Does money ruin music ?

NO

richardh wrote: No one talks about the 'Art Industry' in fact its a phrase that doesn't exist.

[pedantry]Googling "the art industry" just gave me 223,000 hits.  The phrase exists in many places. [/pedantry]

richardh wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: NO I seen musicians abandon music because they don't have money to continue making great music. Music industry kills music, supporting mediocre "musicians". Iván That almost a vote for YES because the whole idea of the music industry is to make money is it not? No one talks about the 'Art Industry' in fact its a phrase that doesn't exist. So why is there a music industry? Music is art and such does not need to be financed. Any musician can have a day job and write and play music in their spare time. Keith Emerson worked in a bank but played in several bands before The Nice got big enough for him to give up the day job. In truth there nothing stopping anyone doing anything as long as they are prepared to work hard enough at it.

Finnforest wrote: I think age matters more than status.  Youth.  Generally I'm "knocked out" most often by the music made by artists in their 20s- far more than anything that comes from music "veterans."  It happens in band after band I think about....the spark happens usually in their early years.  So many great albums made by young people.  I can't count all that many great geezer rock albums...although there are certainly some I'm sure.  Steve Wilson may be one who bucks that trend.  I think he had a better 30s than 20s.

I have also noticed how usually the very best music artists do is from their 20's. Sometimes there's someone who makes a good comeback, who is able to offer wonderful albums at later stages of their lives, but that seems to be the exceptions. That's why I think bands like Yes and Dream Theater, who have recently been looking for replacments on the band, should actually seek someone very young and with extraodinary writing abilites (just as they themselves were at their prime).

People ruin moozik, not money, especially greedy people who prioritize profit above all creativity. Hugs  

Dayvenkirq wrote: I don't know. Maybe yes and no. Depends. On many things, methinks.  - How big is the overlap between "moneymaker" and "good music"?   - How easy is it to record a (good or bad) album/song?  - ...

Edited by Kati - December 13 2014 at 00:58

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: richardh wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: NO I seen musicians abandon music because they don't have money to continue making great music. Music industry kills music, supporting mediocre "musicians". Iván That almost a vote for YES because the whole idea of the music industry is to make money is it not? No one talks about the 'Art Industry' in fact its a phrase that doesn't exist. So why is there a music industry? Music is art and such does not need to be financed. Any musician can have a day job and write and play music in their spare time. Keith Emerson worked in a bank but played in several bands before The Nice got big enough for him to give up the day job. In truth there nothing stopping anyone doing anything as long as they are prepared to work hard enough at it. The problem is not money, the problem is GREED. Keith Emerson worked in a bank but he had 19 or 20 years, his father helped him and even paid most of the price of his first Hammond organ  and was single. Professional artists can't have a day job unless they want to spend their life playing in very small venues. When you have kids and a family, you can't afford to just survive.

Edited by richardh - December 13 2014 at 02:57

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: NO I seen musicians abandon music because they don't have money to continue making great music. Music industry kills music, supporting mediocre "musicians". Iván

I do love you Ivan but I think you have it ass backwards dude.

The industry didn't kill the music,  in fact we killed the industry.  It is a new world out there. Ignoring the 5% of bands and really looking big picture..  it has been a trade off. Outside of Nashville, and the NYC/LA hip hop based industries..  the industry has little play on rock music today.  Musicians today have unprecedented freedom to make the music they want, full creative control that one had to be a mega-superstar in the 70's to have, ease of production and distribution again without the 'industry'.

The trade off...  for the vast majority of musicians it is not going to be a career. Definitely nothing that will get you a fleet of Rolls Royces in the garage.

Thus we have the real killer of musicians and groups today. It is not financial my friend.. it is making a mark and finding ones audience in the completely oversaturated market for music...  and progressive rock today.

ahh sorry Roger. I missed this in the frenzy of polls today

rogerthat wrote: Very interesting comment, micky.  This is something I feel afraid to suggest because I have a couple or more friends trying their luck in music.  But I do feel sometimes that there is simply too much music to sift through.  The concept of one's own personal band sounds great in an ideal world but in reality makes poor business sense.

Oh Roger IMO it goes beyond 'feeling'. There IS simply too much music for most to sift through.  Raff literally got swamped by bands sending her albums to review. It really is full time job to keep up with all the music being put out today. Thus bands can easily fall through the cracks. How many bands have we added here at PA's and never heard a thing from again.  The creative medium is  there for all musicians to use, to get their work out. Social media makes promoting it fairly easy.  However the resulting oversaturation means even good, even great groups can fail to reach listeners and just be lost in the shuffle. 

The oversaturation doesn't kill the music, as many will agree, this is a wonderful creative time in progressive rock. On par with the golden age of the 70's in terms of output and creativity.  What again I think the ease of making music and getting it out to people does is really remove any chance to see real money in doing it. That is the tradeoff I referred to earlier. Can one still make a career of it? Make enough to live?  Not likely at all with traditional prog.. IMO that really is a creatively dead genre with a dying off core audience of boomers. Where possibility exists however is crossing over to larger audiences. Which is a whole different topic of conversation as it is.  There are progressive bands out there finding their audience, playing 60-70 shows a year, but they are not marketing themselves to prog fans or sites like this, but simply as 'good' enjoyable music and bypassing outlets like this and targeting younger audiences that really could give two sh*ts about what particularly  genre the music is. 

  yeah Nearfest 2012 was interesting. My favorite was the story of the sweet young Italian kid bassist from that Italian band that played there being told basically to sod off by a prominent and very famous 70's bassist when he dared tried to approach him.

I agree with you.  The sooner the nostalgia fests died off, the sooner community could turn to supporting today's musicians.  I do like the current format of less pretentious and small is beautiful festivals that showcase TODAY's bands.  Some prog, some progressive, some not either to my ears but just fun to see live anyway.