Does money ruin music ?

rogerthat wrote: Ilayaraja, king of Tamil music in the 80s, was 33 when he got his big break and before that just a guitar player in the troupes of the big composers.  Thank God he didn't give up, for that may have hastened the decline of Tamil music into mediocrity.   Mehdi Hassan was a 30 year old car mechanic when he finally got a chance to sing on radio.  It would still be another 7 years before he achieved his breakthrough.  He wound up one of the 'Gods' of ghazals.   The example of Susan Boyle is also worth bringing up. Even if I have misgivings about the cynical way in which they manipulated the audience's feelings to generate sympathy for her, I cannot knock her singing ability, which was amazing for a 48 year old with so little exposure to the way professional music making works.  Lastly, a real big one.  Dio was 30 by the time the first Elf album was recorded and he didn't really make it with that one.  It ostensibly did well enough for him to hang on in the music industry, but his big bang moment would be three years later with the first Rainbow album.  Dio is a great example of a celebrated rock figure who enjoyed his peak well into his 30s and through his 40s.  If he had felt disheartened by what he had achieved at the time he had turned 30, the world would have missed out on one of rock's greatest legends. I know why you said it, because, financially, it can become painful for the musician who is still struggling to make ends meet once he is past 30 and about to start a family.  But then, the reasons why these guys get into music is too emotional to be subject to such purely logical considerations.    My friend has released his (or rather his band's) first EP well into his 30s.  He may never 'make it' in the industry but I doubt he cares much about that, at least for now.

richardh wrote: I think the main thrust of my argument is that if you are that talented then you will find a way to make it. Kids and family can come later. If you haven't made it in music by the age of 30 you can probably safely give up imo.

Yes it is but nevertheless I'm still not impressed by the examples you threw at me. There may well be better ones I'm sure , perhaps some blues singers from the last century might be better examples although they actually had better material as a result of their struggles. Anyway I didn't say anyone should give up. Its entirely their decision but I don't see why anyone would keep ploughing money into an artist to keep them financially viable to support their family and keep going in music. Why would that be sensible approach and why should we be hammering the industry for not doing this. Can someone be that talented and still remain 'under appreciated' by the public at large for 10 to 20 years? Elbow got that Mercury prize some way into their career but still had 'made their name' long before.

I am very much in agreement that you should stop wasting my time as well. Again I never said anyone should give up at the age of 30. Stop saying that. I said that if an artist as not made it my the age of 30 they can probably safely give up. The key word being probably. Of course there is no mathematical principle involved that at the age of 30 you have to give up.  Some will carry on somehow because that is all they want to do and will find a way. Perhaps they will get support from somewhere. All very fine and dandy and good with me.

I am voting 'no' because there is not enough of it for genuine artists to survive - it has always been the case with greedy record labels.  I went into HMV yesterday and noted that the whole downstairs is given to DVDs with music now going 'upstairs'.  Soon, they will stop selling it all together as people want their nightly low challenge 'entertainment'... music is now devalued.  The arrival of MTV in the 80s was the thin end of the wedge...

I'm with you all the way, Iván.

Flight123 wrote: I am voting 'no' because there is not enough of it for genuine artists to survive - it has always been the case with greedy record labels.  I went into HMV yesterday and noted that the whole downstairs is given to DVDs with music now going 'upstairs'.  Soon, they will stop selling it all together as people want their nightly low challenge 'entertainment'... music is now devalued.  The arrival of MTV in the 80s was the thin end of the wedge...

As a PS - as I get older, I tend to write better, musically - as I have more experience. 

richardh wrote: Flight123 wrote: I am voting 'no' because there is not enough of it for genuine artists to survive - it has always been the case with greedy record labels.  I went into HMV yesterday and noted that the whole downstairs is given to DVDs with music now going 'upstairs'.  Soon, they will stop selling it all together as people want their nightly low challenge 'entertainment'... music is now devalued.  The arrival of MTV in the 80s was the thin end of the wedge... There is an interesting point here although I don't think its MTV fault that people watch more TV for entertainment or that music has become devalued. On this basis you could blame companies like Showtime and HBO for making so many annoyingly addictive TV programmes and deflecting attention away from music as an entertainment. I guess for me personally its easy just to plonk myself in front of the TV for an evening and ignore the CD player which unfortunately I do far too often.

On the other hand some stores here have now a vinyl section 

Rednight wrote: Certainly! Look what it did to Yes' Big Generator.