Musicians have only recently been able to make money from recorded media. I see this as a temporary anomaly allowed by the state of technology in the 20th century (i.e. existence of mass media as a physical product).
Musicians (and other artists) can still make money from e.g. performing live - which I'm assuming was their dominant form of income before the 20th century.
I don't believe that a monetary incentive is necessary for good art. I understand that artists need to eat, but also that not everyone can eat from being an artist.
The internet is very important to me as an open and free resource. I can't see how information can be made non-private and scarce at the same time, so I can't see how we can pay for music and keep the internet as I want it.
It's a little-known fact that before the 20th century there was no artistic production of any kind. ;)
In more seriousness, I'd guess that the traditional dominant sources of income for musicians were (a) patronage and (b) being independently wealthy; I doubt giving performances mattered all that much.
That's a very good point. I had an image in my head of traveling musicians playing lutes but that's a bit unrepresentative! Especially of music that has endured through time (e.g. classical composition).
Instead of patronage / wealth, I suppose that a market mechanism could be used to support music creation in a wider section of society. However, I would actually argue for income redistribution to support that.
>> "I don't believe that a monetary incentive is necessary for good art."
It's not necessary but it's important. I'll explain how:
1) If artists can not earn money from their art the need a full time job to support themselves, provide food and shelter and pay the bills.
2) They will also need some of this money to pay for equipment and in the case of musicians studio time, sound engineers, mastering engineers, designers (for album art) etc.
3) They will need to spend some of their free time (after work) online managing their social media, promoting their music etc.
4) With the very little time they have left they need to write songs, record demos, make time (somehow) for a few days in the studio and then distribute the music.
If things were like this in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's we would not have some of the great albums we have today. Art takes time. If the artist has to do all of the above it leaves very little time for the actual art and we get mediocre art. We might get some good art. It's unlikely we will get great art.
Yes definitely and those people got paid. Lots of the great works of art were commissioned be the wealthy. Other great works of art were created by people starving and living in shit. By allowing artists to sell their work at a low price they get to live comfortably, we get lots of great stuff, and nearly everyone can afford it. They don't have to make a choice between not creating great work and creating great work but living a horrid life. The current system (which has been getting cheaper and cheaper for consumers) is the fairest for everyone imo.
I guess where I disagree is that society should be deciding what is an ideal system for a given profession and attempting to lock-in a standard of living for that profession by maintaining the status quo to the detriment of progress and other industries. I disagree that there should be "blessed" professions that are given this honor.
Musicians (and other artists) can still make money from e.g. performing live - which I'm assuming was their dominant form of income before the 20th century.
I don't believe that a monetary incentive is necessary for good art. I understand that artists need to eat, but also that not everyone can eat from being an artist.
The internet is very important to me as an open and free resource. I can't see how information can be made non-private and scarce at the same time, so I can't see how we can pay for music and keep the internet as I want it.