The 20th century: an aberation in the music biz?

[music321]

There are lots of threads centered around the differences between the music biz 30 years ago and today, and where things are headed. Maybe this "decline" is just a return to where the music "industry" has been for most of civilization.

 

Musicians have always had value. I remember a history teacher saying that often the romans would kill all of the men in a village, except those with musical instruments.

 

During much of the history of civilization, musicians have fallen into three categories:

 

1. Hobbyists. They made most or all of there income from something other than

music. Maybe a father would play an instrument after dinner with the family.

 

2. Working musicians: walked from town to town with a lute, or wrote sheet

music.

 

3. "superstars": very, very, few existed. They directed the king's orchestra,

etc.

 

It seems that many issues plaguing the industry today were also issues centuries ago. Even Mozart had problems with his publishers.

 

Here are my thoughts as to how the 20th century might have been an aberation:

 

Different aspects of developing cultures happen at different rates. As one aspect of society changes, other aspects compensate; then things change some more.

 

recording technology, broadcasting (tv and radio), disposable income, cars, etc. disrupted all aspects of life. Through this imbalance, the rock star rose. Paul McCartney is a billionaire. I don't know if another "nobody" will rise to this level through music in our lifetimes.

 

Now, it seems, things are starting to quiet down again (socially). Yes, there will be great change at some point (perhaps some new technology will radically alter civilization in the next 10-20 years, who knows?). For now, it seems that civilization is readjusting. broadcasting is old news. so is driving, disposible income, etc.

 

any thoughts?

[Active Reasoner]

I totally agree with you.

A huge industry arose selling the dream of fame and fortune,

based on the template of Elvis and The Beatles.

They say,"history repeats itself,"

but to this day, no one has generated the hysteria,

or the money those guys did, and continue to do.

I think they were the peak as far as fame and fortune,

and the downturn in the music biz is just a return to normal.

The end of the "star", and the return of the "star-ving artist".

 

Active

[Cygnus64]

3. "superstars": very, very, few existed. They directed the king's orchestra, etc.

 

Incorrect, plenty existed. Jenny Lind, Paganini, Lizst, Chopin, Johann Strauss Jr., Heifetz, Joachim, on and on. Johann Strauss was a megastar who toured America and made mega-money. A Paganini concert was like a rock show, complete with his long hair and theatrics, he was like the Gene Simmons of the 1820s. Caruso, Mario Lanza, even John Phillip Sousa made a fortune.

Opera composers made major dollars: Puccini and Verdi were quite wealthy and politcally important as well. Even Beethoven had a large sum of money and would be considered "rich" today.

 

Publishing was a big deal, and several of those companies still exist (Ricordi, Boosey and Hawkes, etc). A lot of the early 20th century masterpieces ( like Bartok concerto for Orchestra, Ravel etc) are not available to buy, you have to rent them. Even Beethoven symphonies bring in millions TODAY through publishing.

 

In addition, lots of 18th and 19th century artists had patrons. Tchaikovsky had a Baroness who funded him, he didnt have to work. Wagner had Mad King Ludwig funding him ( and doing more than funding since they were gay!). I've been to one of Wagners homes, and the guy lived like a rock star in Mansions. This is a guy who was born in 1813 by the way.

[BlueStrat]

With all due respect, I think y'all need to bone up on music history a bit more. (except you, cygnus! You posted while I was writing)

 

EVERY musical age is an 'aberration', because none of them are the same. Every musical age has been a product of the events and the available technology of it's time.

 

There will likely never be another age when music perforance was dominated by 30 or 40 piece orchestras.

 

There will likely never be another time when most music produced will be done so through the church.

 

There will likely never be (though there could be) another time when most stuff produced is done so through a patron or a sponsor on commission.

(BTW, this model was used considerably in the late 1600s-to 1800s, where composers and orchestras were employed by nobles and later opera house and theater owners, the first real businessman 'club owners').

 

There likely won't be another time when popular music has 12 horn players.

 

And FWIW, the Beatles and Elvis were not the first modern times superstars. That distinction would go to people like Rudy Valee and Al Jolson and lots of other guys from the 20s. And the fist modern 'pop star' was in fact Hank Williams, who was a radio star in the 30s, and who drew huge crowds, complete with fainting women.

 

I don't think modern music will 'return' to anything. It will continue to morph and evolve as it always has.

