Making a Living ...at Least?

[Elephone]

I realised the other day that, although I know some quite popular musicians in the North West England (a variety of styles similar to stuff you'd hear on Stuart Maconie's Freak Zone) I don't know anyone who is making their main income from their music. They all have a main job to support them.

Now, is this just the way it has to be nowadays? Is there no sure way to make a proper living? I suppose one way is to get your music used in documentaries, TV ads or in a film perhaps?

I sometimes listen to Radio 3s 'Hear & Now', which plays contemporary music by composers who simply sound more intellectual when talking about their music, which is otherwise just as 'freaky' as the music in my local music scenes, except a lot of it is following in the footsteps of e.g. Stockhausen's orchestral music.

But some of it is electronic, with radios, effects, loops, etc. It seems they get taken much more seriously than music of other 'scenes' even though it's no more imaginative or structured. These composers have regular commissions and probably live comfortably from that.

How do you think they pull it off? I don't think it's just a case of being better. Does their educational background play a part? Do they get researched before being taken seriously?

Is it just luck, like it is for many contempory visual artists? Would it be best just to conduct a big bullsh1t game, and start staring weirdly at people and fake some obsessive features?

Seriously, I don't think they have anything intimidating over people I know personally, so what is it? Do they just go down some more formal avenues?

[johnny h]

Its quite simple really. If you want to make money you have to have something to sell. If you are a popular musician you can sell music, live performances, merchandise and licensing. If nobody knows you, nobody will buy or come to see you or invite you onto radio shows or buy your tshirts or even be aware of your music enough to consider licensing.

Essentially if you start with good music it makes it easier. Managers want to manage you, labels want to invest in you, people who hear your stuff will want to hear more. But its really just the start of a long road and these days its pretty devoid of gold for quite some time.

[CS70]

Randomness ("luck") plays an huge role in almost everything (starting from where we are born , and there are a number of well studied phenomena on the subject - from the survivor bias to the fact that when successful at anything, people will convince themselves that success is due to their own abilities or strategies more than other factors (like context, or initial conditions) even when these objectively have had a much higher impact. This is not to say it's all due to luck or initial conditions - even if in individual cases it well may be, but in most cases you need a bit of both.

There are a number of strategies to deal with that: work on the boundary conditions more than on the product (e.g. networking with music people), play the numbers game (it's expensive, but major labels have done it for years), find a way to capitalize on unexpected failures (hard for music I guess, but then the recent "fox" song is admittedly an unexpected side-effect of something else) and so on. Having a minimally decent product is slightly necessary, but there can be cases where it's an optional. And randomness goes all ways, so you never know - in a very concrete probabilistic sense.

In your case, I guess "being quite popular in North West England" is probably still too small a volume to win at the numbers game - compare the size of NWE with the size of all potential music buyers/concertgoes in the world and you get an idea on which critical mass would be necessary. I'd guess one has to have at least popular at national level, and consistently so, to live off the music.

[Elephone]

Its quite simple really. If you want to make money you have to have something to sell. If you are a popular musician you can sell music, live performances, merchandise and licensing. If nobody knows you, nobody will buy or come to see you or invite you onto radio shows or buy your tshirts or even be aware of your music enough to consider licensing.

Essentially if you start with good music it makes it easier. Managers want to manage you, labels want to invest in you, people who hear your stuff will want to hear more. But its really just the start of a long road and these days its pretty devoid of gold for quite some time.

But these people (the formal composers) are not popular. They seem to get commissions.. from who I don't know. I suppose I should try to find out, but I don't get how that works. It must be performances so everything has to have a live element. Who commissions Boulez to write music most people hate?

[Elephone]

Well... just doing this as I'm posting... not being lazy as such.

I just read that Boulez got a commission "by WDR and LUCERNE FESTIVAL with support from Pro Helvetia" ...Swiss Arts Council.

So they get commissioned by government bodies???

