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

[BlueStrat]

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.

Beethoven raised 10 children and maintained a home with nannies and servants ...on a musician's salary!

[sabriel9v]

 

Beethoven raised 10 children and maintained a home with nannies and servants ...on a musician's salary!

 

 

They also said he was a bit of a dick and a wino...but I'd probably be hittin the sauce too if I had 10 kids.

[Poker99]

Beethoven had a bad temper.

 

But when you look at his life and the things he was enduring (both physically and mentally), you understand. Its quite sad really.

[Cygnus64]

 

They also said he was a bit of a dick and a wino...but I'm probably be hittin the sauce too if I had 10 kids.

 

 

I am not aware of Beethoven having ANY kids. He had a nephew named Karl, and he was involved in a much publicized custody battle. As for his own kids, I dont think he had any.

[soundwave106]

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.

 

Smithson was not related to James Smithson, who wasn't a gazillionaire anyways. James was an illegitimate son of a duke who became a scientist, and amassed a small fortune through investing (per the always reliable Wikipedia).

 

No matter, Berlioz (and Strauss, and Beethoven) made quite a bit of money in the day. Did they approach the income machine of the Beatles? IMHO probably not, but they probably made a lot more than many pop artists on the radio today.

[BlueStrat]

 

I am not aware of Beethoven having ANY kids. He had a nephew named Karl, and he was involved in a much publicized custody battle. As for his own kids, I dont think he had any.

 

 

Yep, you're right; I have him confused with Bach or Brahms. One of them had a gazillion kids. Too lazy to look it up, though.

[sabriel9v]

 

No matter, Berlioz (and Strauss, and Beethoven) made quite a bit of money in the day. Did they approach the income machine of the Beatles? IMHO probably not, but they probably made a lot more than many pop artists on the radio today.

 

 

This may be true, but I don't think that people back then felt music and the arts overall could have the capacity to arouse serious change in society. I feel the arts are recognized as more powerful instruments of culture and change now.

[BlueStrat]

This may be true, but I don't think that people back then felt music and the arts overall could have the capacity to arouse serious change in society. I feel the arts are recognized as more powerful instruments of culture and change now.

 

That's funny, I tend think the opposite is true.

 

Back in the day, music was a key component in arousing people to war, in expressing religious faith, and in cultural events like rites of passage and socio-political movements (women's suffrage, abolition, temperance and union organizing). Even as late as the 1940s, musicians were some of the leading fundraisers for war bonds in WW2.

 

Today, it's mostly entertainment and advertising.

 

I can't see Beethoven or Tchaikovsky writing symphonies to sell even pianos and violins,let alone carriages and clothing.

[sabriel9v]

That's funny, I tend think the opposite is true. Back in the day, music was a key component in arousing people to war, in expressing religious faith, and in cultural events like rites of passage and socio-political movements (women's suffrage, abolition, temperance and union organizing). Even as late as the 1940s, musicians were some of the leading fundraisers for war bonds in WW2. Today, it's mostly entertainment and advertising. I can't see Beethoven or Tchaikovsky writing symphonies to sell even pianos and violins,let alone carriages and clothing.

 

Religion definitely played a bigger role in music in the 17th and 18th centuries. But I still feel that many governments were more concerned with industrializing and becoming more powerful and efficient states. The desire to move into an industrial and modern age overpowered the artistic realm. There were many advancements made within art and music, but I don't feel those movements took precedent over other political and economic things in society. While music may have been used to rally nationalistic and religious sentiments, I don't think anyone thought it was an instrument that could be used to challenge the state and potentially topple it.

[Booya Tribe]

 

I am not aware of Beethoven having ANY kids. He had a nephew named Karl, and he was involved in a much publicized custody battle. As for his own kids, I dont think he had any.

 

 

Yea, this is the kind of stuff that happens with historical figures. After they die they acquire more children, have more affairs, more vices, their temper worsens, and it turns out they are all gay.

[BlueStrat]

 

While music may have been used to rally nationalistic and religious sentiments, I don't think anyone thought it was an instrument that could be used to challenge the state and potentially topple it.

 

 

Once again, look at history. 70 years ago, Hitler used the music of Wagner and other German composers to help create an Aryan identity. The sixties used music to stir an anti-war movement. That was 40 years ago.

 

But you said this:

 

I feel the arts are recognized as more powerful instruments of culture and change now.

 

 

What are you seeing in music and the arts now that leads you to believe it is more of an agent of social change that it was? Because I see it as being more commercial and less valuable now than it ever was, and entertainment technology itself having far more effect on the culture than anythhing that technology delivers. As gtrbass said, the technology has become the pez dispensers that everyone buys, but the pez (music) exists to sell the dispensers.

[Booya Tribe]

Today, it's mostly entertainment and advertising. I can't see Beethoven or Tchaikovsky writing symphonies to sell even pianos and violins,let alone carriages and clothing.

