Making money and the commercialisation of music

I was reading an exchange between several people on social media a short while ago about making money from one's work. Opinions ranged from making money = selling out to making money destroys the artistic integrity of the artist. The conversation was very negative to what it saw as the commercialisation of music. I didn't bother getting involved in the conversation but I couldn't help thinking "really?"

Music has been commercialised for over 500 years.

Ever since Ulrich Hans printed Missale Romanum in 1476 composers and publishers have been capitalising on music. Whilst it has been claimed that Beethoven was the first commercial freelance composer in fact several composers before him had various degrees of artistic freedom such as Mozart and Handel although old Ludwig had enough artistic freedom to fight a lawsuit for five years during which time he produced little music. Before him it was fairly standard for a composer to be in the employ of the church or a princely court where they all received a wage.

I wondered why some people think that composers/musicians pursuing financial gain was considered a bad thing. Was it because they had tried selling their work and hadn't got anywhere and were jealous of those who succeeded (even in a small way) or was there a deeper concern? If there were a deeper concern I don't know what it is because the conversation didn't reveal it. Maybe it is just sour grapes.

See I know quite a few people who release their music freely and that's fine. But I know those people don't have any problems with others charging for music. It's personal choice and we all have differing motivations for releasing music.

Every so often I come across someone who claims they don't care whether their music is listened to or not. That they don't care if it sells or languishes unlistened to in some online purgatory for all time. In which case why release it online in the first place? By releasing it online surely you are tacitly admitting that you want people to listen to it otherwise it is a waste of effort?

I've been trying to think of a deeper reason for this aversion to pursuing money and must admit to failing. Using the numerous cases of people reaching the dizzying heights of success as evidence of selling out or becoming homogeneous isn't going to work with me, I'm afraid.

All that shows to me is some people are intent on becoming rich and famous no matter what. The music never really mattered for these people in the first place, so they're hardly selling out. It was a means to an end.

There's no denying that a lot of the stuff you hear on the national radio stations is, by and large, fluff and nonsense and does sound the same. However, I can point out many composers/musicians who've forged quite lucrative careers by being themselves and sticking to their own artistic visions (whether you like that artistic vision is a different matter).

The fact that it is far harder today to make a living out of music has less to do with the homogenisation of music and more to do with the proliferation of sites music can be accessed from and also the cheapness of decent gear meaning more people can realise their musical ambitions.

It also has to do with for many people music is merely something to listen to whilst they are doing something else rather than something that needs to be listened to. I think the music industry knows this. Most people want something that is catchy, short and comfortable.

And it has always been like this.

It's interesting that recently musicians have gone back to searching for patrons via funding sites like Patreon. The cyclical nature of things I suppose.

The commercialisation of music (and by extension composers and musicians making money independently of patrons), first by printing scores and, much later, by pressing records brought music to the wider audience for the first time. Without commercialisation much of the music created would have been lost or only heard by a very select audience.

Without commercialisation many orchestras, composers and musicians wouldn't be able to work in music without a wealthy patron (be it an individual or a corporation) to support them.

Without commercialisation most of us wouldn't be able to do what we do (whether we sell records or not). Musical instruments become more widely available to the general public because of commercialisation. People wanted to be able to play the pieces they heard at concerts. The sheet music was available to buy and pianos, etc, made this possible. The more people who bought the sheet music and the musical instruments, the cheaper they became. It stopped being the preserve of the wealthy. In modern times instrument makers develop new hardware (or software) because they know there is a market for them.

Maybe it's because the sort of music many of us produce has limited commercial possibilities these days and record companies are less inclined to take a risk (the reasons for these are many and I can't be bothered going into it at the moment) so they stick to the tried and tested. Most people aren't going to want to listen to a seventy-minute drone piece or a piece of experimental music involving hairbrushes. It's a shame but that's the way of it.

Honestly, commercialisation isn't the great evil some make it out to be. It's like everything in life: it has it's positives and negatives. Musicians who want to become successful aren't necessarily selling out. A lucky few can be successful on their own terms. There's nothing wrong with musicians wanting to make enough money to be able to support their families and their music.