Taking Note: A Study of Living Composers of New Music

http://www.amc.net/takingnote/taking%20note%20executive%20summary.pdf

This seems to be relevant in light of the recent thread on the future of Classical (Concert) music and the overall concern for what's over the horizon. In the age of internet technology and the increase in available information that is free to the public, this study conducted by the American Composers Forum and the American Music Center seems to shed light on how composers of new music are adapting to social change.

Does this study cover the issues that concern you as a composer? If not, what did they miss?

It didn't really cover any of the issues I'd be interested in studying. Yeah, it's a good market analysis, but I was hoping for a little more on the actual art. Who self-identifies their music as what? How does a third party identify the music. Obviously, the second part is a bit less practicable, but the first part isn't that hard, and would give information as to how the musical map has changed. As it stands, this just tells me that being a professional composer means something more like Ives than Mozart, which hasn't been news in centuries.

Here's the entire text if you're too lazy to do a little research: http://www.amc.net/takingnote/taking%20note.pdf

This has more what I was looking for. Page 16 (20 in the PDF) has a little inkling of the genre discussion -- one that I think they spend too little time on (with a cursory reading, mind you). The rest is just more demographic data, but I'm unsure as to its relevance beyond further depth. Yeah, non-professionals hit a wall in income from music; duh, they're not pros, they don't have the time put in to be able to break through that wall. The internet is crazy and we don't really understand its meaning except in generalities and case studies, neither of which provides meaningful information.

I dunno, it seems a bit sound-and-fury, at least for the composer. For a study, eh, it displays demographics, which is nice, I guess.

Ferk,

My question for you is: How does the "genre discussion" have any bearing on us as composers when so many of these boundaries are blurred by music today?? Take the hip-hop genre, which is inclusive of rap, r&b, pop, and a variety of other styles? What's the point of even having a "genre discussion" at all when all this time these classifications have been imposed on composers by record companies? Why perpetuate this with a "genre discussion" at all?

The demographic data is interesting, but I'm more interested in how the Ecology of music composers, by and large, is impacted by so much music being available and produced by people from a variety of educational backgrounds. When composition is no longer the "refined" or "enlightened" approach to sound-crafting that it may have been considered to be by those professionals and consumers of music in previous centuries, how do we cope with this social emergence of composition as a hobby more than a profession?

That's kind of what I was hoping to discuss here in the thread. I didn't post the Executive Summary for lazy people either... I posted it for brevity of preparation to discuss personal opinions on the topic without overwhelming members with detail-oriented information. How can composers stand out as professionals in an artform that is largely hobby-oriented today? I don't think users have to read 90+ pages of material on it when 11 pages would be plenty to create a context for the discussion. That's why I posted the summary instead.

OK, so you're interested in the ecology of music. The study lists the people who participate in music (either directly or indirectly) as composers, performers, producers, distributors, publishers, financial supporters, and the recording industry. I guess listeners/audiences are just assumed when you have music... What I think is interesting, albeit obvious, is that the lines between classifications keep breaking down. Where there is music there will always be composers, people who perform their own music, and people who perform others' music, at least in the context of a large-scale population. But more and more you see that the composer/performer is also the producer, distributor, and publisher. And people are becoming less and less willing to pay for old art when so much of it is free. Where there is a market I imagine there will always be people for hire to promote and manage the music of others, but what about the recording industry? I don't really know at the juncture. The recording industry seems to be collapsing as we know it and trying to hold tighter and tighter onto the music it legally owns without doing much to move forward. Maybe the industry will be resorted to simply managing the music. What does that entail? Again I'm not sure, but once cloud computing hits hard I think we'll see.

Composition as a hobby rather than a profession... I feel that composition as a profession outside of academia and the world of media (film/games/the "recording industry") is up against some tough times. Heck, we're supersaturated now even with professors and media composers. But outside of these areas composers who live solely on more traditional commissions seem to be a dying breed, especially since composers from academia and media can cover commissioning needs. I think new composers will adjust. It's some of the ~20 on up crowd that might have a problem right now.

I like that composers in their early careers are about 29 years old. This is probably a common age for the "early career" description, I just think it's awkward that it typically takes us humans so long to mature and get good at something!

Here's a fun "new" way to create and share music: http://www.daytrotter.com .

About genres, I can't deny that they are important. There has to be some way of tagging/indexing information so that we can search for similar things in our electronic world, plus it just seems natural for us to organize and try to control information. Frankly I'm not that concerned with labeling my music. Others can do that for me if they need to.

Ferk,

My question for you is: How does the "genre discussion" have any bearing on us as composers when so many of these boundaries are blurred by music today?? Take the hip-hop genre, which is inclusive of rap, r&b, pop, and a variety of other styles? What's the point of even having a "genre discussion" at all when all this time these classifications have been imposed on composers by record companies? Why perpetuate this with a "genre discussion" at all?

Well, I look at genre -- how one describes their music in a few words -- in the same way as a researcher would look at party identification. It doesn't really matter if your views are red or blue, only that you think they are. So, sure, I'd expect a lot of people to do what they did in the study and say "I'm unclassifiable;" but that's really just artsy-talk and is more marketing or ignorance than a genre statement (can anyone say Independent?).

Even with it meaning nothing, it means a lot. If we could, say, track the amount of people who self-identify their music as "art/classical/whatever" over the past 50 years -- THAT would mean something to me about the state of composition. If we could show that there's waning interest in self-identification as strictly pop music -- that's something meaningful. If we could track the amount of self-identified jazz musicians, even using a poor sample -- that would be interesting.

Also, there are more subversive ways to talk about genre. Talking about influence -- something touched on in the paper -- is a sure bet. You can see that if someone is influenced enough by Mozart and Beety to mention them on their short-list, they're likely not writing Crumbian sounds. This would be like talking to people about issues instead of parties, to bring back the connection.

But for my interest telling me that the majority of pro composers don't make their money from composition isn't anything new for at least the past 30 years. That they're working more isn't meaningful without a history -- it could mean nothing or everything. That there's a lot of amateur and semi-pro composers doesn't surprise me; nor that they get real pro work. That a pro composer's primary interest is getting his name out -- well heck, that's everyone selling a service or product (depending on how you view composition as labor),

The demographic data is interesting, but I'm more interested in how the Ecology of music composers, by and large, is impacted by so much music being available and produced by people from a variety of educational backgrounds. When composition is no longer the "refined" or "enlightened" approach to sound-crafting that it may have been considered to be by those professionals and consumers of music in previous centuries, how do we cope with this social emergence of composition as a hobby more than a profession?