I suppose you have to get deep into it yourself, or get an high class agent who combs every arts journal, composer journal, etc, then targets specific organisations. It's a game and you probably have to construct a very narrow, safe identity.

[Scramble]

The "formal composers" all live off Uncle Sucker (ie. the taxpayer). And a lot of that is about having the right academic background, knowing the right people, and knowing how to write grant applications that say the right sort of thing.

[Elephone]

Well... I'm not that opposed to it in principle. I mean weren't the old masters commissioned by Kings, Emperors, Churches, etc?

It's just, I didn't realise that's how it worked and that such 'art music' would otherwise vanish into thin air. I suppose public funded media giants like the BBC are also in this loop, and do they make money from live audiences or is that free to public?

Do arts councils aim to make money too, or is it all done in service of cultural development?

I'm more than naive about such things.

[Scramble]

>Do arts councils aim to make money too

Surely no-one is that naive?

(Of course, some things Arts Councils do may involve money coming in, but overall they spend vastly more than any money that ever comes in).

[Elephone]

>Do arts councils aim to make money too

Surely no-one is that naive?

(Of course, some things Arts Councils do may involve money coming in, but overall they spend vastly more than any money that ever comes in).

I am, to the point I actually first thought you meant they do it mainly to make money.

Well, it's strange that 'cultured music' is often considered to be stuff that most people hate and have to be force-fed for their own good. I'm not saying that it's entirely not true that people do need to be asked to listen, just that it is (or may be) so.

[damoore]

The other standby is teaching. A lot of "formal composers" teach - composition is then a form of publishing, similar to a scientist publishing a paper in a well regarded journal. There is a lot of competition for the latter and presumably for the former (where publishing is getting performed, of course)

[OneWorld]

I realised the other day that, although I know some quite popular musicians in the North West England (a variety of styles similar to stuff you'd hear on Stuart Maconie's Freak Zone) I don't know anyone who is making their main income from their music. They all have a main job to support them.

Now, is this just the way it has to be nowadays? Is there no sure way to make a proper living? I suppose one way is to get your music used in documentaries, TV ads or in a film perhaps?

I sometimes listen to Radio 3s 'Hear & Now', which plays contemporary music by composers who simply sound more intellectual when talking about their music, which is otherwise just as 'freaky' as the music in my local music scenes, except a lot of it is following in the footsteps of e.g. Stockhausen's orchestral music.

But some of it is electronic, with radios, effects, loops, etc. It seems they get taken much more seriously than music of other 'scenes' even though it's no more imaginative or structured. These composers have regular commissions and probably live comfortably from that.

How do you think they pull it off? I don't think it's just a case of being better. Does their educational background play a part? Do they get researched before being taken seriously?

Is it just luck, like it is for many contempory visual artists? Would it be best just to conduct a big bullsh1t game, and start staring weirdly at people and fake some obsessive features?

Seriously, I don't think they have anything intimidating over people I know personally, so what is it? Do they just go down some more formal avenues?

Same as it ever was, they have friends that have friends.

I listen to that same programme and sometimes I have difficulty differenting between music and noise. And some of the musicians are hallowed, just for going crap bang wallop, sounds like Chinese opera played at half speed?

[Frisonic]

Who commissions Boulez to write music most people hate?

French cultural budgets/State owned television, that sort of thing? All to promote the 'culture exceptional'? Anyway, I expect he makes most of his actual dosh conducting. I doubt much of it comes from record sales and certainly very little from outside France, his international reputation notwithstanding.

[blue manga]

Same as it ever was, they have friends that have friends.

contacts and friends ... relationships ARE important.. but in my experience - they are nothing without the ability to deliver.

Not once - but time after time.

If ypu are talking about commissioned work - how many times do you think a commissioner will be willing to throw good money at you - if you don't deliver what the client wants ?

All the people I know who have reached a level of success as composer / producers where they are making a decent income - do it with HARD WORK, talent, persistence .. the usual things.. and indeed they have their network and their relationships...

but no one can just rely on friends... some people are lucky enough to get more chances that way... but it will only go so far.

