Where all classical music heading?

Ok.

First of,

This is NOT a discussion about the different styles and techniques of composition. I'm not even slightly willing to read anything about dissonance, etc...

The point is completely different.

It's about making a living as a classical composer, if possible.

Until now there were commissions, teaching, etc. But it seems to me that the Internet, piracy, and whatever else has changed that. There seems to be little reason to commission a new work. Apart from a government body eager to 'educate' the citizens through this way, and various bodies, I don't think anyone else is commissioning on an individual bases.

Maybe I could be wrong, but it remains that I doubt I can get any decent commission without some government financial aid. A choir director who asked me to work on a 30-40 minute piece for choir and possibly orchestra or not, was willing to give me 1000$. He told me that the financial support was cut off, and so on, and I wasn't expecting much, but 1000$? For 6 months work or so? We are talking about a major piece here.

I had to decline, although I do see the potential advertisement. I just couldn't bring myself to live on my savings for six months or so (maybe 4, 3?) and provide SUCH a service for free. Someone else, without kids, maybe would take the opportunity, and I'm betting that someone did.

Where is this all heading? Where the chance to really write some wonderful piano music, a piano sonata for example (like our old member QcCowboy did, and his works were excellent)? Why do it if you will only get tiny compensation. With hopes of self publishing? Will that disappear as well? What will become of what we happily call and discuss over here "classical music"?

YAH! Nikolas swoops back in, guns blazing!

Good topic. AND, a toughie!

Your point about Commissions disappearing is accurate, and at the same time perhaps not. There are (at least, as far as I'm familiar) there are still ensembles dedicated to promoting, commissioning, performing, recording NEW works from living artists. Array Music, Esprit Orchestra are a couple here in Toronto. They're out there, and I expect there's a vibrant community worldwide that specifically cater towards commissioning new works. That said, it's likely the only way these ensemble are able to do this, is through government grants and subsidies.

For ME, a great gig to get is the Artist in Residence/Musical Directorship for one of those European Radio Big Bands (Or Orchestras for you stringy folks out there). It's the THING to do now. Again, here are Government FUNDED musical ensembles designed to perform original music.

It does seem to hinge on the State Funding, doesn't it!? Scary...expecially since governments seem intent on slowly (quickly?) whittling down the finding...

...

Where do we go from here?

Personally, I'm content in the fact that I KNOW I'll be a part-timer...for a LONG time. I have a day job...it pays the bills and allows the stability I need to devote the rest of my time to making music. It's a balancing act to maintain focus and energy and finding time to give to it, but it's something I have to do.

My personal view is a lot of small commissions and long-term work with groups, almost like a "band" concept similar to jazz composers. However, that puts the role of composer as more of bandleader and auteur than straight-up composer, and runs into the problems of income that small bands have in general, only magnified.

BTW, welcome bakk.

Eh teaching is where it's at for me anyway, everything else is eh. Best idea is really getting together an ensemble and playing for cash, then you get to put your own music on stage as well as do concerts regularly.

As for commissions, nobody wants to pony up the cash for stuff like that anymore and really I can't blame them.

My personal view is a lot of small commissions and long-term work with groups, almost like a "band" concept similar to jazz composers. However, that puts the role of composer as more of bandleader and auteur than straight-up composer, and runs into the problems of income that small bands have in general, only magnified.

Yeah, but that's the reality of working in a creative musical medium.

There's not a lot of work out there - so, make it yourself. It's almost necessary to wear all the hats these days, if you're intent on producing your own musical endeavours.

Composer, musical director, manager, event-coordinator, graphic artist, web-designer, producer, promoter... unless you're surrounded by a collective of like-minded people, each sharing part of the responsibility of maintaining such an ensemble, it works pretty well to just work your donkey off and do it yourself.

Like what SSC says:

Best idea is really getting together an ensemble and playing for cash, then you get to put your own music on stage as well as do concerts regularly.

As for commissions, nobody wants to pony up the cash for stuff like that anymore and really I can't blame them.