See, here's where I don't follow. Music has largely been produced by the masses about since mass-production, and even in most times before. Sure, there was a time when the art-composer could make all of their money from music, but I really think that's more selective history/memory than the truth.

That's kind of what I was hoping to discuss here in the thread. I didn't post the Executive Summary for lazy people either... I posted it for brevity of preparation to discuss personal opinions on the topic without overwhelming members with detail-oriented information. How can composers stand out as professionals in an artform that is largely hobby-oriented today? I don't think users have to read 90+ pages of material on it when 11 pages would be plenty to create a context for the discussion. That's why I posted the summary instead.

I meant lazy for those who don't want to search around a bit for the whole thing :) No worries.

Well, I look at genre -- how one describes their music in a few words -- in the same way as a researcher would look at party identification. It doesn't really matter if your views are red or blue, only that you think they are. So, sure, I'd expect a lot of people to do what they did in the study and say "I'm unclassifiable;" but that's really just artsy-talk and is more marketing or ignorance than a genre statement (can anyone say Independent?).

Even with it meaning nothing, it means a lot. If we could, say, track the amount of people who self-identify their music as "art/classical/whatever" over the past 50 years -- THAT would mean something to me about the state of composition. If we could show that there's waning interest in self-identification as strictly pop music -- that's something meaningful. If we could track the amount of self-identified jazz musicians, even using a poor sample -- that would be interesting.

Also, there are more subversive ways to talk about genre. Talking about influence -- something touched on in the paper -- is a sure bet. You can see that if someone is influenced enough by Mozart and Beety to mention them on their short-list, they're likely not writing Crumbian sounds. This would be like talking to people about issues instead of parties, to bring back the connection.

I'm not sure it's as "artsy" to say something like, "You can't classify my music, I'm one of a kind..." as it is a matter of introspective self-identification. I see composers who do this relying on it as a valuation of their own artistic worth. So, it becomes offensive to these people to say, "Hey, your piece sounds like...," admonishing to hear someone else say, "Well, I didn't get it, I've never heard anything like that before... I didn't like it," and pretty complimentary to say, "You're really a unique artist."

I'm not sure that what we decide about genre will bear any fruit to the discussion about the composer's connection to his/her culture. Where music composition in our culture stands as a profession, how it's, perhaps, prioritized among all the professions of the society, and what we gain or lose when composition becomes a hobbyist activity for the majority of those who study it... that's not really an outcome that genre impacts, at least the way I see it. Clearly, if I'm wrong, I need you to explain why.

But for my interest telling me that the majority of pro composers don't make their money from composition isn't anything new for at least the past 30 years. That they're working more isn't meaningful without a history -- it could mean nothing or everything. That there's a lot of amateur and semi-pro composers doesn't surprise me; nor that they get real pro work. That a pro composer's primary interest is getting his name out -- well heck, that's everyone selling a service or product (depending on how you view composition as labor).

I think our interests are slightly different. See, history is an interesting thing because we're prone to accept things as they are, as they've always been, because we're either afraid to challenge those things or don't know how -to- challenge them. I think any composer's primary interest has been to be valued financially and culturally. When you have the freedom to spend all your time writing music, would you use it? I would. But I don't have that freedom because our culture doesn't seem to value this activity financially as much as we value it as a profession. A composer's primary interest isn't just getting his or her name out. It's having the freedom to do exactly what you want and have been educated to do... full time. There are no distractions like a joe-job flipping burgers or a university position teaching subject matter you might or might not be interested in. There's you and your music. And that's valuable to you. There really -should not be- any other consideration but that.

Yet, it would seem that our culture in America is such that when we seek to do just that, to be artists doing our finest work, there are still obstacles that impose unnecessary restraints upon us. It's so apparently imposing that only an estimated 10% of composers who call themselves "professionals" are actually "full-time professional composers." This, to me, indicates that if this problem has always existed, our culture has failed to correct it... OR... if this is a problem which has not always existed, our society is not moving in a good direction for those of us who value the creation of new music. Sure, we can say that it's always been tough, that we just have to work through it and cope, but that really does nothing to correct the issue. And I'm really at odds with those who think advocating for government assistance for the arts are doing anything to correct the problem at all. More on that in a moment.

See, here's where I don't follow. Music has largely been produced by the masses about since mass-production, and even in most times before. Sure, there was a time when the art-composer could make all of their money from music, but I really think that's more selective history/memory than the truth.

I don't know if the art-composer ever made all of their money from music at any point in history. I don't care. It's not relevant in the context of what we're dealing with today, unless we just want to accept this is the way it has to be. When we talk about government grants and taxpayer funding for arts, we're talking about making an exception to the direction of society. We have banks deciding the direction of industry based on what is "profitable" instead of what is "valuable." If this is the way it's always been, so be it. It doesn't matter because this is not the direction any of us really want, artist or otherwise. When larger organizations play ball with government and private contributors, seeking hand-outs from those with all the money, they only forfeit a position that they should be heavily advocating. Our society, our civilization itself, is obsolete. Technology is advancing exponentially in functionality. The only thing holding it back from growing even faster is the economic model itself, which prioritizes rarity over abundance. And that's why I think many art-composers are so insistent upon portraying themselves as a rarity in society... because the economic model itself prioritizes this as well.

Unfortunately, prioritizing rarity (scarcity) over abundance holds all of us back... for artists creatively, for engineers and scientists pragmatically, and for educators idealogically. It's not about thinking -back to- how it's always been. It's about looking forward to what we want and need for society to be in order to sustain our profession and service to the world. We're in a new age now. And organizations that are begging for assistance should start looking at ways to affect policy change, not short-term financial solutions that only perpetuate the fundamental issue that music, really art in general, is beyond the help of this obsolete social model of civilization and has been for a very long time. I think it's time we all started opening our eyes to possibility and considered ways to put our own solutions into practice. These groups need to stop worry about government grants and start worrying about technological advancements that would eliminate the need for money altogether. We only need money now because we still pay for things we must have to survive, perpetuating a working class model of social stratification, and overall don't see -any- light at the end of the tunnel. It's there if we focus on it.

