard of living.

Cue all the responses now about how much different the world of the arts is from anything else.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I love my job, but I gotta eat!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think most of us over the age of, say, 35, were we honest about it, would admit that we crossed the threshold between worrying about feeding ourselves and trying to get nicer stuff a long time ago. In fact, most of us were probably born on the near side of that threshold. 

Classical music, after all, isn't a cheap pursuit.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DrMike said:


> Maybe - but I think it is very difficult to separate the two. Sure, people do things in their life all the time from which they derive immense joy and satisfaction independent of compensation. I would point to my family and my experiences with my children. But in my professional field, I can still get immense satisfaction for recognition of my work, but that can be quite tempered if it doesn't also translate into improving my situation financially, either immediately, in the form of direct compensation, or delayed, in the form of future interest in my work, for which I might expect pay.
> 
> Yes, money is not as memorable, because it isn't necessarily what we our end goal is, rather what the money can get us. For example, my first real job after finishing college brought me immense satisfaction as a "reward" for my studying so many years. The money I got, not so much, except that I also got satisfaction from the fact that the studying and effort paid off in such a way that I got a job that allowed me to buy my first house and first new car. Had I only received a job that paid poorly, it might still reflect a vindication of my years spent studying, but would be considerably less satisfying than a job that afforded me a higher standard of living.
> 
> Cue all the responses now about how much different the world of the arts is from anything else.


Beethoven: mega hit maestro / fiddle concerto, one performance, then it gathered dust on a shelf until ca. forty years later Mendelssohn programmed it for a performance and 'brought it back' ... now considered by many "The" violin concerto.

Was the work of yours which paid well enough of the nature of making a completely unique one-off thing, not to be in any way replicated on the 'next job?' This is art and performance, which like any other work holds the same truth, "you are only as good as your last job," but in the arts, that maxim is easily multiplied, without exaggeration, tenfold as an every day, job-to-job truth.

There is a variable of much greater risks many an artist takes, inherent in the job, which I can not imagine or see in other more 'straight-line' kinds of work, no matter what real creativity is involved in those. [That said, it should not be taken as any sort of complaint, or whine about the martyrdom of such work. Those who do it know full well that is part of the terrain of the work they have signed up for.] Other jobs, some more than others of course, are not nearly as dependent upon coming up with something as intimately personal, or as dependent upon producing a stream of one-off unique individual creations.


----------