I agree about the commissions. Not only does no one want to pony up cash, but bandleaders/ensembles hardly have any spare income left to consider commissioning new works.

It does matter who you surround yourself with, and how you treat others. If you're wondering why no other bandleaders commission your music - they're wondering the same thing about you! Pass the buck - hire someone else to write something for your band, it'll come back around.

Why is it that there's no money? I think its basic economics. If there's no buts in the seats, then no tickets are sold, then no revenue is created, then groups go bankrupt. Why does the audience flee when they hear a new work is being premiered? Some don't, some find it exciting, and that's great! Those groups should keep doing what they're doing. However, what about the mainstream orchestras that have no money to spare simply because they don't have people buying tickets? That's why orchestras play Beethoven day in and day out all day long, because people will buy the old stuff, which they like better. People don't like the new stuff (which is my justification for why the 20th century's musical aesthetics were so volatile because the audience was lost) and thus don't buy the seats. When was the last time there has been a major orchestral work that totally revolutionized the path of western classical music? 1913 with Rite of Spring? People don't write music people want to hear and they don't write things that have been worth playing (generally :) ) over the long term. So why bother commissioning something that neither the orchestra nor the composer can profit from in the long term?

I brought this up here: http://forum.youngco...ust-we-applaud/ I think something like the guy suggested should be done. Rekindle the feedback loop!

I just KNOW someone's gonna whine and complain that "But NO! That's entertainment not ART!!!!" Then starve.

Thanks for the welcome back! ^_^ much appreciated.

Now, on a few thoughts.

Yes, playing your own stuff is obviously one way to do it. And I've found a way with sample libraries, piano music, etc. But still it just feels better to have your music played! :D But then the question comes: Who is doing who a service? Composers get commissions normally, but if you want a performer to perform your work, you can rent their services! So it's both ways.

Another thought is the idea of your 'client'. I've also found a solution there in working for computer games. My clients are NOT the audience, although they can influence very indirectly my career. My client is the developers, or publishers and as such I actually don't really care about piracy and what not in a direct way. The game will get pirated, not my music. And if my music does get pirated, then YAY! Cause it's already been bought out!

A third thought lies to what SSC mentioned: I love teaching, I really do, and I actually have an internet based lesson in 10 minutes (Greece-London, on composition. Successful!). But I am still a creator, an inventor of sound if you want. And I want, I need, I strive for my music to exist, to be performed, to be heard. Plus my worry goes further: If classical music goes further downhill (<-correction, if the idea of music goes downhill. It's not only classical), then why would anyone learn? A lost trade is a lost trade. Sure there's the fun aspect, etc, but if you take the possibility of earning a living, or actually having a career then the lights dim quite a lot!

________________________

I believe that classical music will be the last to actually fall. For a single reason: Pop music involves, largely a passive listening, while piano music can involve active playing, enjoying, sharing, learning and teaching. Already a music file out of your hard drive is not yours any more, despite any legalities saying the opposite. Yes, I own copyrights, but how on earth can I stop you from putting my music to your personal porn file for your enjoynment? (this would be amazing actually! Can you imagine MY music in a porn film? Talk about sick!).

I'm ready to bet that there isn't a single member in here who's never downloaded music. Or actually never watched youtube (90% of the stuff in there are illegal to begin with! :D).

Doomed this, doomed that, doomed the other. But I love it. And love teaching, love composing, (and obviously still love YC :D)

Tokkemon: Fair enough, one can hold that view. But you have to realize that if you use "the music itself must be profitable" as a criterion, 99% of all music written until today (classical, jazz, pop, folk, whatever) would never have any chance to begin with. There would be almost no classical musical repertoire if those composers had been required to make a living by selling their music to the public. We might have some italian operas maybe, some nice little waltzes and minuets and so on, but the vast majority of the classical music we know and perform today was heavily supported by institutions and certain individuals, ranging from the church, over the nobility, to wealthy patrons and of course also governments. Lully wouldn't have been possible without Luis XIV., Haydn not without the Esterhazys, Wagner not without Ludwig II and many 20th century composers not without Serge Koussevitzky or Paul Sacher. And the composers who weren't supported like that usually funded their compositions by other jobs, be it conducting, playing an instrument, teaching, something entirely different - or just by being born rich enough to be able to afford it. It's cheap to say "performing the classics is more profitable than commissioning new works" - of course it is: It's already been payed for by others, centuries ago.