Sorry. Getting off my soap box now. :)

I'm not sure it's as "artsy" to say something like, "You can't classify my music, I'm one of a kind..." as it is a matter of introspective self-identification. I see composers who do this relying on it as a valuation of their own artistic worth. So, it becomes offensive to these people to say, "Hey, your piece sounds like...," admonishing to hear someone else say, "Well, I didn't get it, I've never heard anything like that before... I didn't like it," and pretty complimentary to say, "You're really a unique artist."

See, I don't view similarity as inherently diminishing the value of the music. That you have Metallica and Megadeth doesn't mean that either loses artistic merit from the other just based on similar roots of the music. In the same way, someone telling me that I have a "x-ian sense of y" is a high complement because it means I'm in the same league for that person in that one respect.

But I used to do the "I'm unclassifiable" thing -- heck, my band made a decent name doing it -- but its foolish to not know your roots. I can't say I'm unclassifiable in my music. I know where I grab ideas from, what I'm interested in, how my music sounds in comparison to other musicians. I think any one of us could do the same.

This is also why asking about influence may be more meaningful -- it avoids the negative connotation some have of the word genre.

I'm not sure that what we decide about genre will bear any fruit to the discussion about the composer's connection to his/her culture. Where music composition in our culture stands as a profession, how it's, perhaps, prioritized among all the professions of the society, and what we gain or lose when composition becomes a hobbyist activity for the majority of those who study it... that's not really an outcome that genre impacts, at least the way I see it. Clearly, if I'm wrong, I need you to explain why.

Well, my point is that genre tells us about culture. Who doesn't bemoan the ebb and flow of popularity -- in the same way, we can see that there's an increased parameter in music over this amount of time. Or that there isn't, and its the same level, just expressed in different ways. Or whatever.

The kind of music made ultimately means more for culture than how much the composers are making from it.

I think our interests are slightly different. See, history is an interesting thing because we're prone to accept things as they are, as they've always been, because we're either afraid to challenge those things or don't know how -to- challenge them. I think any composer's primary interest has been to be valued financially and culturally. When you have the freedom to spend all your time writing music, would you use it? I would. But I don't have that freedom because our culture doesn't seem to value this activity financially as much as we value it as a profession. A composer's primary interest isn't just getting his or her name out.

STOP RIGHT THERE! YOU BETTER KNOW RIGHT NOW! BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER will you look at page 22 of the full study. The professional (and non-professional, but less so) composer's biggest creative challenge is getting his work -- his product and advertising -- out. The value issue -- money -- is the lowest two concerns for a professional composer and the second and third lowest concerns for a non-professional, above only managing the business.

It's having the freedom to do exactly what you want and have been educated to do... full time. There are no distractions like a joe-job flipping burgers or a university position teaching subject matter you might or might not be interested in. There's you and your music. And that's valuable to you. There really -should not be- any other consideration but that.

Here you're closer. Not having time is the second highest concern for both pros and amateurs alike. But you see, I hate that mentality -- I have a lot of interests, of which music is but one.

Yet, it would seem that our culture in America is such that when we seek to do just that, to be artists doing our finest work, there are still obstacles that impose unnecessary restraints upon us. It's so apparently imposing that only an estimated 10% of composers who call themselves "professionals" are actually "full-time professional composers." This, to me, indicates that if this problem has always existed, our culture has failed to correct it...

See, I think that's beautiful as an artist. I think everyone should do arts, everyone should do things, and people should be able to make a little money on the side -- as these amateurs/semi-pros do -- for their hobby. I don't view it as an attack on the professionals for one big reason, and it was mentioned above: semi-pros don't care about their business! They're not working as hard and so aren't taking jobs for professional composers often.

OR... if this is a problem which has not always existed, our society is not moving in a good direction for those of us who value the creation of new music. Sure, we can say that it's always been tough, that we just have to work through it and cope, but that really does nothing to correct the issue. And I'm really at odds with those who think advocating for government assistance for the arts are doing anything to correct the problem at all. More on that in a moment.

Well, I'm partial to the concept of a starving artist. Art (and of course everything else) is inherently worthless -- it only acquires worth when someone says it does. And that only comes from being known.

Of course you could seek a top-down approach, but then you get things like the RIAA. You could seek a bottom-up approach, which would focus on community shows and action, but that doesn't immediately net the monetary value you seem to seek. Of course, we have now a mix. But I don't see your point... Wouldn't the ability for your music to be awarded worth be increased with (at least initially) free and community-based distribution and action? Wouldn't that way, the cultural worth would be high enough to warrant monetary worth? I dunno, maybe I'm an idealist.

I don't know if the art-composer ever made all of their money from music at any point in history. I don't care. It's not relevant in the context of what we're dealing with today, unless we just want to accept this is the way it has to be.

Except as you said, which is that we either need to change the course of history or a strong recent trend. Which one sounds easier?

Y'know what, I'll just chalk the ending rant up to something else. All I have to say is that you need to learn your social science on that subject.

Except as you said, which is that we either need to change the course of history or a strong recent trend. Which one sounds easier?

Y'know what, I'll just chalk the ending rant up to something else. All I have to say is that you need to learn your social science on that subject.

What, when we enter areas of philosophical discourse on the subject, it's an uneducated rant because I'm not playing ball with the established rules of order? Since when has "easier" been better? It's certainly easier for you to tell me that I need to learn -my- social science on that subject. It's quite a bit more difficult for you to address the subject matter itself and carry on a worthwhile discussion about it.

How convenient for you...

i haven't read all of your comments, but i enjoyed your discussion. the 10% working composers is a very realistic if brutal to whoever is on the 90% one and call himself a composer.

i just call myself musician. when i'll work full time composing(like that's gonna happnen) i'll be that 10%..

i'm sure both of you are able composers, but composition as primary income means applying to an audience who is willing to pay for it, which i'm not sure everyone is willing to make that "artistic bending" for a particular audience. are we to write our own music , or what people want to hear?

at my somewhat extensive experience in jazz performance i can say, that the answer is both, i know its irritating to hear that, but its true.

you can't enjoy from your work if it doesn't have "you" in there, and you can't satisfy your costumers, and eventually yourself if you don't communicate with them, so its making "you" in the equation of your costumers "wishes" or what you think they wish, at least :P

the audience may be dumbed down, but we as a composers are still the manufacturers of that dumbing down, no one is forcing us to make "stupid compositions"(if that was what you guys were talking about).

the new star trek movie actually had some nice counterpoint compositions in battles, and it did very well for the drama.

i hope i was hitting the points you were discussing.