[Cygnus64]

And FWIW, the Beatles and Elvis were not the first modern times superstars. That distinction would go to people like Rudy Valee and Al Jolson and lots of other guys from the 20s. And the fist modern 'pop star' was in fact Hank Williams, who was a radio star in the 30s, and who drew huge crowds, complete with fainting women.

 

Sinatra was before Elvis as well, and was amazingly popular with the teenage girls.

[sabriel9v]

 

I remember a history teacher saying that often the romans would kill all of the men in a village, except those with musical instruments.

 

 

Wow...I've never heard this.

[sabriel9v]

With all due respect, I think y'all need to bone up on music history a bit more. (except you, cygnus! You posted while I was writing) EVERY musical age is an 'aberration', because none of them are the same. Every musical age has been a product of the events and the available technology of it's time. There will likely never be another age when music perforance was dominated by 30 or 40 piece orchestras. There will likely never be another time when most music produced will be done so through the church. There will likely never be (though there could be) another time when most stuff produced is done so through a patron or a sponsor on commission. (BTW, this model was used considerably in the late 1600s-to 1800s, where composers and orchestras were employed by nobles and later opera house and theater owners, the first real businessman 'club owners'). There likely won't be another time when popular music has 12 horn players. And FWIW, the Beatles and Elvis were not the first modern times superstars. That distinction would go to people like Rudy Valee and Al Jolson and lots of other guys from the 20s. And the fist modern 'pop star' was in fact Hank Williams, who was a radio star in the 30s, and who drew huge crowds, complete with fainting women. I don't think modern music will 'return' to anything. It will continue to morph and evolve as it always has.

 

[Active Reasoner]

Paul McCartney is a billionaire.

Add to that the worth of the other Beatles.

I have no idea what the Elvis estate is worth,

but he continues to be a top seller.

Yes, there have been many world famous and rich musicians,

but nothing on the scale of these guys.

Does anyone really believe there will be someone

who will surpass both the fame and fortune of The Beatles?

I say, not likely, and if so,

it is the end of the era of the megarich superstar musicians.

 

Active

[sabriel9v]

 

Paul McCartney is a billionaire. Add to that the worth of the other Beatles. I have no idea what the Elvis estate is worth, but he continues to be a top seller. Yes, there have been many world famous and rich musicians, but nothing on the scale of these guys. Does anyone really believe there will be someone who will surpass both the fame and fortune of The Beatles? I say, not likely, and if so, it is the end of the era of the megarich superstar musicians. Active

 

 

But is being a mega billionaire the only thing that's important? If that is one's main objective...it's too late at this point. Should've chosen a different career. But I can't completely agree with your statement. Investing and saving capital has never changed. Who's to say I can't make a couple million off the music industry and put it in the right places to double or triple my initial investment?

[Booya Tribe]

I don't see it as a "it's all changing" or an "it's all the same as ever" kind of way. I see a mix of different elements.

 

Although I get your point BlueStrat, what also never ceases to amaze me is the idea that people think that everything is totally different from what it has ever been in the past.

 

I think it is obvious that the external circumstances and technology do change, but otherwise, the basic interactions and situations people encounter seem to be relatively similar throughout history. If you read ancient philosophy or religion, you see that essentially people are the same as ever in an internal sense.

 

Therefore, I am sure people like Mozart, Beethoven, etc had to deal with "scum" from the "industry" just like musicians, bands, etc. have to now.

 

One thing that has changed a lot over time, however, is the motivation or inspiration for art. This has been a huge change that has happened in the last 100 years or so. In the past, a lot of masterpieces of "high art" were based on a devotion to religion of one sort or another. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, etc, were all highly interested in either religion or mysticism of some sort. Folk music did focus sometimes on more mundane everyday life types of things, but it generally wasn't as coarse or heavy (in an emotional sense) as modern popular music, and sometimes it was as elegant and beautiful as classical music.

 

Now, "high art" is based mainly on the worship of ideas or the intellect, politics, or otherwise, perhaps more in pop music, of money, sex, coarse emotions, etc... in other words, materialism, or self-interested/absorbed egoism.

 

People tend to think that this is because we are becoming increasingly "advanced," and we are "smarter than that now." (ie: we don't need those "superstitious beliefs" of religions.) However, I don't see it that way. I think we are just getting more and more full of ourselves (and in becoming more full of ourselves, becoming less interested in a "creator" or a reason for our existence). For that reason, I think art is actually suffering with time as that beauty, awe, wonder, and sublime influence of that which is not immediately tangible gets buried below more worldly things.