 

I agree. These people were deeply passionate about music and the inner potential it had and the inner depths it could reach. The quality of their music and the care put into it speaks to the seriousness with which they approached music. But I don't think they looked at it so much in a political or social sense (as most of today's "revolutionary" music does) but more in an internal or metaphysical sense (probably influenced by their spiritual leanings, or perhaps supporting their spiritual leanings). You may want to dispute that, but if you simply listen to the depth in Beethoven's music, it speaks more than any of the so called historical records, opinions of scholars, etc. could say about Beethoven.

 

Wagner wrote openly against the commercialization of music and of composing music with more hype and novelty than substance. Unfortunately, it seems his words did not influence the music world too much, and further, the Nazi's used his music to hype their movement.

[Cygnus64]

I can't see Beethoven or Tchaikovsky writing symphonies to sell even pianos and violins,let alone carriages and clothing.

 

Tchaikovsly was paid a lot of money to travel to NYC and conduct at Carnegie Hall in 1891. It was strictly for the bucks. He created the Nutcracker suite ( a twenty minute version of the 2 hour Nutcracker) solely for publishing money. He hated the 1812 overture, and wrote it because someone paid him to.

 

What I have found in studying composers for the past 35 years is that they were very much like us today. The same problems: money, girls, publishers. I have a great picture of Handel: it looks like a photo because the artist was so skilled. In the picture, he looks very much like Daughtry from American Idol. He is bald (shaved head under the wig), hasnt shaved in a few days, is a bit wrinkly and just looks like some guy.

 

People back then LOVED gossip. They liked the guys like Paganini and Lizst because they acted like rock stars, with long hair, fancy threads and girls all over the place. Paganini created a rumor that he was in league with the devil, much like Black Sabbath would do. Scandals sold tickets, just like today. Lizst had more girls than Motley Crue.

[sabriel9v]

 

Once again, look at history. 70 years ago, Hitler used the music of Wagner and other German composers to help create an Aryan identity. The sixties used music to stir an anti-war movement. That was 40 years ago.

 

 

Sorry, let me reiterate. I meant in the 17th and 18th centuries. From the 20th century on, the attitudes towards the arts radically changed.

[sabriel9v]

I agree. These people were deeply passionate about music and the inner potential it had and the inner depths it could reach. The quality of their music and the care put into it speaks to the seriousness with which they approached music. But I don't think they looked at it so much in a political or social sense (as most of today's "revolutionary" music does) but more in an internal or metaphysical sense (probably influenced by their spiritual leanings, or perhaps supporting their spiritual leanings). You may want to dispute that, but if you simply listen to the depth in Beethoven's music, it speaks more than any of the so called historical records, opinions of scholars, etc. could say about Beethoven. Wagner wrote openly against the commercialization of music and of composing music with more hype and novelty than substance. Unfortunately, it seems his words did not influence the music world too much, and further, the Nazi's used his music to hype their movement.

 

Couldn't have said it better

When composers like Beethoven and Mozart were around, they had a responsibility to the church just as much of a personal desire to explore music's boundaries and push them. Nevertheless, I think music was listened to for strictly entertainment purposes. The introduction of contemporary, moving and very personal lyrics within the music of the 20th and 21st centuries has shed new light on what music is capable of creating in society. The more commercial elements within modern music came about as a result of big money and the hounds who smelled it. But I don't think that takes away from a man or woman's desire to pick up an instrument and protest the current war or advocate social change within their community. I'm not sure how many people were doing that in the 16th-18th centuries.

[slight-return]

 

I'm not sure how many people were doing that in the 16th-18th centuries.

 

 

umm, I guess this would be a good time to remember all those American colonial/revolutionary songs

[sabriel9v]

 

umm, I guess this would be a good time to remember all those American colonial/revolutionary songs

 

 

Hmm...maybe.

[BlueStrat]

Tchaikovsly was paid a lot of money to travel to NYC and conduct at Carnegie Hall in 1891. It was strictly for the bucks. He created the Nutcracker suite ( a twenty minute version of the 2 hour Nutcracker) solely for publishing money. He hated the 1812 overture, and wrote it because someone paid him to. What I have found in studying composers for the past 35 years is that they were very much like us today. The same problems: money, girls, publishers. I have a great picture of Handel: it looks like a photo because the artist was so skilled. In the picture, he looks very much like Daughtry from American Idol. He is bald (shaved head under the wig), hasnt shaved in a few days, is a bit wrinkly and just looks like some guy. People back then LOVED gossip. They liked the guys like Paganini and Lizst because they acted like rock stars, with long hair, fancy threads and girls all over the place. Paganini created a rumor that he was in league with the devil, much like Black Sabbath would do. Scandals sold tickets, just like today. Lizst had more girls than Motley Crue.