Well, I'm advocating another position, J. I'm all for abolishing the Fed, having all nations form institutions based on sustaining the wants and needs of humanity, restructuring those institutions (education comes to mind) that already exist but need revision, and eliminating the need for governance altogether. In our age, we are a culture united through virtual technology. We don't need the institutions that govern, promote, or perpetuate ownership/acquisition when goods and services can be fully automated through technology and resources can be intelligently managed globally. We aren't there yet, but we won't get there with the system that exists today unless we actually -attempt- to get there with conscious effort and resourcefulness.

The institutions that prevent us from reaching this point (by their very existence, not their intent, mind you) are the Financial Sector, Government, and Law (90% of which is law governing ownership of property). Music, and really nothing, would need a "market." Composers could write music because they like it and want to share it. People could listen to it whenever they want doing whatever it is they enjoy doing (researching resource levels, traveling the globe, teaching young people, whatever they want to do and are sufficiently educated to perform. That's more or less what I'm talking about. Out with the old, in with the new.

Well, I'm advocating another position, J. I'm all for abolishing the Fed, having all nations form institutions based on sustaining the wants and needs of humanity, restructuring those institutions (education comes to mind) that already exist but need revision, and eliminating the need for governance altogether. In our age, we are a culture united through virtual technology. We don't need the institutions that govern, promote, or perpetuate ownership/acquisition when goods and services can be fully automated through technology and resources can be intelligently managed globally. We aren't there yet, but we won't get there with the system that exists today unless we actually -attempt- to get there with conscious effort and resourcefulness.

The institutions that prevent us from reaching this point (by their very existence, not their intent, mind you) are the Financial Sector, Government, and Law (90% of which is law governing ownership of property). Music, and really nothing, would need a "market." Composers could write music because they like it and want to share it. People could listen to it whenever they want doing whatever it is they enjoy doing (researching resource levels, traveling the globe, teaching young people, whatever they want to do and are sufficiently educated to perform. That's more or less what I'm talking about. Out with the old, in with the new.

Sounds great, but, as you said, we are far from there yet. I think the abolishment of governance gives your typical person too much credit. I can't imagine it ever happening, except perhaps as a social experiment. Are you suggesting that people would simply be given what they need to survive and then could focus on furthering personal and collective knowledge?

heh, we are so far from there. its called communism, been tried as you most probably know.

i cant even begin to imagine that, since it would mean that there will be no need for a set of rules for people to follow, and that would lead to a very painful outcome for everyone. what you are saying is anarchy, which is like having your mind roam free of ideas, letting them collide with each other killing the weakest and leaving the fittest. very bad for business. our business, which is having the tolerance for every idea.

if people would follow moral codes of the universe there would no need for rules, and we would be gods walking in heaven. but we are human, and not always aware of ourselves in relation to our friends, how many times have you hurt a friend unintentionally?

we would need to be so self aware of ourselves and others, it would be impossible for us to think of OUR wishes.

by the way, i think we moving out of the subject in hand.

Sounds great, but, as you said, we are far from there yet. I think the abolishment of governance gives your typical person too much credit. I can't imagine it ever happening, except perhaps as a social experiment. Are you suggesting that people would simply be given what they need to survive and then could focus on furthering personal and collective knowledge?

The abolition of governance -should- be the goal of any government. If our government -needs- to exist, I'm saying it is due to conditions of society created due to the existence of scarcity. So, create and sustain abundance so that everyone has what they need and no one is deprived.

heh, we are so far from there. its called communism, been tried as you most probably know.

i cant even begin to imagine that, since it would mean that there will be no need for a set of rules for people to follow, and that would lead to a very painful outcome for everyone. what you are saying is anarchy, which is like having your mind roam free of ideas, letting them collide with each other killing the weakest and leaving the fittest. very bad for business. our business, which is having the tolerance for every idea.

if people would follow moral codes of the universe there would no need for rules, and we would be gods walking in heaven. but we are human, and not always aware of ourselves in relation to our friends, how many times have you hurt a friend unintentionally?

we would need to be so self aware of ourselves and others, it would be impossible for us to think of OUR wishes.

by the way, i think we moving out of the subject in hand.

It's not Communism. Communism operates within the ownership/acquisition model of social order... meaning someone owns everything... and of course that doesn't work. I'm talking about a society where ownership is a ridiculous notion because anyone can have whatever they need whenever they need it with automation and intelligent resource management sustaining abundance for humanity.

I'm gonna preface this with "My friend's computer ate this post last time," so it ain't gonna be as pretty and poetic as 3am allows.

When we talk about government grants and taxpayer funding for arts, we're talking about making an exception to the direction of society. We have banks deciding the direction of industry based on what is "profitable" instead of what is "valuable." If this is the way it's always been, so be it. It doesn't matter because this is not the direction any of us really want, artist or otherwise.

This distinction between profit and value I think is representative of your entire argument. You're drawing a line in the sand where there is no beach. Profit is strictly a function of personal and social value. Where do you see the difference?

When larger organizations play ball with government and private contributors, seeking hand-outs from those with all the money, they only forfeit a position that they should be heavily advocating.

Again, you're drawing a flase distinction between the market and the government. The government is, and always was part of the market. We vote in the same was that we buy or enter into contracts with -- its the same set of rules that govern the decision-making process. What is the real difference between an "elected" government and a "consumer supported" business?

Our society, our civilization itself, is obsolete. Technology is advancing exponentially in functionality. The only thing holding it back from growing even faster is the economic model itself, which prioritizes rarity over abundance. And that's why I think many art-composers are so insistent upon portraying themselves as a rarity in society... because the economic model itself prioritizes this as well.

There needs to be some definitions or we're just flinging poo like the monkey at the zoo.

Music is a good and service; as a good, it is both physical and intellectual. I'm going to ignore the service aspect for right now. Taking a look at the nature of scarce goods will show that it is not strictly scarcity that is valued, but the labor involved in finding or creating a scarce good that is valued.

