Like even Wagner who is arguably one of the most influential and popular composers of all time spent most of his life destitute and only was stable when the Kaiser himself was sponsoring him.
I think in the same way though this speaks to something deep and profound about music, I once heard the saying "You can buy anything in this world for money" and I think that the problem we have pricing music has to do with how transcendental it is, it is designed specifically to convey or share something that transcends mere language or description, musics purpose is to communicate from one soul to another in a way that is deep and meaningful, that touches people and brings them in alignment and helps people see that which we can't quite understand in normal life.
It is beautiful, and I think the attempt to commoditize music, make it corporate and subjugate it to the whims.of the market end up making music a little less musical.
And some of them earned less then they could due to own habit of alienate people (Beethoven).
Not to leave it at criticism, while highly specialized, the excellent lectures of Professor Christopher Page of Gresham College linked on the bottom of https://www.gresham.ac.uk/speakers/professor-christopher-pag... include a lot of details that tell us a lot about more ordinary musicians and (here: guitar) teachers, even if it's mostly about one instrument and a few limited locations and periods of time. A very interesting anecdote in any case, especially given the quality of the presentation(s). It is not explicitly or even mostly about the economic situation, but enough can be deduced from the context.
Einstein was not richer then other physicians. His fame could have help him when emigrating and at keeping employment, but afaik it was not rewarded by super unusual riches.
And how does that invalidate the argument? "Others made the same mistake!" - Yes, and?
> Einstein was not richer then other physicians.
How is this relevant to the argument? (Rhetorical question - it is not)
> And the question was "who paid for the great music of the period".
OP wrote "there were a heck of a lot of great composers in that period". Which is correct - most of the works were from regular people. They were not as outstanding as Mozart or Bach, but still produced a lot of the great music. People like Johann Pachelbel, to give an example. Not in the same league as Mozart, but there were many of the same type and they produced most of the music of the period.
I play recorder and violin and most of the sheet music I play is from those more normal people.
Oh and the parent (buscoquadnary) is not quite correct when he only points to "patronage". A lot, if not most of those people made money with performances (Mozart too! - https://www.biography.com/news/mozart-pauper-lost-fortune) and with teaching.
When King George appointed him Royal Astronomer so he could do astronomy full time, the salary he earned from that position was half what he made as a musician.
"For $20, I can sell you this audio file that makes you yearn for the deep friendships you created that summer a few years ago. Side effects may include vivid visual memories and internal hallucinations of what could have been, sudden mood swings including finding them on Facebook to see what they are up to, and in some cases: crying".
And having a market like this for a while bought us an incredible bounty of all kinds of music, some incredibly sophisticated, some with subtle & important things to say, some with all the art of a schoolyard taunt, some finding both wide and deep appeal.
If the conditions were unusual, so was the harvest -- bountiful enough that hopefully people will give a second thought about dismissing such conditions simply because they're potentially ephemeral (especially given that so are we).
As for commodification: it's different from monetization. It's distinguished by fungibility; muzak for grocery stores, elevators, hotel lobbies, customer service calls, etc being the greatest example, but of course some pop music is disposable too. And yet people don't always know the difference in advance (art is tricky in that way). In any case, monetization which rewards successful indelible efforts provides a powerful reinforcement for creators who have a knack for things people value or even find transcendent.
> You can buy anything in this world for money
In the story where I heard this, that's something the devil says, and while the devil isn't above telling you the truth, he's much more likely to say whatever he needs to (true or false) in order to get you focused on a model/direction that serves malevolent purposes, like the Cthaeh.
I appreciate you pointing this out the full quote I am referring is "You can by anything in this world for money, so if something can't be bought for money it is not of this world."
I feel like music tries to give us something that is not of this world, which is why we have so many problems when trying to figure out how to price music.
https://bachnetwork.org/ub12/ub12-heber.pdf
There were a lot of great composers in that period, but that's over 200 years and there were probably many more who are forgotten or were never even given the opportunity. And today there are probably more songs released on Spotify daily than were written in all of the 1700s.
Wagoners family is still in charge of the Bayreuth festival in Germany.
One of the new genres that really impresses me, is 3D art. The art form is getting quite mature, and often requires as much work as any Dutch Master oil painting.
One of my favorite 3D renderings, is Worth Enough, by radoxist[0]. Nowadays, I'm sure that there are works that beat it, but it was quite amazing, when he posted it.
[0] https://www.deviantart.com/radoxist/art/Worth-enough-7324787...
Ppl also dont see art where it is in its pure form -Engineering.
On top of that, music was not a commodity back then. Live performances literally made a living for many of them as these performances were the only source of music. (And a church needs this music for every mass, for instance.)
Now music is abundant, recordings are cheap / free, and the best performance is easily available in a recorded form. Live performances are still a thing and still feed many of the music creators. Royalties, too. But you better be a superstar for that to bring enough. (Liszt and Mozart were superstars, in a sense.)
Wait until a Dall-E equivalent for music emerges though.
A DJ will arrive with a unique set, likely with every track custom-made for a given gig.
Selling any records at all will become very-very hard, except for rare hits with outstanding human vocal performance. In music clips, music will be relegated to the position of a movie soundtrack, if not lower.
Obviously for anything sort of focus-y, house music downtempo etc. If we're not already there, we'll probably be there soon, though I am curious if a careful listener will eventually notice the uncanny valley problem there. But pop music I'd say has two problems. 1. There's a je ne sais quoi quality that's hard to replicate, and two I imagine the corpus is just not that big. I mean sure, there's a decently large corpus of pop music, but good pop music? how many hip hop billboard charts have there been a thousand, maybe a few thousand. How do you combine Beyonce, Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston into a banger that doesn't sound too much like Beyonce', Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston without the titular character marketing said music.