For as long as I've been making music, indie bands have lost money and weight on tour. That's why we had the dole, really, so that original musos, those not in debt to record companies, had a fighting chance, but the dole isn't what it used to be because rent is now so huge a commitment it needs its own dole (think about that).
If people are being sold the idea that learning to make music is a way to make money, a form of capitalist enterprise, for all but a lucky or privileged few, that's one of those "misinformations" we hear so much about. It's an idea being spread by people with something to sell, and that's because they can make better money selling lessons, apps, playlists, admin and encouragement than they can make selling music.
The musos in that article are right that it's become a game for rich kids. Rich kids used to be less of a threat because rock was considered low art by the rich and being rich was considered uncool by the rockers.
In the first case, popular music has become a victim of its own success and its successful mythologizing by the music press. In the second case, it's become a victim of some neo-liberal "greed is good" fall-out. I refer you to Vorn's comparison of Prince in Purple Rain (doing anything for the money is uncool - 1984) to Jay Z (I'm cool mainly because I make lots of money - 2001ish), but only if you're a paid subscriber to Simon Sweetman's Sounds Good archive, otherwise following this link is just annoying.
It's also the case that a music career in the past was low-investment, in that the preparation for it only involved playing music for fun as much as possible. Of all the UK rock musicians of the classic eras, only Mick Jagger had a tertiary education, and that was in an unrelated field (then , not now), economics. No-one had paid for a degree in it, or anything more expensive than a few piano or guitar lessons. People worked within their limitations, and that challenge was the source of both innovation and meaning. Today, if the higher ranks are dominated by the rich, the middle ranks belong to the professional managerial class.
I'm only really interested in the exceptions, the freaks*, the true punks. The people who never had any other option.
* This is a plug for Luke Haine's great new book, which attacks the problem head on and in detail.
For as long as I've been making music, indie bands have lost money and weight on tour. That's why we had the dole, really, so that original musos, those not in debt to record companies, had a fighting chance, but the dole isn't what it used to be because rent is now so huge a commitment it needs its own dole (think about that).
If people are being sold the idea that learning to make music is a way to make money, a form of capitalist enterprise, for all but a lucky or privileged few, that's one of those "misinformations" we hear so much about. It's an idea being spread by people with something to sell, and that's because they can make better money selling lessons, apps, playlists, admin and encouragement than they can make selling music.
The musos in that article are right that it's become a game for rich kids. Rich kids used to be less of a threat because rock was considered low art by the rich and being rich was considered uncool by the rockers.
In the first case, popular music has become a victim of its own success and its successful mythologizing by the music press. In the second case, it's become a victim of some neo-liberal "greed is good" fall-out. I refer you to Vorn's comparison of Prince in Purple Rain (doing anything for the money is uncool - 1984) to Jay Z (I'm cool mainly because I make lots of money - 2001ish), but only if you're a paid subscriber to Simon Sweetman's Sounds Good archive, otherwise following this link is just annoying.
https://simonsweetman.substack.com/p/five-films-that-stay-with-me-vorn-colgan?utm_source=publication-search
It's also the case that a music career in the past was low-investment, in that the preparation for it only involved playing music for fun as much as possible. Of all the UK rock musicians of the classic eras, only Mick Jagger had a tertiary education, and that was in an unrelated field (then , not now), economics. No-one had paid for a degree in it, or anything more expensive than a few piano or guitar lessons. People worked within their limitations, and that challenge was the source of both innovation and meaning. Today, if the higher ranks are dominated by the rich, the middle ranks belong to the professional managerial class.
I'm only really interested in the exceptions, the freaks*, the true punks. The people who never had any other option.
* This is a plug for Luke Haine's great new book, which attacks the problem head on and in detail.
https://www.roughtrade.com/en-gb/product/luke-haines/freaks-out-weirdos-misfits-and-deviants-the-rise-and-fall-of-righteous-rock-n-roll
Shiiiit - this quote from the Guardian article is brutal: "It’s a hobby that just about pays for itself."
Crazy eh. I read those stories with my jaw on the floor.
I loved all the young artists I interviewed for today's piece, but if that's your future you have to wonder how they're going to make it work.
Why is Glover singing the song he wrote for Beyonce ten years ago? Did she not want it?
Whaaaaaaattt?!?
*jumps on Google immediately...*
Haha! It just sounds like a Beyoncé song to my uneducated ears, that’s all. The video choreography has massive Single Ladies’ vibes too
It so does. Super catchy though. My daughter was singing it after just one listen.
Andre 3000 Idlewild vibes too
Yes I get that too - thanks for the reminder to listen to that soundtrack again!
It definitely is catchy!