As a "real" -- physical -- good, say a turquoise, physical scarcity is an intrinsic quality. A intrinsically rare good is difficult to find by definition; therefore there is more labor involved in finding it. While of course the labor is a function of the scarcity, the value is a function of the labor involved in production.

This is made more clear when you realise that music is not an intrinsically scarce good, but the labor involved in creating "good" music makes such music scarce. A comparison can be drawn to Hydrogen -- it's extraordinarily plentiful, but there a labor cost involved in harvesting it. In the same way as the turquoise, the value is placed on the labor.

This might be why relatively simple avant musics (I'm immediately thinking of ball-to-the-wall free jazz, but really pick your poison) are not valued as highly in society as a traditionally crafted piece -- the apparent value is nil when some joe can say to an Ayler record "Well I can just make noise too!" The value in the market -- the society -- is too low for the original owner of the music to "sell" his good.

Now, let's take music as an intellectual good, where scarcity is NEVER a problem -- ideas are everywhere. In the same way as the physical good, labor intensive ideas would be valued more highly. Take a computer program -- the 1's and 0's are in essense non-physical, even if you can make an argument that the creation of something is physical. The value of a computer program (once you strip packaging and marketing) is not that the program is rare, but that a good bit of labor was put into it.

A good example in music is Webern, who is traditionally valued higher than say Cage. Cage's portfolio is stained by Tacet Tacet Tacet. In the societal eye, he does not put the labor into his work (Course, Cage is much cooler than a Lennon knock-off, but that's a whole other thread.) On the other hand, Webern, whose portfolio is smaller and consists of many extremely short works, is valued higher because people know that he put painstaking time into each note, no matter how short. Similarly, Webern is less respected than Beethoven, who consistently wrote highly labor-intensive works to the passerby.

Unfortunately, prioritizing rarity (scarcity) over abundance holds all of us back... for artists creatively, for engineers and scientists pragmatically, and for educators idealogically. It's not about thinking -back to- how it's always been. It's about looking forward to what we want and need for society to be in order to sustain our profession and service to the world. We're in a new age now. And organizations that are begging for assistance should start looking at ways to affect policy change, not short-term financial solutions that only perpetuate the fundamental issue that music, really art in general, is beyond the help of this obsolete social model of civilization and has been for a very long time. I think it's time we all started opening our eyes to possibility and considered ways to put our own solutions into practice. These groups need to stop worry about government grants and start worrying about technological advancements that would eliminate the need for money altogether. We only need money now because we still pay for things we must have to survive, perpetuating a working class model of social stratification, and overall don't see -any- light at the end of the tunnel. It's there if we focus on it.

I think I called out this kind of Technocratic Socialism before in the pirating/open-source thread.

Well, I'm advocating another position, J. I'm all for abolishing the Fed, having all nations form institutions based on sustaining the wants and needs of humanity, restructuring those institutions (education comes to mind) that already exist but need revision, and eliminating the need for governance altogether.

Ok, I think it's time to bring up Nozick, who's my boy when it comes to this kind of "purpose of society" stuff. His account of the rise of society via mutual protection agencies shows that in fact, society does do what people intrinsically want. People want to be able to be left alone by their meaner neighbors; everything else follows from that.

In our age, we are a culture united through virtual technology. We don't need the institutions that govern, promote, or perpetuate ownership/acquisition when goods and services can be fully automated through technology and resources can be intelligently managed globally. We aren't there yet, but we won't get there with the system that exists today unless we actually -attempt- to get there with conscious effort and resourcefulness.

I like how your argument is to advance culture, but you're seemingly seeking the destruction of culture and the arisal of a one-world culture. This benefits no one, as it sublimates undercurrents. I'm sure you have problems with 50%+1 -- everyone hates being that 49.99999999999% and getting nothing. Imagine that on a societal scale, where weakly supported ideas are muscled out by strongly supported ones. Now again, realise that the strongest support for ideas comes from the West still, even with all the posturing by China, India, and Brazil. That means that the only ideas left on the world stage would be White or subjugated by Whites. Sounds good?

The institutions that prevent us from reaching this point (by their very existence, not their intent, mind you) are the Financial Sector, Government, and Law (90% of which is law governing ownership of property). Music, and really nothing, would need a "market." Composers could write music because they like it and want to share it. People could listen to it whenever they want doing whatever it is they enjoy doing (researching resource levels, traveling the globe, teaching young people, whatever they want to do and are sufficiently educated to perform. That's more or less what I'm talking about. Out with the old, in with the new.

Again, I point you to labor. People want compensation for their actions; moreso if people like it a lot and want it a lot. Take my website (shameless plug: http://terra-falsa.blogspot.com). I put up my music for free, with scores, with notes. But that's not because I don't want anything for my music, it's because no one (yet?) wants to give anything for my music -- and the way I've handled the few opportunities I've had sure doesn't help that.

But you're asking for that Communist break in the human spirit -- that one-for-all and all-for-one mentality that never really existed nor has any likelihood of existing. All you need to break that spirit is one person saying "No."

It's almost a parodic inverse of a democracy, where any one person can rise above the others extremely easily, simply by defiance of the current system.

The abolition of governance -should- be the goal of any government. If our government -needs- to exist, I'm saying it is due to conditions of society created due to the existence of scarcity. So, create and sustain abundance so that everyone has what they need and no one is deprived.

See, that's not true either. Scarcity and abundance are terms that have no meaning if you can just create it. It's like the "food crisis" or the "water crisis." Believe me, if we let the farmers grow all the food they could, the world would never be hungry. However, it's important to let some people be hungry because the farmers have to eat, too, and they're the ones providing what people seek.

It's not Communism. Communism operates within the ownership/acquisition model of social order... meaning someone owns everything... and of course that doesn't work. I'm talking about a society where ownership is a ridiculous notion because anyone can have whatever they need whenever they need it with automation and intelligent resource management sustaining abundance for humanity.

So you're saying that instead of human rulers, we have a computer. Ok, fair enough.

Who would donate their time to fixing the computer when the hard drive corrupts? They're not even getting their dole; how do you think they would extract payment?