Also, in my experience, again - *usually - a 'successful' person (with regards financial / career success) - has failed many many many more times than a 'failure' (again with regards to financial / career)

[hollowsun]

Now, is this just the way it has to be nowadays?

Nowadays? It's been ever thus but then we had some blip where musos could make a (sometimes not insubstantial) living out of music. But traditionally, musos and composers had other jobs by day, and played by night. Even Bach had to supplement his income with teaching and other stuff (but then he did have 12 children to support though!). Mozart died a pauper! A lot of the classical composers we revere today struggled in their lifetime and if it weren't for the church funding sacred music or royalty/aristocracy paying them to write for their dances and balls, they'd have had bugger all!

Performing musos might typically have been making pottery, tilling fields, grooming horses, mining coal, whatever, in the day to pay the bills ... and then they'd gig. You might have been able to make a living as a troubadour, whatever, but traditionally, most people have had music as an 'activity' rather than a 'career'.

But, as I say, we had this blip where people could make a fortune just from writing a popular song, at first through manuscript sales but then, of course, big time, through airplay royalties - Gerry Rafferty was estimated to have earned £80k a year just from 'Baker Street' alone and Noddy Holder's whole year's salary is catered for by "Merry Xmas Everybody" ("It's CHRIIIIIISTmas") every year ... as is Roy Wood's with "I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day" ... and so on.

But don't forget that The Beatles gigged relentlessly in Hamburg and the UK before they hit the big time. My fave old band, Genesis, ran at a loss for a decade or so. Many bands did BUT the labels stuck with them. Genesis were gigging endlessly ... 10 months in every year or so (why Gabriel left and it cost Collins his marriage).

Queen's first album was (initially) a flop BUT...

EMI stuck with them. It was a different era. BUT...

In the initial years, Freddie and the crew were earning bugger all, were paid a pittance, gigging relentlessly, living together in some small digs. But they had drive and determination and inordinate talent and ability and eventually 'made it'. And there's an irony there...

Genesis made complex music that some people 'got' but most didn't and got so far in terms of success (mostly in debt) but it was some trite and quirky single ("I know what I like") that helped elevate them. A nice and eccentric (and kind of quintessentially 'English') track (kind of) did it for them. Queen's was probably 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and Floyd's was 'Another brick in the wall' I guess. All of them had their hardcore followers but those singles turned their fortunes ... and it only took a decade or so for those to become an overnight success!

Of course, it's all changed now - you can sell a few thousand records and, with the right contacts, be #1 - back then, you could sell several hundred thousand records or more ... or a million or more ... and get as high as, say, #13. The charts today are cock (but then, they alway have been and in no way a measure of 'quality').

Is there no sure way to make a proper living? I suppose one way is to get your music used in documentaries, TV ads or in a film perhaps?

There are many more opportunities these days to make a living out of 'the music business' than ever and it IS possible to make a living from this biz but it can be - and is - bloody hard work. You can do it two ways - be versatile who can turn your hand (skilfully) to anything or to specialise. Being in band, though? Tough ...

But it always was and has been.

I sometimes listen to Radio 3s 'Hear & Now', which plays contemporary music by composers who simply sound more intellectual when talking about their music

If you have to explain and talk about the drivel you've made, you're missing the point (IMO). We get this with the annual Turner prize thing ... often charlatan pseudo junk backed up with pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

These composers have regular commissions and probably live comfortably from that.

You'll probably find they supplement their income with other activities - lecturing, teaching, conducting. Harrison Bertwhistle used to compose in his spare time while working as a clark in an asbestos (??) company. Personally, as much as I am open to modern, abstract stuff, I'd have preferred it if he stuck with the asbestos company!

Does their educational background play a part?

Possibly. All that stuff appeals to some people. Doesn't wash with me - do I like what I hear? YES/NO. Simples!

Is it just luck, like it is for many contempory visual artists? Would it be best just to conduct a big bullsh1t game, and start staring weirdly at people and fake some obsessive features?

