taking sides: rich dilettante musicians v. poor musicians who need to earn a living

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Who makes the best music - rich kids living off their trust funds, who don't need to compromise their muse by thinking in terms of shifting units, or poor kids who need to earn a crust out of their music if they are to continue making it?

I lean towards the latter, as I think music suffers if its makers are not audience focussed.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 4 July 2005 10:25 (twenty years ago)

We have done this punch-up before, if I recall..

― mark grout (mark grout), Monday, 4 July 2005 10:28 (twenty years ago)

TS: good music vs bad music

i lean towards the latter as its proponents must work harder to win audiences over

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 4 July 2005 10:31 (twenty years ago)

TS: popular music vs unpopular music

I prefer the latter, as I believe music suffers if too many people like it. = I kill what I love.

― alext (alext), Monday, 4 July 2005 12:04 (twenty years ago)

TS: loud music vs quiet music.

I select the latter, as I believe music should be appreciated by those who will remove other sound sources to listen to it.

― mark grout (mark grout), Monday, 4 July 2005 12:44 (twenty years ago)

The question is specious. Almost nobody, rich or poor, earns a living from their music -- the people you're talking about that need to "earn their crust" are in cover bands, which tend to be the most "audience focussed."

― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 4 July 2005 14:14 (twenty years ago)

Hurting = TOTALLY on the FUCKING money here!!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Monday, 4 July 2005 14:18 (twenty years ago)

this argument is dumb. if you like someone's music who cares what the background of the artist is, if it affects your feeling about the music then really you should be thinking more about what that says about you....

― breezy, Monday, 4 July 2005 14:21 (twenty years ago)

but do you think a person's background will make any difference to the music they make?

there's a bit in the Simon Reynolds book where he tooks about how Pere Ubu were all feelthy rich as a result of trust funds and stuff, and deliberately refused to court mainstream success. Is this a good or a bad outcome for the listener? As in, is their music better or worse for not being mainstream-friendly. That's my question.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 4 July 2005 14:42 (twenty years ago)

among people who like that kind of music, Townes Van Zandt is seen as someone whose wealth meant he never had to compromise (or bother with promoting his music). This is usually seen as a good thing.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 4 July 2005 14:43 (twenty years ago)

I think a person who isn't rich could just as easily refuse to court mainstream success and a rich person could just as easily want fame and money.

― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 4 July 2005 14:44 (twenty years ago)

but presumably a non-rich person would have to give up music if he wasn't making a living at it? So you might just get a couple of albums out of it before he takes to chartered accountancy to feed his children.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 4 July 2005 15:38 (twenty years ago)

I find your premise a little strange. Most people in bands just work day jobs until they get to the point that they can make a living, which they almost never do.

― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 4 July 2005 15:41 (twenty years ago)

IT DOESNT MATTER. it's the person or people, not the class of the person.

― jack cole, a senior citizen who lives alone with his cat (jackcole), Monday, 4 July 2005 15:56 (twenty years ago)

getting a job doesn't necessarily mean you have to stop making music, DV!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Monday, 4 July 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

i agree w.jack cole, though i feel very non-audience-focused saying so

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 4 July 2005 16:00 (twenty years ago)

THAT'S A JOKE JACK! (except the agreeing w.you part)

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 4 July 2005 16:01 (twenty years ago)

mmmm... so what this thread has thought me is that there are loads of hobbyist musicians who work in day jobs and do music dilettantishly in their spare time. Unlike rich dilettantes, who can do it all day long.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 4 July 2005 16:06 (twenty years ago)

Yes, the rich dilettantes probably get farther in general because they have more time to devote to music.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Monday, 4 July 2005 17:47 (twenty years ago)

i invented white-out.

― scott seward (scott seward), Monday, 4 July 2005 18:11 (twenty years ago)

i wrote the songs that made the young girls sing

― dave q (listerine), Monday, 4 July 2005 19:38 (twenty years ago)

i paid for all my heroin with the stock i own in william seward burroughs calculating machine company inc.

― scott seward (scott seward), Monday, 4 July 2005 19:43 (twenty years ago)

Some of those "hobbyist musicians" go on to have record contracts and whatnot. And most musicians, by necessity, work jobs and therefore start out as "hobbyist musicians."

― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 4 July 2005 19:52 (twenty years ago)

james taylor came from a wealthy family and he was a very sexy junkie. carly could afford more dental care than most pogues.

― scott seward (scott seward), Monday, 4 July 2005 19:54 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.