But of course it is possible to make some music without this kind of support. But you have to realize that a lot of (performed) music simply becomes impossible like that, and contrary to what you say not just because the public doesn't like it, but because it's so extremely expensive to produce. If a composer spends several months writing on a piece, then a large orchestra (or even opera house!) spends weeks rehearsing it (yes, I know orchestras don't tend to do that, but to produce a certain quality in performing new pieces it would often be required) you aren't going to make a profit with a few sold-out concerts, unless those are really mass events with thousands of people in the audience (which already creates new problems).

It may be different in the US, but over here all major orchestras have to be supported significantly by the state in order to survive, even if they concentrate on playing Beethoven. Not even to mention operas, where it sometimes gets almost grotesque. Sure, they still often tend to play pieces they know to be popular, but often they do that not in order to make a direct profit from sold seats, but simply because sold-out concerts give a better impression to their patrons/donators. So yes, in the end they do it to create a greater "profit", but that doesn't mean the business itself is actually profitable.

And as Nikolas has alluded to: It's not that people are simply unwilling to commission new works. It's just that they can't afford to pay as much as would be required to pay for the composers living for the time it takes to write the piece. Sure, the simple solution to someone offering $1000 to write a piece would be to write the piece within a week, but if you have certain standards for yourself you might probably say you'd rather spend that time on a different job than throwing out random music like that.

har, nice topic..

ever thought about the career of the avant-garde jazz musician? a man who wields his horn as a sword and fights his way

to get a living and pay the rent? there a few people like that. and they don't have a lot of chance of survival-

what sane person would pay to hear a-tonal, free form and no meter?

classical music is actually easier, since you can stick some of your own compositions in one of beethoven's and then

kid the audience about you composition-if it was good enough they might want to hear it again!

there are people like frank zappa, and yenni forgive my comparison the ghost of zappa, but they both had a HUGE audience and they both

composed their own original music, zappa whihc was pretty avant garde,

oh and captain beefheart, a living avant garde rock legend.

they were good enough that people were willing to come and give them money for the show.

dito about all the current rock bands fighting to get their voice being heard, there are about a zillion bands out there and

maybe 0.000001% is ever getting heard and earning money for their art.

if you got the energy to gather the players, advertise, battle with payrollers, and you are good, i think your voice will be heard.

most of the current classical music i heard was a harsh reminder of that dark avant garde jazz player...

question is if you want to live by your sword, or by your sweet talks.

For me, the appeal of music composition is a means of constructed expression. It's not like an idea from a book that can be rewritten a thousand different times to say nearly the same thing. A composition of music is more broadly individual and unique. Sure, we can address the point that "systems" of music are formulaic and therefore -not- unique, but what we "express" in using the formula often -is- unique, and especially meaningful to us individually.

The joy of sharing that with others is one side of things that I believe will continue to perpetuate nearly all forms/styles of music, including modern classicism.

The only thing I see going away in the foreseeable (yet distant) future is this obsolete acquisition system we have today in society, primarily because it is unsustainable and self-destructive. This includes the forms of monetary supply, governments and nations as we understand them, and possibly the near total convergence of cultures. Technology and our human awareness, effort, and desire to eliminate suffering among people is only further support for this belief.

So, don't worry -too much- about the future of Classical music. Consider the current environment and the perpetual transition we're in globally that will eventually and inevitably culminate in a reconstruction of human civilization from the bottom up. Music has its place in the future, for it is a distinctly different and unique exercise in intellect, emotion, and physically, performance. Money and business continue to stumble. We don't need money and business to compose, and the sheer amount of continued interest in music (the scraggy-tons of internet downloads are just one indication of this, mind you) reassures me that music still has a place in society, in education, in the private and public lives of everyone... it's not likely to just up and "disappear" with so many enthusiasts like ourselves continuing to compose, continuing to share ideas, continuing to educate one another, and so forth.