 

We also tend to think that the changes in the external world, such as with technology, somehow make us happier... but they don't really, they just are a different/new method of distraction.

[Cygnus64]

 

Paul McCartney is a billionaire. Add to that the worth of the other Beatles. I have no idea what the Elvis estate is worth, but he continues to be a top seller. Yes, there have been many world famous and rich musicians, but nothing on the scale of these guys.

 

 

All the people I mentioned made about the same kind of money. Do the math, Jenny lind was making 1000 a nite in 1840.

[BlueStrat]

 

Paul McCartney is a billionaire. Add to that the worth of the other Beatles. I have no idea what the Elvis estate is worth, but he continues to be a top seller. Yes, there have been many world famous and rich musicians, but nothing on the scale of these guys. Does anyone really believe there will be someone who will surpass both the fame and fortune of The Beatles? I say, not likely, and if so, it is the end of the era of the megarich superstar musicians. Active

 

 

 

You cannot discount the affect of technology. The only reason there were no mega-rich rockstars before the 50s is twofold, both reasons of technology. One, there was no effective means to distribute music worldwide, and two, there wasn't a worldwide audience with the technology able to play it if there were a distribution means.

 

The fact is, now there is instantaneous distribution, and all but the most remote tents in the Sahahra and Amazon villages have internet access. I don't see that going away anytime soon.

 

Eventually, someone wil discover a way to regain control of distribution once again, making music profitable again, but who knows what that will look like?

[BlueStrat]

 

I think it is obvious that the external circumstances and technology do change, but otherwise, the basic interactions and situations people encounter seem to be relatively similar throughout history. If you read ancient philosophy or religion, you see that essentially people are the same as ever in an internal sense.

 

 

I agree totally, but I'm referring to the state of the music 'business' (for lack of a better term) throughout history. People may remain relatively the same, but still, music is and always has been a product of current social conditions and available technology. For that reason, I don't think music will ever "go back" to anything.

 

Just in my life, I've watched it evolve from being one way to another, and i think it will continue to evolve. As I said above, what it will look like in 10, 20, 50, 100 years is anyone's guess. I doubt seriously that it will be back to isolated pockets of sequestered cultures making music for it's own inhabitants as it was until the 19th century.

[sabriel9v]

 

I agree totally, but I'm referring to the state of the music 'business' (for lack of a better term) throughout history. People may remain relatively the same, but still, music is and always has been a product of current social conditions and available technology. For that reason, I don't think music will ever "go back" to anything. Just in my life, I've watched it evolve from being one way to another, and i think it will continue to evolve. As I said above, what it will look like in 10, 20, 50, 100 years is anyone's guess. I doubt seriously that it will be back to isolated pockets of sequestered cultures making music for it's own inhabitants as it was until the 19th century.

 

 

I think what Booya was hinting at is the more things change, the more they stay the same. Technology has definitely reshaped the face of the industry, but people still seek music for the same reasons as they did thousands of years ago. Whether or not we need mega superstars like Paul McCartney and Elvis seems a little irrelevant to me. It's not like a business model in which monopolies and oligopolies can provide more jobs, higher pay, and balance the market while dominating etc. The money Paul McCartney makes is his money and completely independent of anyone of us.

[Active Reasoner]

Hey Cygnus,

 

Thanks for the history lesson.

I checked out the bios on Wikipedia of the artists you mentioned.

The only one with numbers I could run was Lind.

I won't bore everybody with the details,

but she doesn't come even close to The Beatles,

in fame or fortune.

It's ironic old Ludwig Van's publishing earns millions today,

since he died a starving pauper.

Last I heard, Michael Jackson owned Lennon/McCartney's publishing.

I wonder how much more that income would add to Sir Paul's fortune.

 

If you haven't seen it, take a look at "The Beatles Anthology" DVD's.

The worldwide hysteria generated by Beatlemania,

was a one time event in the history of the world.

Never before, never again.

The key word here is worldwide.

 

I didn't bring up The Beatles and Elvis

as examples to be aspired too,

but that they are the superstar high water mark,

made in the 20th century.

The aberration in the 20th century

is that never before in history,

could a musician reach into the highest levels of wealth.

The key word here is highest.

 

 

Active

[Cygnus64]

Hey Cygnus, Thanks for the history lesson. I checked out the bios on Wikipedia of the artists you mentioned. The only one with numbers I could run was Lind. I won't bore everybody with the details, but she doesn't come even close to The Beatles, in fame or fortune. It's ironic old Ludwig Van's publishing earns millions today, since he died a starving pauper. Last I heard, Michael Jackson owned Lennon/McCartney's publishing. I wonder how much more that income would add to Sir Paul's fortune.