In other words -- my Capitalistic Marxism beats your Communistic Marxism. Never -- NOT ONCE -- will you see someone do something for nothing. Watch people -- even the most charitable do it to at least stroke himself, and much more likely have others stroke him.

This distinction between profit and value I think is representative of your entire argument. You're drawing a line in the sand where there is no beach. Profit is strictly a function of personal and social value. Where do you see the difference?

I see the difference in how we view economics as a measure of the value -to- society. Just because an IPod sells for whatever it sells for doesn't mean it's as valuable as, say, ample fresh food and water for those dying of hunger in Africa. Personally, I think the abundance of food and fresh water to the world is far more valuable than the IPod, but fresh food and water aren't represented in the cost. I'll be thoroughly thrashing economics from here on out, by the way. Just so you know...

There needs to be some definitions or we're just flinging poo like the monkey at the zoo.

These are the terms I'm using:

System: One or more paradigms that a society holds to be significant or important. I consider the very concept of "ownership" and "property" to be paradigms almost all societies have established institutions to perpetuate. I refer to this as the acquisition model because whether the order (see below) is communist or capitalist, some individual or entity "possesses" or "controls" something that others need. Until now, we have lacked the tools and development that offers another option than controlling, possessing, or owning things.

Order: Refers to the social order any society of human civilization has organized or conceptualized. Communism and Capitalism are social orders or orderings of citizenry, for example. In Communism, the government owns all property and disperses it to citizens. In Capitalism, the private sector owns its property independent of the government.

Institution: Formations within the order to perpetuate the order and, thus, the system. The Global Economy is an institution that controls the exchange of property. Government is (supposed to be) the institution that defines the rules for the Global Economy. But the mechanics of this are a rather trivial matter considering that the system of acquisition imposes its own restrictions on the behavior of the population, thus influencing how institutions will operate. In the end, the System determines how the Institutions operate. In my view, the Institutions should establish the system, not the other way around as it is today.

Capital: The resources that are used in creating a thing or delivering a service.

Music is a good and service; as a good, it is both physical and intellectual. I'm going to ignore the service aspect for right now. Taking a look at the nature of scarce goods will show that it is not strictly scarcity that is valued, but the labor involved in finding or creating a scarce good that is valued.

As a "real" -- physical -- good, say a turquoise, physical scarcity is an intrinsic quality. A intrinsically rare good is difficult to find by definition; therefore there is more labor involved in finding it. While of course the labor is a function of the scarcity, the value is a function of the labor involved in production.

This is made more clear when you realise that music is not an intrinsically scarce good, but the labor involved in creating "good" music makes such music scarce. A comparison can be drawn to Hydrogen -- it's extraordinarily plentiful, but there a labor cost involved in harvesting it. In the same way as the turquoise, the value is placed on the labor.

This might be why relatively simple avant musics (I'm immediately thinking of ball-to-the-wall free jazz, but really pick your poison) are not valued as highly in society as a traditionally crafted piece -- the apparent value is nil when some joe can say to an Ayler record "Well I can just make noise too!" The value in the market -- the society -- is too low for the original owner of the music to "sell" his good.

Now, let's take music as an intellectual good, where scarcity is NEVER a problem -- ideas are everywhere. In the same way as the physical good, labor intensive ideas would be valued more highly. Take a computer program -- the 1's and 0's are in essense non-physical, even if you can make an argument that the creation of something is physical. The value of a computer program (once you strip packaging and marketing) is not that the program is rare, but that a good bit of labor was put into it.

A good example in music is Webern, who is traditionally valued higher than say Cage. Cage's portfolio is stained by Tacet Tacet Tacet. In the societal eye, he does not put the labor into his work (Course, Cage is much cooler than a Lennon knock-off, but that's a whole other thread.) On the other hand, Webern, whose portfolio is smaller and consists of many extremely short works, is valued higher because people know that he put painstaking time into each note, no matter how short. Similarly, Webern is less respected than Beethoven, who consistently wrote highly labor-intensive works to the passerby.

The problem here is that you assume labor and effort in the production of all goods and services. Factories make cars using machines... 90% of the labor that goes into manufacturing an automobile is technological automation. Yet, the increase in car prices over the past two decades is not indicative of the labor that went into making the car or even the machine that manufactured the car. You're presuming what value -should- represent (and yes, in theory that's how it's supposed to work) when it doesn't.

Human labor is something that we attribute value to... why? What does a secretary do that a website cannot? What does a factory worker do that a machine cannot? What does a stock boy in a grocery store do that can't be done by any hundred different distribution methods? Farming is far more automated today than it ever has been. Farmers are losing out because large agricultural conglomerates, with the help of technological automation, can produce a harvest immeasurably larger and more efficiently than a man or woman can do it.

You're missing a very important realization here, that automation is subverting the -value- you believe exists in many consumer goods and services. Many view this as a bad thing, a big business closing down the small business with better resources, more money, etc. I view automation as something which frees humanity from performing tasks that stunt their creative potential for higher level processes. Does that mean we should just tell the farmer not to farm? Of course not. Let those who enjoy farming continue to farm. If they want to share their harvest, great! If they don't, let automation take care of the rest.

And finally, I don't want the doctor who does what s/he does for the money. I want the doctor that does what s/he does because s/he loves the medical profession for what it really is... a means to maintaining the public health and wellness of humanity. I hate that money is even a factor for medical professionals because how can I trust them to have my best interests at heart? I really -shouldn't- trust anyone in a profession that boasts the highest-yielding salaries simply because the motivation exists for those individuals to do it only for the money. Of course, that's where education comes in to balance the playing field. So, yes, I trust many doctors, probably some that maybe I shouldn't trust... but how can I know? I can't. That's the point.

I think I called out this kind of Technocratic Socialism before in the pirating/open-source thread.

It obviously wasn't that memorable. I have no idea what you're referring to with "called out."

Ok, I think it's time to bring up Nozick, who's my boy when it comes to this kind of "purpose of society" stuff. His account of the rise of society via mutual protection agencies shows that in fact, society does do what people intrinsically want. People want to be able to be left alone by their meaner neighbors; everything else follows from that.

The goal of any species is self-preservation... survival. All flows from that. You don't have to believe in evolution to understand evolutionary principles like natural selection. I personally believe the greatest threat to any species is the behavior that results from resource deprivation. This is historically supported with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire, the Greeks, the Persians, and so on. We are a species that is dependent upon one another for our survival. If we do not know how to farm, we rely on someone who does. If we do know how to farm, we teach people who don't so they can preserve that knowledge and the survival of our race.