There is a lot of horsesh!t and con in all of this ... like visual (ahem) 'artists' such as Tracy Emin et al ... and luck ... right place right time, whatever.

Seriously, I don't think they have anything intimidating over people I know personally, so what is it? Do they just go down some more formal avenues?

There is a certain level of pretentiousness and more than a hint of "The Emperor's New Clothes" about some, even a lot of, stuff. There's the old adage...

"Have you heard any Stockhausen?"

"No ... but I think I stepped in some once"

There's also a lot of pseudo intellectualism about stuff like this ... that if it's atonal, 'plinky plunky', hard to understand by most people, then it must (in some pseud circles) somehow be good and more 'worthy' than something that has a good melody and crafted arrangement ("Oh ... that is just so cliché and old fashioned" say the pseuds with a serious look on their faces and maybe a furrowed brow perhaps... "THIS is a pioneering work. What are your thoughts on this, Jolyon?")!

I must admit to liking some modern 'classical' stuff, a lot of it even but dear gawd, there's a lot of utter and abject pretentious arse gravy about it - deep and meaningless. I suppose it kind of depends on how well the composer 'sells' it. My daughter has played her fair share of 'new commissions' in various orchestras and most of it would fail a GCSE music exam ... miserably ... but what surrounds it is a ton of pretentious pseudo bollocks which kind of, it seems, justifies it ... and the pseuds use such words as 'adventurous', 'challenging' and so on.

She did a tour of Germany with one of her orchestras in the summer with two 'new commissions' (and more mainstream - but heavy - stuff ... but two 'new commissions' in amongst them). It has to be said that the Germans were more open to this stuff than here (her tour there was sold out at every venue, pretty much ... tumbleweed here when they toured it) but even so. But whenever she's played 'new commissions', the composer has typically been in tow to explain it. As I say, if you have to 'explain' it, plot lost - Bach never had to 'explain' the Brandenburgs, neither did Ravel take centre stage to 'explain' Daphnis & Chloe (mind you, people did walk out when Stravinsky's 'Rite Of Spring' was debuted ... and didn't people walk out when Mozart introduced the clarinet to the orchestra?!).

And it kind of gets me that some (well ... here ... not so much in Europe) orchestras complain they don't have audiences - well perhaps if they played stuff people actually wanted to listen to instead of 'challenging' pseud music, maybe they could get bums on seats. Not that I am advocating the bland Classic FM approach - we need to move forward compositionally - and I can only take so much Delibes and 'Eine Kleine Nachtmusic' (*) but there is (IMO) a lot bollocks involved as well with modern stuff. It's why Classic FM is more popular than the more, shall we say, 'worthy' Radio 3.

(*) For all their advertising revenue, Classic FM must be pretty skint - they must only have a dozen albums in total because when ever I tune in, it's the same old stuff over and over again - you can hear 'Flight Of The Valkyries' (for example) a few times every day!!

[hollowsun]

contacts and friends ... relationships ARE important.. but in my experience - they are nothing without the ability to deliver.

Not once - but time after time.

If ypu are talking about commissioned work - how many times do you think a commissioner will be willing to throw good money at you - if you don't deliver what the client wants ?

All the people I know who have reached a level of success as composer / producers where they are making a decent income - do it with HARD WORK, talent, persistence .. the usual things.. and indeed they have their network and their relationships...

but no one can just rely on friends... some people are lucky enough to get more chances that way... but it will only go so far.

Also, in my experience, again - *usually - a 'successful' person (with regards financial / career success) - has failed many many many more times than a 'failure' (again with regards to financial / career)

^^^ That. Says it all.

[Scramble]

Nowadays? It's been ever thus but then we had some blip where musos could make a (sometimes not insubstantial) living out of music. But traditionally, musos and composers had other jobs by day, and played by night. Even Bach had to supplement his income with teaching and other stuff (but then he did have 12 children to support though!). Mozart died a pauper! A lot of the classical composers we revere today struggled in their lifetime and if it weren't for the church funding sacred music or royalty/aristocracy paying them to write for their dances and balls, they'd have had bugger all!