It's just stupid nearsightedness, ignorance, corruption, and greed that have put us, as a civilization, where we are today... and music is far above and beyond such trite and trivial matters. Western classicism alone spans a history of nearly two centuries... if we factor all of the historic foundations of what we have today at least. Factor in all the -other- forms of music in the world and the traditions that were assimilated into Western classicism around the 19th and 20th centuries, and we're talking about a much, MUCH longer span of time than the studies of modern "math," "science," "economics," and "government." It's an art form, and art, as we know from our own reflection on history, is often more memorable than the trivial issues we're dealing with today and, regressively, the same damn issues we come up against over and over again throughout history.

Take comfort in that, at least. It's not so bad.

Tokke: I do hope we will stay clear of any discussion on how contemporary classical music sounds, ok? This was my primary point in this thread!

Everything moves forward IN TIME. Everything changes. Everything evolves (to something better?). Same with music. Profitability of any genre needs to be re-discussed and re-examined again and again on a weekly, almost bases. Just look at pop music and it's ever changing character, idioms and production values. Why should classical music be any different? And who's to judge the profitability of any piece of music?

This thread was also triggered (to go slightly political) by the current economic crisis in Greece. If someone doesn't know about it, here it is a nutshell: Bastard government for the past few years have been lying through their teeth on the EU on how Greece is doing. New government in, freaks out, tells the truth, sh1t happens. EU denies (germany) to offer money to Greece at normal interest, crisis goes deeper. Government takes the right (imo) steps to gain some more money and put every bastard in Greece in their place (90% of the Greek population!). Incidently, it cuts funding to national theatre and drops 35% the budget of the primary music hall in Athens. As a result no concerts will be videotaped in there again. The uniqueness of the concert is back. No archives, no nothing.

And I'm expecting amidst this a government to fund my music making? Sheesss I must be insane!

I do hope we will stay clear of any discussion on how contemporary classical music sounds, ok?

That's all fine and dandy, but the whole movement into "modernism" or w.e you call it was a huge reason of why classical music fell out of popularity. Same thing happened in Jazz music too when Coltrane and Miles et al. created music that was too demanding of the audience's ears and thus fell out of popularity. I realize it was the intention of the thread to ignore it so I'll leave it aside for another day, but how could one ignore that factor and have a meaningful discussion on it?

Tokkemon: Fair enough, one can hold that view. But you have to realize that if you use "the music itself must be profitable" as a criterion, 99% of all music written until today (classical, jazz, pop, folk, whatever) would never have any chance to begin with. There would be almost no classical musical repertoire if those composers had been required to make a living by selling their music to the public. We might have some italian operas maybe, some nice little waltzes and minuets and so on, but the vast majority of the classical music we know and perform today was heavily supported by institutions and certain individuals, ranging from the church, over the nobility, to wealthy patrons and of course also governments. Lully wouldn't have been possible without Luis XIV., Haydn not without the Esterhazys, Wagner not without Ludwig II and many 20th century composers not without Serge Koussevitzky or Paul Sacher. And the composers who weren't supported like that usually funded their compositions by other jobs, be it conducting, playing an instrument, teaching, something entirely different - or just by being born rich enough to be able to afford it. It's cheap to say "performing the classics is more profitable than commissioning new works" - of course it is: It's already been payed for by others, centuries ago.

Yes indeed, composers have always been subsidized by someone. I don't know of a single composer who just composed. Obviously its the same today, so how are we any different? One point you also make is that music isn't necessarily profitable. Totally! I get that. In fact, I don't think music will ever be popular as art. Musicians create music for the music's sake; if I wanted to make bucket loads of money, I should have been a lawyer. Why did I become a composer? Because I love the music. I want to contribute my own music to the world of music and create art that other people can enjoy. Artists (using the genuine use of the term; Justin Bieber is NOT an artist) will rarely be rich people. I don't care about being rich, I decided that a long time ago. Because I know in my heart and mind that standing on the stage and conducting a piece of my own is a greater feeling than getting millions of dollars from some pop album.

