Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    300 points pseudolus | 24 comments | | HN request time: 1.456s | source | bottom
    1. Projectiboga ◴[] No.44409650[source]
    What has been developing for awhile is that musicians are coming from richer backgrounds on average. They can dally around trying their hand as a working musician and can fail and not be destitute. The age of a working class or lower class musician is waining.
    replies(6): >>44410088 #>>44410270 #>>44410787 #>>44410965 #>>44412091 #>>44415903 #
    2. absurdo ◴[] No.44410088[source]
    That has been the case for a very, very long time. Classical music is basically one big orgy of wealthy people. Musicians born into families of musicians that were well off. Same goes for other artistic pursuits such as painters etc.

    I found very little actual insight in this article. I think musicians have been struggling for decades and the parents have known for at least as long to tell their kids to get a degree regardless of their talents. Schools like Berklee are… questionable at best. Lots off nepo babies just taking a few years to fuck about, basically.

    replies(4): >>44410338 #>>44410349 #>>44410385 #>>44410444 #
    3. monero-xmr ◴[] No.44410270[source]
    Successful musicians have way more in common with actors than any other profession. It’s about connections, wealth, and nepotism over anything else.

    Let’s say your child wants to be an actor. One way to make this happen is to be a successful actor yourself - require your children to be cast in the film in return for you starring. This is how famous acting families pushed their kids forwards, including Nicholas Cage (Coppola) and Jeff Bridges.

    More relevant for HN is rich people. So you are tech rich and your kid wants to act. Fund the movie on the condition your child acts in it. That is the way since movies began.

    replies(3): >>44410804 #>>44410852 #>>44411318 #
    4. tonyhart7 ◴[] No.44410338[source]
    dude grand piano maybe cost a house back then

    when you think about it

    5. analog31 ◴[] No.44410349[source]
    I've played with Berklee-trained musicians. It's a mixed bag. They won't turn you into a great musician against your will. This is true of any education. And you have to already be **** good when you apply in order to make full use of the opportunities that they offer.

    Oddly enough Berklee is considered to be a jazz school, but the players from there who I consider to be real stand-outs (performing at an international level, or well on their way to doing so) have chosen to earn their livings outside of mainstream jazz.

    replies(1): >>44410358 #
    6. pclmulqdq ◴[] No.44410358{3}[source]
    Mainstream jazz really doesn't make money. Also, Berklee is also really strong in the broader field of "Commercial Music" which includes things like film scoring and pop-oriented genres.
    replies(1): >>44410461 #
    7. nradov ◴[] No.44410385[source]
    The odds are long but some musicians make it work. Several of the Imagine Dragons band members attended Berklee, and then grinded for years playing cover songs and touring small clubs until they got a recording deal. Would they have succeeded at the same level without that Berklee education? Hard to say.
    replies(2): >>44410661 #>>44411085 #
    8. vintermann ◴[] No.44410444[source]
    Conservatory music culture is peculiar. Yes, lots of upper class parents want their children to take part in it, but it is not a good career economically speaking. (Unless you want to be a double-showoff and study medicine alongside classical piano, like one guy in my hometown did.) Especially classical musicians take a step down economical class-wise if they succeed. And this has been the case for most entertainer professions for a long time.
    9. dfedbeef ◴[] No.44410461{4}[source]
    What is mainstream jazz
    replies(2): >>44410556 #>>44410595 #
    10. chickenzzzzu ◴[] No.44410556{5}[source]
    Kenny G, of course. I saw him rummaging through the dumpster in Kirkland just a few days ago.
    11. pclmulqdq ◴[] No.44410595{5}[source]
    What you get in a jazz club.

    The "live from Emmet's place" series that you can find on youtube has some of the best jazz players today playing mainstream jazz.

    12. scns ◴[] No.44410661{3}[source]
    > grinded for years playing cover songs

    The Beatles and Van Halen did the same.

    13. patcon ◴[] No.44410787[source]
    Science used to work this way too, didn't it? You'd be rich, or you'd have a wealthy benefactor.
    replies(1): >>44410901 #
    14. bitmasher9 ◴[] No.44410804[source]
    > Fund the movie on the condition your child acts in it.