Performing musos might typically have been making pottery, tilling fields, grooming horses, mining coal, whatever, in the day to pay the bills ... and then they'd gig. You might have been able to make a living as a troubadour, whatever, but traditionally, most people have had music as an 'activity' rather than a 'career'.

There's some truth in what you say, HS, but I think you're overstating it a bit. Sure there was a blip from the late sixties til the late eighties where musicians were rolling in clover, and the indulgence of so many musicians at that level is unlikely to ever be repeated, and that should not be the yardstick used by any wannabee pro. But nonetheless there has been a steady increase in the amount of people who can make a full-time living from music over the centuries. As you've intimated, there were few full-time musicians in the 17th and 18th centuries, and hardly any who spent their time making their own music. Compare that to now where are... well, numbers are hard to estimate, but there must be at least tens of thousands of musicians around the world who make a (non-subsidized) living from music, and a significant proportion of those do so making their own music, or at least doing music they enjoy. So while the unsustainable business practises of 1982 are never coming back, the modern world is a better place to be a musician than it used to be when looked at from that perspective. (Your own company is an prime example of that -- nobody got paid for doing nothing but making strange noises in 1735.)

But the problem is that the modern music world is incredibly competitive, which is hardly a surprise as the legendary gravy train of the 70's and 80's made music a very glamorous and (apparently) desirable place to be, and also it's a lot easier to be (or call yourself) a musician these days than it used to be. So while there are still lots of opportunities to make your living in music these days, it's become a dog-eat-dog world with an awful lot of people chasing a small number of prizes. Also, for talented creatives there are a lot of other opportunities in the modern world too, and the average career in music (eg. playing in a touring band) can look small beer compared to the money they can make working for, say, an advertising agency.

[Guest]

Same as it ever was, they have friends that have friends.

contacts and friends ... relationships ARE important.. but in my experience - they are nothing without the ability to deliver.

Not once - but time after time.

If ypu are talking about commissioned work - how many times do you think a commissioner will be willing to throw good money at you - if you don't deliver what the client wants ?

All the people I know who have reached a level of success as composer / producers where they are making a decent income - do it with HARD WORK, talent, persistence .. the usual things.. and indeed they have their network and their relationships...

but no one can just rely on friends... some people are lucky enough to get more chances that way... but it will only go so far.

Also, in my experience, again - *usually - a 'successful' person (with regards financial / career success) - has failed many many many more times than a 'failure' (again with regards to financial / career)

+100

What I think is a tad surprising is how many peeps is actually making a decent living from music. I mean, at one time I thought it would be impossible but it seems there are some areas which are thriving. I think there are alot of opportunities now but there's alot of peeps fighting for those tasty bits of the pie.

[Frisonic]

Harrison Bertwhistle used to compose in his spare time while working as a clark in an asbestos (??) company. Personally, as much as I am open to modern, abstract stuff, I'd have preferred it if he stuck with the asbestos company!

I have to agree. Pseudo academics dishing out publicly funded commissions again. You mentioned (HS) that however hard you try, you struggle with atonality. Again I have to agree. Yet for me it was in the 50s and in jazz rather than 'classical' composition where the potential to bring atonality into the written parts of the scores was explored with great success. And it wasn't by going atonal, or never for more than a moment or two. Rather just exploring the bitter sweet cusp between tonal and atonal music, which to large audiences became very exciting (for a while). I'm thinking of the music being pioneered by people like Charlie Mingus and Thelonious Monk, neither of whom got a cent in public arts budget. Then the idea got taken up by people like Eric Dolphy and the Art Ensamble of Chicago, at more or less the same time as Birtwhistle. They all made the same mistakes and over egged their puddings. It never made any money because it sounds horrid and people, no matter how much they desire to have their intellects and emotions stimulated, do not wish to be exposed to it!