I love classical music because it still has ART in it. But that art is in a weird state of flux; the audience is divided between the new people and the old people. Where is the meld in the middle? I want to be that meld. I think the movement today should be to meld the new and old. People would love to listen to that kind of music, music that is genuinely artistic and "fresh" yet still good to listen to by the broad audience. This is what Beethoven and Tchaikovsky and Wagner et al were able to do. They wrote music that combined their own new fresh ideas with the accessibility and tradition of old works that preceded them. Is this happening today? I think so, but even if it is, the audience isn't catching notice. Some are but not enough. How do we get the audience to pay attention? Maybe we, as composers, should start listening.

...what sane person would pay to hear a-tonal, free form and no meter?

I do, on a regular basis.

I tend to find that the more abstract and challening the music, the more tight-knit the community. We try to support each other's endeavours as much as possible - and you'll find it's usually "New Music" ensembles, or jazz orchestras; ensembles with a bit more edge who lean slightly to the left that are doing most of the commissioning and supporting living/emerging artists. That's the body and soul of these groups - vibrant and living new music.

Well said Robin. Well said indeed.

So, don't worry -too much- about the future of Classical music. Consider the current environment and the perpetual transition we're in globally that will eventually and inevitably culminate in a reconstruction of human civilization from the bottom up. Music has its place in the future, for it is a distinctly different and unique exercise in intellect, emotion, and physically, performance. Money and business continue to stumble. We don't need money and business to compose, and the sheer amount of continued interest in music (the scraggy-tons of internet downloads are just one indication of this, mind you) reassures me that music still has a place in society, in education, in the private and public lives of everyone... it's not likely to just up and "disappear" with so many enthusiasts like ourselves continuing to compose, continuing to share ideas, continuing to educate one another, and so forth.

I think Shaun's hitting it. We're going through some social and economic shifts thanks to the internet and the ability to get so many things for free. We've been exposed to a number of "free" models (like Hulu and YouTube; I say "free" since you're paying for internet access and the companies still make money). Now can you imagine growing up living off of free music and free video and then suddenly having that taken away (by government or corporate intervention, for instance)? I don't see it happening because I don't see people giving up their newly perceived rights to free intellectual goods.

Now in relation to music, yes there is a decline in paid commissions, although this has been going on for a long time in the U.S. [The orchestras here are not funded by the government and really I don't know how most of them exist, from a financial standpoint. There are still many commissioning opportunities, but they are usually very competitive and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that a U.S.-based composer will be able to survive on commissions alone.] This is problematic because you need to put food on the table before you can compose, and a decline in commissions and new for-profit performances means that composers may not have all that much time to actually compose! Monetary considerations can be stifling to creativity, but with the way things are heading with free intellectual goods and the rise of sustainability, I would not be surprised to see a worldwide economic upheaval in our lifetime that allows for the pursuit of human desire without the pressure of needing to work as we currently do to survive.

Anyway, right now I think the state of new music outside of the popular sphere (film/game music aside) is not so great if you want to make a buck writing it. However there is a ton of independent creativity that can be found online and in cheap concert scenes that involves artists who know they won't get paid. These artists are where the future lies.

I do, on a regular basis.

I tend to find that the more abstract and challening the music, the more tight-knit the community. We try to support each other's endeavours as much as possible - and you'll find it's usually "New Music" ensembles, or jazz orchestras; ensembles with a bit more edge who lean slightly to the left that are doing most of the commissioning and supporting living/emerging artists. That's the body and soul of these groups - vibrant and living new music.

robin, i've been to new york, boston, which are the major cities in which jazz flourishes there-most players there are brilliant, if not more, and most of them struggle insanely for money-denying that won't help you.

you can say that the community supports each other-but they're mostly bleeding to death, i know, i've been there, i've bled with them. even if you are the strongest cat doesn't mean you'll make enough money, but you earn the respect of the community.

its also the same as with classical, the generation which grew

on those styles will wither, and the junk generation will enter and have its say-whatever that means.

and btw, i'm a jazz musician, i don't know what state is that you are where living up as a jazz musician is easy,

let alone an avant-garde musician. very few people have the courage to take that course of career choice.

that's all i'm saying, most of us are hypocrites at best, since not all are aware of how they are selling themselves short of their true art(if they even discovered it).