When ownership becomes a factor, when knowing how to farm is proportionate to your survival, you're suddenly less interested in sharing your knowledge. It's more valuable when you're the only person who knows how to do it. Survival of the race is no longer your concern, because self-preservation is the priority. You're stuck between depreciating your value and sharing your knowledge or keeping it secret. Thus, the paradox forms because you're dependent on the rest of humanity for your survival and they are dependent on you.

Your oversimplification of Nozick is staggering, and relying on this one source while I pull from behaviorist Theory, Darwin Evolutionary principles, as well as sociological and historical evidence... well that's just downright annoying.

I like how your argument is to advance culture, but you're seemingly seeking the destruction of culture and the arisal of a one-world culture. This benefits no one, as it sublimates undercurrents. I'm sure you have problems with 50%+1 -- everyone hates being that 49.99999999999% and getting nothing. Imagine that on a societal scale, where weakly supported ideas are muscled out by strongly supported ones. Now again, realise that the strongest support for ideas comes from the West still, even with all the posturing by China, India, and Brazil. That means that the only ideas left on the world stage would be White or subjugated by Whites. Sounds good?

When scarcity exists, abundance does not. But let's think about it like this... how many people in America "own" a set of golf clubs? Millions? How many of them are using those clubs on any given day? Hundreds of thousands? How many of them are using the very best clubs available? Probably thousands?

What if I said that without an ownership model, you could go to a golf course where the finest golf clubs available are there for you to use? At the end of your game, you return those clubs and go home. Instead of only thousands of people having the very best clubs available, hundreds of thousands have access to them. And if a course sees more attendance than available golf clubs? No problem... go online and place an order for a local or central factory to produce another set. And what if a course is not seeing enough attendance? Then we either send those clubs to a course that is seeing more attendance or return them as materials to be broken down and reused in other areas.

Again, I point you to labor. People want compensation for their actions; moreso if people like it a lot and want it a lot. Take my website (shameless plug: http://terra-falsa.blogspot.com). I put up my music for free, with scores, with notes. But that's not because I don't want anything for my music, it's because no one (yet?) wants to give anything for my music -- and the way I've handled the few opportunities I've had sure doesn't help that.

Again, I point you to technological automation and resource management. If we need a machine that repairs other machines, or a better model of machine that is more durable and in no need of repair, then we have an automated factory that manufactures it. Anyone with an interest in building and engineering might just go online to a website and post designs for a better machine. At the beginning, we would need talented minds to implement this system, but we still rely on an economic model as well so it's not -that- impractical to pay a team of engineers and researchers to develop this kind of automation system.

But you're asking for that Communist break in the human spirit -- that one-for-all and all-for-one mentality that never really existed nor has any likelihood of existing. All you need to break that spirit is one person saying "No."

It's almost a parodic inverse of a democracy, where any one person can rise above the others extremely easily, simply by defiance of the current system.

You're asking me to view the world by existing rules and accepted assumptions of certainty, many of which are hardly rules set in stone or certainties that are -actual- truths of the world. Please, stop comparing me to a communist. My ideas are nothing of the sort.

See, that's not true either. Scarcity and abundance are terms that have no meaning if you can just create it. It's like the "food crisis" or the "water crisis." Believe me, if we let the farmers grow all the food they could, the world would never be hungry. However, it's important to let some people be hungry because the farmers have to eat, too, and they're the ones providing what people seek.

Scarcity: The rarity of a resource that provides for a limited number of members of a species

Abundance: The supply of a resource that provides for all members of a species

How do these terms -not- have meaning when they're clearly defined, well, really anywhere you could look for them?

So you're saying that instead of human rulers, we have a computer. Ok, fair enough.

Who would donate their time to fixing the computer when the hard drive corrupts? They're not even getting their dole; how do you think they would extract payment?

In other words -- my Capitalistic Marxism beats your Communistic Marxism. Never -- NOT ONCE -- will you see someone do something for nothing. Watch people -- even the most charitable do it to at least stroke himself, and much more likely have others stroke him.

Over 50% of the American population volunteers its time... for nothing, at least nothing financial or tangibly beneficial to them. Explain how that works with, "Never -- NOT ONCE -- will you see someone do something for nothing."

What a silly statement, Ferk. :)

Where do people who, once their needs of survival are met, have no ambition and simply drain resources fit into your picture? I suppose if we have unlimited resources and unlimited space to spread our seed it doesn't matter, but with current population growth it will become an issue, fast.

Where do people who, once their needs of survival are met, have no ambition and simply drain resources fit into your picture? I suppose if we have unlimited resources and unlimited space to spread our seed it doesn't matter, but with current population growth it will become an issue, fast.

I have a couple of theories about this:

First, ambition. What is it to say a person is "ambitious?" In our society, it's to say that someone has a vision, a goal to accomplish, or something they want to create or achieve. This goal-orientation is a task-oriented approach. It assumes that a task is always there to complete.

It seems to me that the person who travels all their life, never really creating or producing anything whatsoever, only exploring the world and finding things, is equally -not- ambitious. But we don't see it that way, because treasure hunters can sometimes find a fortune in buried treasure - it happens. As long as an objective exists and is achieved, we credit this with a term like "ambition."

What if our motivation, our objective on this planet, was to do what we're here to do? Live? Experience the natural world as it exists, without all the social baggage? Instead of owning a home, what would be the problem with living in the most outstanding hotel suite with all the amenities of home for as long as you want? Instead of that, maybe you want to live in a more rural location like a cabin in the mountains... no biggie. There are plenty to go around. The whole idea is that our focus, our ambition, is to experience everything positive that the world has to offer us. Our ambition is to literally "live" our lives on truly our own individual terms while pursuing our interests. Builders and engineers that are interested in that profession build and develop. Musicians and composers perform and compose. Writers write. Artists create art. We all just "live" the lives as we would live them without restraint. Our talents emerge, our technology advances, and automation improves our quality of life.