Back to pop (I call it pop - perhaps that's too trite a word for it but the whole point was to be popular yet still make intelligent music). Along comes the 70s and along comes Steely Dan. They got that they wanted to write intelligent music but still attract audiences. They were hanging around and working in the Brill Building as young pups, which much have been like a University education at the time. They loved the jazz and the Bebop they were listening to from the 50s and they figured they could borrow some of those ideas and mix them up with a lot of Soul, a little Blues and goodly dollop of R&B (when it meant Rhythm and Blues, not Rubbish and Bo**ocks as it sadly does today) and come up with something that bridged the divide and also fit fairly well into this new thing called Rock music (which it wasn't). Maybe even throw in the faintest hint of atonality here and there to keep audiences teased. They soon discovered that with the most judicious use atonality works again, like it did for Mingus and Monk (and of course countless composers before them who never made a dash of atonality a big deal). And they never had to explain anything about the music to anybody. Their formula for their soundscape just worked.

Again, no public money was spent putting Steely Dan on the musical map. But they did have the benefit of the crest of that blip you mentioned in the fortunes of musicians (the fifty years or so when people bought records and before that when radio was new and people still had pianos they were able to play at home and wanted to buy scores for what they heard on the radio and in the dance halls). That wave has already broken and is now nothing more than a few puddles scattered about the beach. Nice had that golden era coincided with one's lifecycle! If you can't say it did then you're already born too late.

What I'm trying to say is that to my mind atonality has been one of the biggest 'new' ideas in music over the last fifty or sixty years. Yet it has failed to win hearts and only a very few minds (basically it isn't groovy enough). It had to be explained therefore (as you said, HS) it was failing to do its primary job. It only ever gets written as an academic exercise and generally commissioned by academics themselves. Its like garlic. A little will bring all the flavours in the pot together. Too much and it becomes unpalatable. I think its also worth reminding ourselves how few people are really involved in these great musical moments, and in atonality it happened during a time when there was an unprecedented amount of money about. Even then, only really a few dozen players and everybody else (the hundreds and thousands) just mimicking.

But Making a living?... That implies 'comfortable'. Which implies 'bland'. Which is probabaly where the money is to be found, if indeed there is any out there. Nice and safe

[Daniel Davis]

Who commissions Boulez to write music most people hate?

I suppose I should point out that Boulez is one of the greatest musical thoreticians and teachers alive, that he played a massive part in the Avant Garde, and produced some groundbreaking music in the second half of the 20th century - I don't think he IS receiving much in the way of commissions today. He mostly earns his money as a conductor.

As for most people hating his music (or any contemporary music for that matter) I should also point out that contemporary music has a larger audience than at any point in history. Mass market it isn't, but neither was Mozart in his day.

[blue manga]

But Making a living?... That implies 'comfortable'. Which implies 'bland'. Which is probabaly where the money is to be found, if indeed there is any out there. Nice and safe

There's a big difference between *functionality and *safety.

Music doesn't need to be safe to earn money - it needs commercial functionality.

that *could be safe and middle of the road - not offending anyone etc... but it also *could be dangerous, daring, shocking etc... or really anywhere in between.

There is no necessity to position yourself making 'bland' music, as you call it, in order to make good money.

- better to create GREAT music. That's really where the money is.

- and not just one track either. Try writing 100 GREAT tracks. Get them with a GREAT publisher (for instance. Publishing is only one route)
- that would be better than writing 1000 bland tracks, which no publisher & no one will want and will earn you something close to nothing.

[Frisonic]

There is no necessity to position yourself making 'bland' music, as you call it, in order to make good money.

Well I hope so! I just see so little evidence of it.

[Frisonic]

Boulez... mostly earns his money as a conductor.

Exactly what I said. Full house every night too.

[Elephone]

I suppose I should point out that Boulez is one of the greatest musical thoreticians and teachers alive, that he played a massive part in the Avant Garde, and produced some groundbreaking music in the second half of the 20th century...