Since so far I only replied to Tokke's post and not really to the actual topic, here one more thought:

One big question also is whether having an actual, successful market for contemporary "classical" music is even such a desirable thing. Economical processes have the sometimes rather nasty habit of clutching some ideas, taking total control over them and doing rather arbitrary stuff with them.

Consider the visual arts: In the last couple of years, they have really been booming. It's "in" to buy contemporary pieces of art, to visit art fairs, to know which artist is "important" and which isn't. Quite differently from composers, there is a significant number of visual artists who can easily make a good living by simply creating their art. On one hand, that's great. Getting enough money for doing what you are truly interested in is awesome. But it also creates a strong dependency on those very structures the market creates. It creates a momentum of fame, value, esteem etc. that in the end has almost nothing to do with the art itself, but with often very arbitrarily blown up relationships that are primarily defined by names - and it invites (or even forces) artists to enter exactly this discourse if they want to be someone in the field of art. There are of course some artists that are playing with these things in a very interesting way and already turn these processes of the market into a core element of their art (Damien Hirst comes to mind), but for many, this market-control is just another form of artistic subjugation, similarly to the function of the church in past centuries, the government in several dictatorships, or musical academies and similar institutions in many points of history.

"Academic" composition on the other hand, maybe thanks to a certain lack of "popularity" has, I think, retained somewhat more independence so far. Sure, no form of art will ever be truly "independent" from certain "powers", but the dependencies can at least be spread out a bit. It's not like economical considerations don't also play a major role in music - they obviously do, but some areas of music are so decidedly unprofitable that they are automatically not measured with the same criteria as other areas. The nice thing about being a composer is that you can do it next to a day job and still be taken seriously as a "professional composer" - which, in many other fields, would be unthinkable. And you -can- feel free to take a long time to write whatever you want to write, because it won't make this crucial difference between profitability and non-profitability.

For this reason, the question of whether I'd want well-paying commissions to become wide-spread in the composition field isn't that easy to answer for me. Of course I can't truly be against well-paying commissions. But I'm also not too fond of the prospect of certain economical perversities that might be the alternative to the status quo…

I can therefore quite agree with Robin's quote:

Personally, I'm content in the fact that I KNOW I'll be a part-timer...for a LONG time. I have day job...it pays the bills and allows the stability I need to devote the rest of my time to making music. It's a balancing act to maintain focus and energy and finding time to give to it, but it's something I have to do.

Of course, optimally one also finds a day job that allows you to keep your mind on composing somewhat (either by not taking up too much time, or by being something that's relatively close to composing thematically - or even both). I know quite a few composers who have been so caught up in teaching that they haven't composed anything anymore for years and at some point somehow just lost the connection to actively composing and never really dared starting again. That's not tragic of course, as long as they love teaching, but it's something you have to consider if "being a composer" matters to you.

I think one possibility is that the divide between classical and popular music could close. Of course, I think it will end up closing in closer to the popular music side, because I think that in many ways classical art music is artificially supported by pretension. I think there is a culture of disdain growing for that which considers itself to be high art. Meanwhile, what I would traditionally have considered popular music is showing more and more of the same characteristics of art music. I think that if most people were asked, they would say that popular music has the same artistic potential as classical music. Many of the successful composers today infuse their art with elements from popular music, and I don't think their success is a coincidence. This is, of course, a scary thought for me, as a person who has spent their life up to this point vehemently avoiding popular music.

robin, i've been to new york, boston, which are the major cities in which jazz flourishes there-most players there are brilliant, if not more, and most of them struggle insanely for money-denying that won't help you.