I can't disagree with any of that. I just meant that today's music, far from being socially changing or even stimulating, seems to have become solely a product, and worse, a product that is used to sell other products. Quite a shift from the cultural impact that music once had, and the respect of a profession it once held.

[ThreeGutRock]

 

I can't disagree with any of that. I just meant that today's music, far from being socially changing or even stimulating, seems to have become solely a product, and worse, a product that is used to sell other products. Quite a shift from the cultural impact that music once had, and the respect of a profession it once held.

 

 

Sure, Wagner was used by Hitler for political purposes, but Reagan also used Bruce Springsteen for political purposes, too. There was anti-war music in the 60s, but there's lots of political music being produced today, even at the mainstream level. If anything, artists today are much more politically involved and politically vocal (for better or for worse) than professional musicians in the past. Hundreds of years ago, there definitely wasn't alot of music written that would openly criticize the current king, whereas today slighting a guy like George Bush is relatively common.

 

By and large, music written or performed by professionals has always been a product, and it's always been used as an attraction. Before it used to bring people to church, now it brings people to the apple store. While that may sound sad, as far as the music is concerned, it's doing pretty much the same purpose.

[sabriel9v]

 

Sure, Wagner was used by Hitler for political purposes, but Reagan also used Bruce Springsteen for political purposes, too. There was anti-war music in the 60s, but there's lots of political music being produced today, even at the mainstream level. If anything, artists today are much more politically involved and politically vocal (for better or for worse) than professional musicians in the past. Hundreds of years ago, there definitely wasn't alot of music written that would openly criticize the current king, whereas today slighting a guy like George Bush is relatively common. By and large, music written or performed by professionals has always been a product, and it's always been used as an attraction. Before it used to bring people to church, now it brings people to the apple store. While that may sound sad, as far as the music is concerned, it's doing pretty much the same purpose.

 

 

Agreed.

[slight-return]

Hundreds of years ago, there definitely wasn't alot of music written that would openly criticize the current king, whereas today slighting a guy like George Bush is relatively common. .

 

It's kinda weird, a lot of it was the "openly" part - like Roman de Fauvel , that {censored} as banned for being sedicious, not that it stopped people from playing it... (tres punk circa 1320 )

 

Hell, at one point it was so bad during the Papal Schism, there was a Parisian law forbidding minstrels from singing about it (though Urban VI comissioned pieces which was allowed)

 

From a historical perspective I think it's important to remember a couple of things.

Back then (hell, even now, though perhaps more sly) the Church and state were heavilly comingled. I mean hell, the Lords and Common ordinance called for the banning of the organ in the 1640s

 

I mean that stuff speaks to how much importance was put on that in terms of soical and political control

 

 

and there was secular, as well as religious music...in the 1130s the Cisterian Order tried to outlaw 'undue vocal ornament' in church music comparing it to "the wantonness of minstrels" who adhered to, shall we say, more casual rules -- bawdies are ye olde schoole

 

so you haveto pick your venues (not that you couldnt slide socio-politcal stuff into state-sanctioned stuff like opera, but you may have to throw more curve balls)...but that can still go on in the 20th/21st centuries too

 

I think a lot of times we can get kind of into that Wallingford's New Yorker map perspective thing (the one where 10th ave and Japan are roughly the same size/importance) -- where the proximity (in time, in persoanl interest, etc) of stuff alters it's subjective gravitas

[sabriel9v]

 

but that can still go on in the 20th/21st centuries too

 

 

You do make a good point. I recall after 9/11, the FCC was commissioned to release a list of songs that could not be played on the radio. Songs dealing with subjects such as "Free Fallin" or "Wings." Personally I thought it was bs.

[BlueStrat]

 

there's lots of political music being produced today, even at the mainstream level. If anything, artists today are much more politically involved and politically vocal (for better or for worse) than professional musicians in the past.

 

 

Yes, there's lots of political music being made, but it's all one voice-"Bush Sucks", "war is bad", "Religion is evil" etc etc. It's just people sending their message in groupspeak, singing to the choir.

 

But aside from that, what is it accomplishing? What earthshaking, culture shifting movements are using any of it as theme music? None, that I can see.

 

From what I see, the market is so fragmented and niche oriented that it is unlikely music will ever have the social impact that it once did, and be able to influence events and be a unifying factor socially.

[BlueStrat]

 

You do make a good point. I recall after 9/11, the FCC was commissioned to release a list of songs that could not be played on the radio. Songs dealing with subjects such as "Free Fallin" or "Wings." Personally I thought it was bs.

 

 

It was not songs that couldn't be played. The government asked radio stations to show some sensitivity for a time, but it was wholly voluntary.

[slight-return]

I think Prussian Blue might think Bush Sucks...but for different reasons entirely