My second theory pertains to the concern over population and consumption. I look at this like a survival situation when it ends and the survivor is rescued. Perhaps they haven't eaten for days, so they just eat the hell out of a big buffet of food. Eventually, this subsides. The consumption returns to a measurable, rational amount. Why?? Because once deprivation is eliminated, behavior stabilizes in much the same way that heart beat and blood pressure stabilize biologically after a traumatic event. Let's not forget about the chemicals that food companies are allowed to add to food and beverages to enhance the sensations of hunger or suppress the sensations of being full, depending on the substance. Some substances are highly addictive like caffeine, nicotine, etc.

As far as population... heh. We only consider 30% of the earth's surface as "inhabitable" because it's land... solid ground. That leaves 70% of the earth's surface completely unused. Designs exist for ocean cities. We likely produce as much food (and consumer waste from overconsumption) to feed most, maybe all of the world's population for at least a week without the aid of technology. But we don't intelligently manage any of it or seek ways to automate food production globally to meet the needs of the starving, suffering people. We leave those nations to handle it on their own and leave it up to private citizens to volunteer their time because we're too concerned with military defense, terrorism, and global wars. These things would not even be issues if the suffering would just end, if all nations could dedicate their resources to building a new, sustainable infrastructure that provides for everyone.

I'm wondering to see how much the results would differ in Europe.

The study's interesting. It confirms what I've thought before about the whole composing situation.

Looking at it from an economics standpoint, supply has increased (b/c of the internet, technology) while demand has stayed the same or decreased.

I think that some of the only options for composers to make money are to write for media (TV, film, games), or for advertising (commercials, jingles). As a professional thing, to actually be able to make money on it, is as the report said, getting harder and harder.

The same is true for artists. They too suffer from relatively the same circumstances, although I would argue that demand for images/animation is higher than the demand for composers, simply because as humans we use our visual senses more than our audio ones. However, the supply of artists is also much greater than that of composers, I believe. (composition seems to require more education than artists do)

In my opinion, classical music can be as enjoyed as regular pop or rock music. It just hasn't been presented in a good way yet. We see how popular those european violin chicks get when they pair up some good old beethoven with a heavy rock beat. That's one way of presenting it that's seemed to work pretty well for them.

Another way of presentation, seems to be in (has been and will be) in film. Clearly, film music is one area where classical music is still in high demand, although other forms of incorporated music is also squeezing out demand.

I'm going to be a little bold here and say that I think that classical music can regain its position as the industry leader if composers begin to produce music that utterly and completely enraptures the audience. The modern audience doesn't have the patience or time to listen to a 35 minute Rite of Spring, unless they happen to be studying classical music. Music such as Clint Mansell's Requiem for a Dream may be such an example.

(please note that I am not a fan of the piece Requiem for a Dream. It's too simple for my ears. But then again, what would I know, since so many people seem to like it? however, i do admit that the first time i listened to it, i was definitely enraptured by it)

The public doesn't understand classical music because they don't care about classical music. In my opinion, it's probably because they've been shown too many boring 19th century pieces and weird, incongruent 'new age' music.

(please note that i myself enjoy 19th century pieces very much, and loved rite of spring)

Romanticized music in my opinion is the way to go. Composers like Nobuo Uematsu get lots of attention for pieces like Yuna's Theme and To Zanarkand. John Williams gets lots of attention for the Star Wars theme and E.T.

My view also, is that composing suffers from a lack of champions. Classical music has few champions, of course there are the rare ones like Yo-Yo Ma and Lang Lang. But why aren't there more?

With more champions (performers, in other words), 'classical music' composition can definitely emerge. People don't follow songwriters. They follow singers. There are so many singing champions out there, you saw a bunch of them on the grammy stage last night. We need more performers like yo-yo-ma.

The problem is, the usual performer of classical music is still stuck in the 19th century mindset that technique is the most important. It's not. People awe at technique but they will not bother to listen to it if there's a competition between a technically challenging piece and a emotionally charged piece. People like songs because they clearly express some kind of emotion. Classical music does not clearly say, but instead has to force the listener to take the energy to 'feel' it. And if you don't get the listener to get involved, then BOOM, that person gets bored immediately.

Therefore, the performance has to be spot on emotionally. Performers like Yo-Yo Ma are able to capture the audience, immediately. The youtube video of him performing Elgar's Cello Concerto is a clear example of this. However, the piece itself, while beginning well and having many brilliant parts within it, loses the audiences at times and therefore can be improved upon.

So in conclusion, to sum it all up (my argument):

When we have champions able to brilliantly perform brilliant pieces that enrapture the majority of audience members (i'm not talking about the few classical music professionals, who clearly have different tastes than everyone else), then classical music will reemerge as a music leader.

One thing I do think is interesting is the boost in composers may be directly linked to how easy it is to compose nowadays.

As technology has advanced composing has become easier and more readily avaliable to the masses and will explain the boost in commercial and popular music.

And art music will have the problem of only a few choosing purity over profit its a hard choice but in my opinion its one that has to be made.

[there should be an option to delete one's own post]

Well, I found it interesting but there are more subjects that I'd like to see covered.

One thing I do think is interesting is the boost in composers may be directly linked to how easy it is to learn how to compose nowadays.

Corrected above...

As technology has advanced composing has become easier and more readily avaliable to the masses and will explain the boost in commercial and popular music.

Absolutely true.

And art music will have the problem of only a few choosing purity over profit its a hard choice but in my opinion its one that has to be made.

I despise this "purity" over "profit" argument. Each time I encounter it, I throw up a little in my mouth because it's such an unnecessary argument to make. You can write music you want to write in any style or multiple styles. If you think pop songs suck, write a pop song the way -you- would like to listen to it. Put it out there. Maybe you'll be surprised. If you don't like the way film music sounds, start writing your own film music and put it to films you like. You never know if someone will love what you do... ya know? Hell, just because you don't write like anyone else doesn't mean you shouldn't write that kind of music in a way that -you- feel represents you as an artist.

And that's what's so annoying about the purity view... that people who write the kind of music that popular culture holds onto do it for the money. It's not exactly an industry that just automatically takes you in and starts throwing money at you just because you write music like everyone else. God, it's like those Goth kids on South Park who refuse to "conform" to culture. That's fine. Do it -your- way. No one's saying not to. Just do it convincingly and with integrity. It's time to stop assuming that songwriting, film scoring, or any other music for media is equivalent to selling out.