When did I deny that?

you can say that the community supports each other-but they're mostly bleeding to death, i know, i've been there, i've bled with them. even if you are the strongest cat doesn't mean you'll make enough money

I didn't mean specifically "financial" support.

i'm a jazz musician, i don't know what state is that you are where living up as a jazz musician is easy,

let alone an avant-garde musician.

I never said it was easy.

most of us are hypocrites at best, since not all are aware of how they are selling themselves short of their true art(if they even discovered it).

I don't even know what you mean by that.

:dunno:

----------------

We all have day-jobs. It's part of the process. We choose to dedicate our lives to creating our music. My day job allows me financial stability and the freedom to not have to worry about hustling another jobber, or going on a cruise-ship. I play what I want, when I want; I'm part of a small but vibrant scene - one that encourages itself and supports the music-making of everyone involved. Again, not always with $. I don't sell myself short - in fact, it's the exact opposite - I focus solely on my own personal musical desires. I write MY music, play it when I can, with the guys I want, in the venues I like. This is my "true art".

Mr. J the jazz musician - I'm not sure what you're trying to "warn" me about.

That's all fine and dandy, but the whole movement into "modernism" or w.e you call it was a huge reason of why classical music fell out of popularity. Same thing happened in Jazz music too when Coltrane and Miles et al. created music that was too demanding of the audience's ears and thus fell out of popularity. I realize it was the intention of the thread to ignore it so I'll leave it aside for another day, but how could one ignore that factor and have a meaningful discussion on it?

Because I hardly think this is an issue for genre or stylistic choices. I think that it goes much deeper, into what value the audience puts into recorded music (read: NONE, ergo piracy and rightfully so almost, although I support copyrights) and what value musicians put on themselves (Bieber is an example, indeed! :D)

Yes indeed, composers have always been subsidized by someone. I don't know of a single composer who just composed. Obviously its the same today, so how are we any different? One point you also make is that music isn't necessarily profitable. Totally! I get that. In fact, I don't think music will ever be popular as art. Musicians create music for the music's sake; if I wanted to make bucket loads of money, I should have been a lawyer. Why did I become a composer? Because I love the music. I want to contribute my own music to the world of music and create art that other people can enjoy. Artists (using the genuine use of the term; Justin Bieber is NOT an artist) will rarely be rich people. I don't care about being rich, I decided that a long time ago. Because I know in my heart and mind that standing on the stage and conducting a piece of my own is a greater feeling than getting millions of dollars from some pop album.

I actually know many composers working only from their compositions. All in media (computer games, ads, telly, films, etc). And I admire them!

But personally I could never only do that. I would be dry in a year or so. I have to take breaks, I want to perform music (as a pianist), and I want to teach.

I love classical music because it still has ART in it. But that art is in a weird state of flux; the audience is divided between the new people and the old people. Where is the meld in the middle? I want to be that meld. I think the movement today should be to meld the new and old. People would love to listen to that kind of music, music that is genuinely artistic and "fresh" yet still good to listen to by the broad audience. This is what Beethoven and Tchaikovsky and Wagner et al were able to do. They wrote music that combined their own new fresh ideas with the accessibility and tradition of old works that preceded them. Is this happening today? I think so, but even if it is, the audience isn't catching notice. Some are but not enough. How do we get the audience to pay attention? Maybe we, as composers, should start listening.

Yes, right. We are not just projecting our selves and whatever autistic tendencies we have as composers. We do need to have our antennas geared towards the audience. But I'm just not sure that this is enough. And as a father I am FORCED to worry. Nobody in this discussion has any family obligations, but me. (Robin, you did't have children in the meantime did you? ;)) It's a completely different matter and you are forced to 'mature' (the way that cooporations and the industry wants you)...