 

 

Hmmmm.

 

I dont know how to say this without being rude, trust me that I am not trying to be:

 

A little critical thinking might be in order. Obviously, one cannot compare the salaries of 1840 with 2008. However, with a lil skill and a couple O guidelines, you can at least be in the ballpark.

 

McCartneys fortune comes also through being a businessman who himself owns a vast amount of publishing rights, including the Buddy Holly catalog. As for Beethoven dying a pauper, thats just stupid and uninformed.

 

I'm a huge Beatles fan, I wish to take nothing away from the guy and his well-deserved money. But ya gotta think a little, and ya cant make blind statements and expect them to be taken as serious if you are just pulling figures outta your ass. The fact is that a lot of artists were stinking rich and the equivalant of "billioniares" in their day.

 

There WERE no billioniares in 1840. For a WOMAN to make 1000 bucks a nite? Insane amount of money. 1000 bucks could buy 500 MILES worth of land.

 

Tom Jones is worth 100s of millions too. You're comparing the TV age with the days before electricity! Look at their houses, the people I mentioned. They lived like billioniares long before anybody knew what that was. Do a search on populations too, there simply werent that many people back then. Or, just see things how you want to see them and ignore me, and hundreds of years of documented history. Its easier that way.

[sabriel9v]

McCartneys fortune comes also through being a businessman who himself owns a vast amount of publishing rights, including the Buddy Holly catalog. As for Beethoven dying a pauper, thats just stupid and uninformed.

 

+1

[Active Reasoner]

We're cool, Cygnus , we just disagree.

I always assume the persons best intentions

when reading their posts.

 

My off hand remark about Beethoven

was meant to be taken as an exagerration,

but his life story is a tragedy of tragedies,

and in my opinion, he was a starving pauper in more ways than one.

 

I find economics fascinating, but most people find it boring,

so I apologize in advance for the following trivia.

 

Agreed, there were no billionaires in the 1800's.

But real wealth at that time was expressed in tangible assets,

so it's not unreasonable to equate the royal families of that time,

with the billionaires of today.

 

According to Wikipedia, the contract Lind had for $1000 a concert,

was renegotiated in 1850.

She performed 93 U.S. concerts, earning $250,000.

That comes to $2688.17 a show, to be exact.

 

I want to keep this brief,

so I will try avoid a complete chronicle of U.S. economic history,

but I know the facts and have considered them in my conclusion.

 

Before 1913, a dollar was a dollar.

In 1913, the Fed was created by some rich guys and bankers,

to create and regulate the U.S. money.

Since the deflation of the Great Depression,

the U.S. has been in an inflationary economy,

and the U.S. dollar has lost 98% of it's purchasing power.

 

Though there were ups and downs for the dollar from 1850 to 1913,

I choose 1913 as the point of comparison,

because it is at this point things change for the worse,

and the dollar begins it's decline.

 

To be generous, and keep things simple,

lets round up the dollars 98% decline to 100,

and appreciate Lind's $250,000 x 100.

That converts her earnings to $25,000,000,

in todays dollars. Amazing, by any standards,

but that's $975,000,000 below a billion.

Which just shows what an astronomical achievement

it is for a musician become a billionaire.

 

To me it's irrelevant that Sir Paul has invested his money wisely,

the seed money for growing his fortune came from his music.

 

So you see, Cygnus, though you may disagree with my opinion,

there is a valid logic to my conclusions.

People have unresolved differences of opinion all the time.

It's no big deal. I know we'll never change each others minds.

That would be boring, wouldn't it?

Thanks for being interesting.

 

Active

[BlueStrat]

 

Before 1913, a dollar was a dollar. In 1913, the Fed was created by some rich guys and bankers, to create and regulate the U.S. money. Since the deflation of the Great Depression, the U.S. has been in an inflationary economy, and the U.S. dollar has lost 98% of it's purchasing power. Though there were ups and downs for the dollar from 1850 to 1913, I choose 1913 as the point of comparison, because it is at this point things change for the worse, and the dollar begins it's decline.

 

 

So you see, Cygnus, though you may disagree with my opinion, there is a valid logic to my conclusions.

