I think they would be astounded that a performance of John Dowland's lute solos could be had for say $15 USD. Especially when Dowland played for royalty and the upper classes (ie: made some money doing it). It's funny, but a photographer or painter can now (and in the past) charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for their work. Why don't serious musicians do the same? Each cd is a work of art that costs something -- each one could be different and hand made. I know it bugs me to work 6 months on a cd and only get $15 a copy. Without serious distribution, it is sold at a loss. I'll bet that most of today's best players never sell enough cd's to cover the costs of aquiring the music, learning the music, recording, packaging and marketing. Most people think they can make money selling cd's of their work, but they forget to account for the time it takes to get the material ready for recording -- this usually makes any profits go away very quickly. I think our predecessors would be astounded and horrified at how disposable and cheap the music has become.
--- Herbert Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Modern music is highly commercial. A typical modern person might go a > year, hearing music only from professional musicians. > > Music is encoded onto plastic, shrink-wrapped, and professionally mass- > marketed. Its market value is protected by litigation. Concert tickets > are sold by anonymous corporations, and concert tours are managed by > professional tour managers. > > To what extent is this industrialization of music a modern phenomenon? > Would typical people and lutenists of the lute age (1500-1700) have been > confounded by a world where "music is something which made and sold by > strangers"? > > ===== web: http://www.christopherschaub.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