    The customer of such a movie isn’t the audience but the wealthy patron sponsoring the movie. I suspect this self-promotion motivation is a large reason why so many movies are so bad.

    replies(2): >>44410879 #>>44411325 #
    15. atoav ◴[] No.44410852[source]
    Yes and the fact that you grew up with e.g. actor parents means you know a lot about acting and the world it takes place in and the language used within it already, just like the kid of a farmer will know more than the average person about farm animals, tractors and crop.

    On top of that come the contacts and being rich. But the contacts are not a thing other people couldn't make as well, especially if they are good. One of the somewhat hidden benefits of higher education are the contacts you will make. Maybe you're not rich and your parents are roofers while you want to become an actor, but if you're good and well connected you might benefit from other peoples connections. This is how I started to make my living in a foreign country with two parents without any shared background: There were people who had those contacts and I benefitted of them simply by being the one they chose because I am accurate, reliable, on time, knowledgeable, patient and good at what I do.

    But

    16. atoav ◴[] No.44410879{3}[source]
    As a film maker who studied film, the reason why so many movies are so bad are manyfold:

      - making movies is hard. A lot of things that require years to master need to go right. A *ton* of tech is involved. 
      
      - making movies is expensive. Money alone won't make you a good movie, but many productions are so on the edge that some choice they had to make for monetary reason will cause the bad. 
      
      - making movies is complex, that means making a masterful one requires multiple botched attempts and experiences by all people involved. These botched attempts are also what you see.  
      
    I can't stress enough how hard making a movie is, even in comparison to complicated tech problems, programming etc.
    replies(1): >>44411126 #
    17. whatshisface ◴[] No.44410901[source]
    To go back in time before university endowments for intellectual work you'd find yourself in a monestary, with endowments from the nobility for intellectual work (copying texts and making those great illuminated manuscripts). As far as I know the model you're describing did apply to ancient Greece.
    18. Hard_Space ◴[] No.44410965[source]
    In the UK, the 'golden age' of the dole gave an otherwise-unsupported fringe of lower-class and middle-class talent time to mature.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/01/writers-recall...

    19. arrowsmith ◴[] No.44411085{3}[source]
    Dream Theater is another example of a successful band that was formed at Berklee.
    20. blueboo ◴[] No.44411126{4}[source]
    But it’s also never been easier, cheaper, simpler. So it’s not obvious that these dynamics relate to how the middle has been hollowed out
    21. slyall ◴[] No.44411318[source]
    I suspect it is more likely that rich people will fund their actor-aspirant children more convention ways:

    When they are younger they could pay for acting classes, acting camps and help them get into local productions.

    Out of school they pay for livings costs, education and any additional classes. Living in New York or LA and being able to concentrate on getting parts of training rather than having to make money would be a huge boast.

    Maybe at the next stage getting their kid an agent or manager who has contacts and experience to get their kid the roles.

    Perhaps you mean throwing a few thousand dollars at student-level films to ensure their kid gets an important part. I guess maybe some will write 6 (7?) figure cheques to get their kid a part, but that probably doesn't happen often.

    22. dsign ◴[] No.44411325{3}[source]
    So many movies are bad because their customer is, intellectually, the minimum common denominator. It's a miracle that movie plots don't consist entirely of grunts, chest pumping and farts, but we are getting closer and closer every year. Most block-busters have an awful lot of primal violence in them, but I bet you can't remember when was the last time any of them had any accurate, actual science.
    23. TrackerFF ◴[] No.44412091[source]
    Pretty much anything in the "creatives" industry.

    Want to work for the most prestigious fashion brands? You start with unpaid (or very low pay) internships in some of the most expensive cities in the world. Same goes for record labels. Art. Literature publishing.

    And these days, some of the above will filter out applicants that don't have big enough social media accounts.

    24. thr0waway001 ◴[] No.44415903[source]
    > What has been developing for awhile is that musicians are coming from richer backgrounds on average.

    Same sh it is happening with basketball. More nepo babies that got to go through expensive camp than ballers from the streets rising up the ranks homie. And no person embodies dis shit more than Bronny James.

    Sad cause sports was supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy yo!