 

 

 

Interesting, but 1840 is still not 1913. Your valid logic is based on faulty math and flawed data. There was in fact inflation before 1913, and there are many indicators to show it. One is wages: the average wage in 1840 was a about 8-10 dollars a month, but by 1880 was double that; by 1913 it was nearly 4 times what it was in 1840. So while the value of a dollar may have remained fairly constant on the international market, there as still in-country inflation, long before the advent of the Fed.

 

Not only that, but your assumtion of the dollar losing only 100% of it's value is absurd. It has in fact lost much, much more than that. Even by 1913, it was worth about 1/4 of what it was in 1840. Just since 1960, things then cost an average of 10-12 times less than they do now. 100% loss of value would mean the dollar is worth 50 cents, or that it takes 2 dollars to buy what one once did. Today, it takes 10-12 dollars to buy what one dollar did in just 1960.

 

And in 1960, the average daily wage was 2 to 5 times what a worker in 1840 made in an entire month. Cripes, even going back to my experience in 1975, the 100 dollars I made for a gig back then is worth about $620 today. Or, put another way, the hundred dollars I make today is worth about $18 then. What do you think it would have been worth in 1840?

 

Now do you see why making $1000 a day in 1840 was such a remarkable achievement?

[Active Reasoner]

Blue Strat,

 

I totally disagree with everything you wrote.

Note I used 1913 as my starting point.

I did not say the dollar has lost 98% of it's value,

I said it has lost 98% of it's purchasing power since 1913.

That's a verifiable fact.

 

Look at my original posts, where did I mention the distant past?

 

You guys are the ones who keep dusting off the 1800's,

which I think is an over complication of a simple premise.

 

Was the 20th century an aberation in the music biz?

 

I say yes, and I have even more reasons

than just the money,

but obviously the simplest concepts

are going to be nit picked to death.

Sorry, I've wasted too much time already

explaining what I consider self evident.

 

Active

[ThreeGutRock]

This Active Reasoner guy is hilarious.

[sabriel9v]

 

Was the 20th century an aberation in the music biz? I say yes

 

 

I'm a little confused as to how you're using this term. Do you feel the 20th century is an abnormality or something that has pushed the system out of focus? Either way, everything is relative. There have been many instances in history where people felt certain things were impossible and were proven wrong. I suppose I'm speaking in more broad terms now, but the main function of any system is to sustain itself. Which means evolution and progression and I feel that will happen within the music industry. Things just don't stop.

[BlueStrat]

 

I said it has lost 98% of it's purchasing power since 1913. That's a verifiable fact.

 

 

It has lost far more than that. As I said, if it lost 100% of it's purchasing power, that means what used to cost $1 now costs 2. In fact, it has lost about 1000% of it's purchasing power.

 

You're the one who said no one can compare at any time in history to the billionaires that McCartney et al are now.. I say that's baloney. Anyone making 1000 dollars a night in 1840 would be making over $240,000 a night today.

 

So no, it's not an aberration. You arrived at your conclusin using faulty numbers and a flawed premise.

 

But, hey, like you said, I've wasted too much time already

explaining what I consider self evident.

[soundwave106]

 

and appreciate Lind's $250,000 x 100. That converts her earnings to $25,000,000,in todays dollars. Amazing, by any standards, but that's $975,000,000 below a billion.

 

 

$6,159,716.29 according to the inflation calculator, actually. Which is actually pretty remarkable for a music-oriented career back then, seeing as how music as a business was not as robust as now (although, mind you, it existed)...

[Cygnus64]

You're the one who said no one can compare at any time in history to the billionaires that McCartney et al are now.. I say that's baloney. Anyone making 1000 dollars a night in 1840 would be making over $ 240,000 a night today.

 

And this is just one lady off of the top of my head, there were hundreds. Johann Strauss Jr. was insanely rich? Was he as rich as McCartney? I dunno, but Stealth bombers that cost 1.2 billion werent around. With all of his money, McCartney could only buy one plane.:lol:

 

Berlioz (composer) was marired to Harriet Smithson. Does that name sound familiar? Smithsonian? Thats the kind of societal position he could attain as a musician, he married a gazillioniare. Did she have a billion? Umm, we know what the Smithsonian money is about, so its irrelevant comparing it to todays amounts.

 

 

Beethoven didnt work for Royaly, he was FRIENDS with them. Again, that is a societal position that people like Bono have nowadays. Thats a Billioniares club if there ever was one, ones position in Society is arguably as valuable as actual worth. I could have a billion dollars and not be in the class able to date supermodels. Rock Stars can, and Beethovens could.