Income in Classical Music and Jazz (Britain)

[Caliban]

The nub of the problem here is that there are far too many people outside the profession who are prepared to harbour doubts as to whether it should even be necessary for composers to make a living from composition, which strikes me as all the more odd because some of those people who hold this bizarre view would not necessarily hold the same view about authors, poets, playwrights et al.

A mordant take on this, from a friend of mine who's giving the Japanese première tomorrow of Corigliano's Violin Concerto with the composer in tow - when they arrived for rehearsals (in which Corigliano was to participate to work with the orchestra) they discovered there was no dressing room for him. Prompting this comment:

"Figures. I'm a composer - I'm supposed to be dead."

[JohnSkelton]

A mordant take on this, from a friend of mine who's giving the Japanese première tomorrow of Corigliano's Violin Concerto with the composer in tow - when they arrived for rehearsals (in which Corigliano was to participate to work with the orchestra) they discovered there was no dressing room for him. Prompting this comment:

"Figures. I'm a composer - I'm supposed to be dead."

I don't understand - why does Corigliano need a dressing room?

(He could always get one of his representatives on the case http://www.johncorigliano.com/index.php?p=item8 )

[Panjandrum]

I don't understand - why does Corigliano need a dressing room?

Give the man a coffee. Obviously a bit slow on the uptake this morning.

[JohnSkelton]

Give the man a coffee. Obviously a bit slow on the uptake this morning.

Piss off.

[scottycelt]

There is some research I read (I think it was commissioned by the Philharmonia ?) into this (i'll see if I can find it later)
that (IMV sadly) showed that most of their audience chose to go to concerts because of
1: The Soloist
2: The conductor
3: The Orchestra
and in a poor 4th
4: The music

which I guess only shows how "celebrity culture" is well and truly alive in classical music as well as other genres

I'm a bit reluctant, especially early in the morning before breakfast, to try and figuratively rub shoulders with the many professional musicians around here, but aren't the first three rather essential parts of hearing the music in the first place?

Many people may know the music backwards but are keen to hear it performed by celebrated soloists, conductors and orchestras.

In exactly the same way as the presence of Lionel Messi might attract me to go and watch a football match that I might otherwise not attend? That does not mean that I consider Messi to be bigger than the game of football itself.

I don't see what's particularly 'sad' about seeking out superior performance if 'celebrities' can provide exactly that?

[salymap]

I quite agree scottycelt. After a lifetime of musical memories, inevitably it's the great performers playing or singing great music that remain with me. Though I remember many lesser musicians too, of course.

[ahinton]

I doubt 'piracy' much affects Mode's sales either way (that's just a hunch, based on the specialist nature of their catalogue).

You'd be surprisedd (possibly); you should see what's happened to some of the Altarus catalogue, which is pretty much as "specialist" as that of Mode.

Individually, uploading a disc for someone might mean one other copy doesn't get sold, but that's not very different from lending someone a book which they might have bought otherwise (the recipient might burn a copy to CD, but otherwise it's the same effect). Do you think people should be prohibited from lending books unless the lending goes through a library system?

Of course not, but that's rather a different matter from buying (or more likely borrowing) a copy of a CD and uploading it so that anyone else who wants it can get it for free; the point is that people who do this don't usually give a stuff about the record company or the efforts, time and money that it put into making the recording in the first place because they porioritise their assumed divine right to have it all for free. Music's "free", you see; it doesn't cost anything. That's an attitude that I've encountered on enough occasions to convince me that some people do genuinely have it.

"Why would that necessarily be the case in all instances or even the majority thereof?" Because most contemporary classical music isn't widely performed / listened to. And doesn't get many performances / more than one recording. At least being on YouTube there's a chance someone may discover / rediscover something.

But if obsessive Youtubing affects sales of small record companies' products sufficiently, some of those enterprising companies may risk going out of business, so at least one source of recorded contemporary "classical" music may dry up as a consequence; is that a good idea?

No it's not a good idea for the composer or whatever (a good idea stacking supermarket shelves instead of doing what they want to do). But that's just possibly the case with a lot of people who aren't composers or whatever. They'd rather do different things in their lives. You mean is it a good idea from the point of their creative work? I suppose it might be, indirectly, in that it might get them out of the house experiencing non-music things. If it isn't, and you are suggesting a terrible quantity of unwritten masterpieces will result ... that's life. Unless you are seriously claiming that if composers got their dues via copyright etc. all would be well, what do you want? Composition to be publicly funded? "there'd be no guarantees of its long-term sustainability or even its short-term survival even if one did so ...." etc.

Almost all "classical" music activity needs funding from all sources from which it can get it - not just public funding but trusts, corporate and private sponsorship; it's a profession that is and will almost certainly always be heavily dependent upon philanthropy of one kind or another.

I'm not suggesting that composers should never do anything else but compose, of course, but that's a rather different matter to them having to spend a lot of their time doing other things purely in order to make ends meet rather than as a matter of choice, especially insofar as that might risk conveying the impression to some people that this is the way that it should be - in other words, there's no reasonable expectation that composers derive an income from their composition and no need for them to do so - the music should be "free", you see.