Mmmm, not disputing that personally, but who decided he's 'groundbreaking' really? He has been largely funded by public money, on the decision of an government elected commitee(?). This is comparible enough to someone living on the dole in 90s composing (then) never-before-heard Drum 'n' Bass music in a bedsit with the support of (probably a larger number of) connoisseurs who actually make judgements on what they're hearing rather than intellectual projections.

The best measure seems to be standing the test of time, in which case it's hard to knock the old masters and recorded music from very different eras that still has something.

As for most people hating his music (or any contemporary music for that matter) I should also point out that contemporary music has a larger audience than at any point in history.

Well, that's one of those arguments that has more to do with population growth and change in accessibility to free or cheap concerts for different classes. I mean, on a worldwide scale, women are as tall as men (e.g. because Chinese men are short and Russian women are tall). There are more trees than at any time in history (how many are mere shoots?). It's never that straightforward is it?

Mass market it isn't, but neither was Mozart in his day.

Mozart died a pauper!

Towards the end, Mozart the freelancer was on the equivalent of an estimated £100,000 - £150,000 a year... though he had accumilated debts in the process. Not rich, but certainly no pauper. He was looking to be a pretty successful freelance composer, organising his own concerts, getting his own flyers and tickets printed. Commoners and aristocracy whistled his tunes in the street, his music was arranged for all kinds of occasions, even adapted into cockney drinking songs! He was perhaps just a bit crap with money ...though I take your general points!

But, as I say, we had this blip where people could make a fortune just from writing a popular song, at first through manuscript sales but then, of course, big time, through airplay royalties - Gerry Rafferty was estimated to have earned £80k a year just from 'Baker Street' alone and Noddy Holder's whole year's salary is catered for by "Merry Xmas Everybody" ("It's CHRIIIIIISTmas") every year ... as is Roy Wood's with "I Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day" ... and so on.

Yes those days are gone. Was 'crazy frog' was the last real craze? Well... actually musicals are pretty lucrative... though usually terrible.

There is no necessity to position yourself making 'bland' music, as you call it, in order to make good money.

- better to create GREAT music. That's really where the money is.

What money? Where? How often does GREAT music make more money than bland music? Tell that to Coldplay (or writers of most musicals).

[hollowsun]

Well... actually musicals are pretty lucrative... though usually terrible.

In your opinion. They are not my cup of Dorothy but they are very popular and the people involved can actually play and sing ... which is more than can be said for other genres.

or writers of most musicals.

Hmmm ... not sure I'd dismiss the likes of Rogers and Hammerstein or Gershwin, etc., so glibly. Lloyd Webber and Rice maybe ... although one cannot deny the popularity of the stuff they've done.

But does this not cut to the gist of your post - popularity vs 'worthy' or 'clever' or 'superior'. You might not like 'Cats' or 'The Sound Of Music' but people would not be queuing round the block for Morton Subotnik's latest abstract and atonal thing ... "Silver Apples Of The Moon - The Musical"!!

[hollowsun]

You mentioned (HS) that however hard you try, you struggle with atonality.

No I didn't and no I don't! Have you not heard some of the audio demos I've made at my website? ... Or this, perhaps. Some might argue/question whether they're even 'music' at all! One thing's for damned sure - I shan't be topping the charts with either!

I like atonal, soundscapey stuff - s'just that some do it better than others (as is always the case) ... or rather, there is some that *I* prefer over others.

What I object to, perhaps is 'academic clever for clever's sake' (make it obscure and obtuse just to show how clever we are) especially if that alienates people and the academics are sniggering at the great unwashed and ignorant proles from their ivory towers of academia if they have explain how 'worthy' it is.

Oh, I imagine I could write a few pages of utter bollocks (I am very good at that! ) about either of those 'works' in an attempt to look po-faced and 'serious' - maybe furrow my brow while I spoke about them - and get some funding or whatever ...

Except that it would be total cock!