We all have day-jobs. It's part of the process. We choose to dedicate our lives to creating our music. My day job allows me financial stability and the freedom to not have to worry about hustling another jobber, or going on a cruise-ship. I play what I want, when I want; I'm part of a small but vibrant scene - one that encourages itself and supports the music-making of everyone involved. Again, not always with $. I don't sell myself short - in fact, it's the exact opposite - I focus solely on my own personal musical desires. I write MY music, play it when I can, with the guys I want, in the venues I like. This is my "true art".

Mr. J the jazz musician - I'm not sure what you're trying to "warn" me about.

my mistake robin, i thought you meant that the community can support it self economically.

regarding day jobs, everyone chooses his own path.

the discussion was wether one can wield its art and live by it.

i strongly believe that the path to live by your art requires you to play/compose things that aren't your style, but eventually you are learning to find your voice in them and being great at it, hence you become more known and lead a better chance of doing just that.

i agree with you robin that your art form maybe more purer than the art of the working musician, once i thought it was a lacking way to be a musician, since you usually don't have the time to spend practicing and finessing your art..today i'm not so sure what is the right thing to do, but i still do it :P

Yes, right. We are not just projecting our selves and whatever autistic tendencies we have as composers. We do need to have our antennas geared towards the audience. But I'm just not sure that this is enough. And as a father I am FORCED to worry. Nobody in this discussion has any family obligations, but me. (Robin, you did't have children in the meantime did you? ) It's a completely different matter and you are forced to 'mature' (the way that cooporations and the industry wants you)...

wrong, in a bout a year i will soon be a father. here's my "matureness"

as far as my conscious goes i can always teach, and still am.

the fact is that a guitar instructor at the age of 60 won't be appealing, about 25 years from now.

however, a composer at the age of 60 can be a probable career for that age-or maybe teach composition some day.

that's about as realistic i can be. the people i know that are working in the industry have started it like 15 years before me, so my chances are slim, but so are my choices, so its a good motivation.

The J: LOL! Honestly.

I don't know you (or don't remember you). I kept in mind how old is Gardener, Robin, Tokke, etc, and thought that these do not exactly have the responsibility to think about making a living right now. Especially not Tokke, as far as I know.

It's difficult to KNOW that you will be a father in a year or so, since children take 9 months at most... :D:D

My comment wasn't personal at all.

Anyways, the point is that at this moment I'm thinking about my next move. Ok, in computer games things are clear. but in general as a freelancer I have to consider on a weekly bases almost my next move and how the world is changing. And thought that this discussion can yield some interesting results.

Personally, I find that self publishing and pretty much self doing whatever you can works pretty well. Yes, there is a study that it takes 1,000,000$ to promote a new artist, but I find this largely *ahem*. I'm almost pretty certain that I can promote my self in much smaller scale and not need a million $. I'm positive I can find a way to put some money in and have some money coming out.

But it remains that commissions are being reduced and it's almost a fact that music is not exactly in its best (as far as any industry is concerned). From various people I know I've been told that royalties are being reduced. Maybe they were just spoiled... but it remains that things are largely changing and I do want in to whatever is coming! ;)

In general, society's intellect has degraded into ears that hunger for music they can understand.

Some people (ahem, Tokke) are passing judgment on the music. Others (ahem, me) think that passing judgment on music is foolish. And the OP even asks people to -not- pass judgment on music. Hmm...

Tokke, if you put all your eggs in the basket of economics, this "free market," government, and so on, then how convenient it must be for you to be able to pass judgment on anything that doesn't make money. That must put you in a very comfortable place. You must be very, VERY sure of yourself.

The truth is, the system you put your faith in to justify your judgment of music will inevitably collapse just like it always has in the past (Rome, Persia, Egypt, etc) because it is unsustainable. THEN, what will you have as a justification for your judgment of contemporary music, Tokke? Absolutely nothing.

Your point is taken that 20th Century music didn't put butts in seats, that it didn't "make money," as if that's some lofty goal we should all strive for as artists. Please.

Go here to inform yourself: http://vimeo.com/10707453

Of course I can't truly be against well-paying commissions. But I'm also not too fond of the prospect of certain economical perversities that might be the alternative to the status quo…

What?

Nice video, Shaun.