Yes, of course all sorts of people find themselves having to do things for a living that they'd rather not do, but not so very many of them do it purely in order that they can try to subsidise another full-time occupation that's paying them next to nothing. I'm not suggesting anything about "a terrible quantity of unwritten masterpieces" being lost to us because too many composers can't afford to compose; what I have suggested, however, is that, if composers usually did indeed receive their fair share of performance, broadcast and recording royalties, matters would be somewhat better for them than they are now (which is hardly the same as claiming that "all would be well" for them).

Composition, like all other "classical" music activity, needs funding from as many sources as possible at all times, because a composer is not going to write an orchestral piece and generate a profit from it any more than the orchestras that perform it or the record companies that record it or the organisations that broadcast it will expect to do so; that no more means that none of these things should be done than it means that composers should do their stuff for free or for next to nothing.

Of course Youtube and the like can help people to discover things, but the stuff that's up there doesn't get there for free and if its presence doesn't result in some more sales then those who were involved in the material that's put there will likely suffer financially as a result.

And please don't tell us that it will be different in a socialist society (whether with tongue in cheek or otherwise), because there's scant evidence for that!

[JohnSkelton]

One thing I do know is that if there were an award for the most solipsistic whingers on earth people involved in classical music would win by such a distance that there wouldn't be any point saying who came second. Because classical music people would undoubtedly find a sub-category all their very own to come second to themselves in.

All the internet petitions about orchestras or ensembles in danger of merger or closure (I've signed plenty of them myself; I've even been guilty here of publicising one of them). And never is there the slightest hint that the petitioners see themselves as part of a wider issue: never do they link what they are asking for with a more general anti-cuts movement. Oh dearie me no. Because, of course, they are a special case; classical music is an ineffable, universal, language, and like the art they practice their concerns float high and noble above politics. All this despite the fact that classical music except at the absolute commercial margins or where it's so swanky that the super-rich can be persuaded to stump up is dependent on public subsidy - a public who, by and large, would need paying to listen to the stuff.

You keep telling anyone who however tentatively suggests different that significant alternatives to the present state of social and economic affairs are unsustainable, or you don't see how they could be effected: well, file sharing is here to stay, YouTube is here to stay, and small classical music labels or composers who don't have a media profile like Philip Glass simply don't have the resources to prevent piracy (if that's what you want to call it). So unless they find some way of using piracy as an adjunct to getting a few more people interested in what they do, it's just one of those things in a no-alternative world and tough luck.

[amateur51]

Piss off.

You wouldn't believe how many times I've typed that and then discarded it, JS - bravo!

[Hornspieler]

You'd be surprisedd (possibly); you should see what's happened to some of the Altarus catalogue, which is pretty much as "specialist" as that of Mode.


Of course not, but that's rather a different matter from buying (or more likely borrowing) a copy of a CD and uploading it so that anyone else who wants it can get it for free; the point is that people who do this don't usually give a stuff about the record company or the efforts, time and money that it put into making the recording in the first place because they porioritise their assumed divine right to have it all for free. Music's "free", you see; it doesn't cost anything. That's an attitude that I've encountered on enough occasions to convince me that some people do genuinely have it.


But if obsessive Youtubing affects sales of small record companies' products sufficiently, some of those enterprising companies may risk going out of business, so at least one source of recorded contemporary "classical" music may dry up as a consequence; is that a good idea?


Almost all "classical" music activity needs funding from all sources from which it can get it - not just public funding but trusts, corporate and private sponsorship; it's a profession that is and will almost certainly always be heavily dependent upon philanthropy of one kind or another.

I'm not suggesting that composers should never do anything else but compose, of course, but that's a rather different matter to them having to spend a lot of their time doing other things purely in order to make ends meet rather than as a matter of choice, especially insofar as that might risk conveying the impression to some people that this is the way that it should be - in other words, there's no reasonable expectation that composers derive an income from their composition and no need for them to do so - the music should be "free", you see.

Yes, of course all sorts of people find themselves having to do things for a living that they'd rather not do, but not so very many of them do it purely in order that they can try to subsidise another full-time occupation that's paying them next to nothing. I'm not suggesting anything about "a terrible quantity of unwritten masterpieces" being lost to us because too many composers can't afford to compose; what I have suggested, however, is that, if composers usually did indeed receive their fair share of performance, broadcast and recording royalties, matters would be somewhat better for them than they are now (which is hardly the same as claiming that "all would be well" for them).

Composition, like all other "classical" music activity, needs funding from as many sources as possible at all times, because a composer is not going to write an orchestral piece and generate a profit from it any more than the orchestras that perform it or the record companies that record it or the organisations that broadcast it will expect to do so; that no more means that none of these things should be done than it means that composers should do their stuff for free or for next to nothing.

Of course Youtube and the like can help people to discover things, but the stuff that's up there doesn't get there for free and if its presence doesn't result in some more sales then those who were involved in the material that's put there will likely suffer financially as a result.

And please don't tell us that it will be different in a socialist society (whether with tongue in cheek or otherwise), because there's scant evidence for that!

It would appear that the John Skellton/ahinton duologue is back with us on the boards again.

So I, for one, will seek other threads to join in on discussions which do not degenerate into pointless (but point-scoring) arguments.

HS