|
estebanana -> RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemporary, Creative Works of Music? Literature? Art? (Sep. 19 2015 0:30:21)
|
quote:
Stephen,
I agree that making flamenco guitars is not the way to riches. And thank you for answering, but I don't quite believe that your output would be the same if you working only as an amateur (that is, "for the love", not a deprecation). You would not have the benefit of $3.5K/piece coming in to support your habit; you would have to do some other work to do that. So you might have to sink what, $500+ in each instrument instead of actually making a profit on each instrument that you could use to buy food, rent, etc. By the way, I do not doubt that you would do that, but I assume that you would do it less. Maybe the instruments that you made would be better, even if they didn't sound like Sergio Assad's CD. The reason I suggested this analogy is because the past masters also worked for money. Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn (the big three of classical music) composed on commission or through patronage. There is no evidence that they would have wanted to, or been able to, leave their amazing legacy to us without compensation for the works they created. The current scene for classical music is very different from Vienna at that time--an understatement. Here in America, the symphony halls are where symphonies are played; the repertoire is half pops and half or more earmarked for the past masters. There is very little space for a contemporary composer to have his work played. Of course, this is only one factor among many, and probably not the main one.
You think I over-emphasize economics, but it is a part of the deal. None of us chose this path to get rich.
I think most of the newer "classical' work is not being playing in big venues or symphonic halls. Really it's been my personal observation that major symphony orchestras are having economic problems, but that they are toughing through them.
Newer music (and old) also seems to be presented more in chamber groups and smaller ensembles/ The larger symphony groups are more difficult to sustain today and I think the venue model is changing to smaller groups, which can be self managed by the musicians in the group.
As for making 3.5 K on a guitar? Yes, that is often what I receive as a fee just because I'm not a top dollar blue chip name. Realistically speaking $3500.00 US was the price of a hand made good guitar in about 1996! The market based on 3.5 K per guitar is 20 years ago!
I remember guys 20 years ago getting $5000.00 or $6000.00 and still having head room in the market for higher prices.
Artists, writers, painters, guitar makers ect, all have a fast climb up in the beginning. If you work hard you can get a lot accomplished in the first five years, ten years, you gain a massive amount of skill and knowledge. Then typically an artist hits a plateau where they can often sit, on very high and accomplished ground, but the upward movement is far more difficult for this accomplished place.
What does it take to move into better work and higher fees from an already accomplished place? This is the most difficult part of creativity and an arts based living. A musician or artist can reach a high level fast with the right help and hard work, but the first plateau is easier to breach than the third or fourth. The last steps up hill are far more difficult.
We seem to be at loggerheads over whether or not the old masters suppress new works, or by extension of the argument economic conditions fortify that suppression.
I say straight up from personal experience none of that matters,(not one tiny bit) because it's never an end game of artist/craftsperson vs. the past masters or artists vs. bad economy. Once you reach a high level of accomplishment in writing, art, craft the old masters are less important, they remain in mind of course, but at the level where you are a master yourself on a high plateau and trying to move beyond your present level, the only thing on your way is yourself.
It is you vs. you. Economics and old masters mean less and less as you progress to higher levels of accomplishment, you are only giving the challenge to yourself. At that point I think artists look to the old masters as guides who have navigated those tricky waters. The old masters instead of being towers that make you cast doubt on yourself actually become more familiar and perhaps even people you identify with. The reason you identify with the the great artists is because you recognize in them people who pushed themselves up onto a higher plateau of work.
Rather than see the negative and feel suppressed, I choose to see the old masters, in what ever art form I'm looking at, as people who I feel close to; As I know they knew the loneliness of the isolation while you work and how much work it it takes to push yourself into higher accomplishment levels. The old masters are role models to me- if Beethoven pushed himself, if Picasso pushed himself, if Linda Manzer pushed herself, then dammit so can I!
I think if is were possible to have a seance' with Stravinsky or Mozart and we complained to them that they are suppressing new works, they would laugh and call us pussies.
|
|
|
|
