Many of the big names in classical music came from privileged backgrounds. Others needed a helping hand. Dvorak (Slavonic Dances, New World Symphony) Just the other day, I found this:
"... the compositions of an unknown Czech composer fell into [Johannes Brahms[ hands in 1875. Fascinated by the work of the young Antonín Dvořák, who came from a small town near Prague on the banks of the Moldau, Brahms immediately had him come to Vienna and arranged for him to receive a state scholarship. For the then 36-year-old Dvořák who was eking out a meager existence as a music teacher and orchestra director at the Prague Theater, heaven had just opened forth.... "
I wonder if a minority of composers came from privileged backgrounds. Brahms himself did not. As a young teen, he played the piano in houses of ill repute to earn money for the family.
Mendelssohn did come from privilege, of course. But many of the rest struggled.
Anyway, the Brahms-Dvorak connection is striking; lots of stylistic influence - Dvorak adopted Brahms’ liberal use of polyrhythms and his shifting/ambiguous downbeats.
My daughter graduates from HS this year and is beginning a performance degree program at a well-known US conservatory. There’s no way to acquire the requisite musical skills, contacts etc. but by spending prodigious sums of money. You are competing against kids whose parents spared no expense for upwards of 14-15 years.
I suppose it’s not much different than non-music disciplines; but for art in particular, it seems that something essential is at stake in the way that those who succeed/survive have unrepresentative backgrounds.
Creating an addiction-based economy around capturing and monetizing the attention of kids and young people like this will have a cost for society that we will be paying off for generations, even if it literally ended tomorrow.
The opportunity cost alone of all those hours is staggering, without getting into the issues with self esteem, 'brain rot' or the fact that young people increasingly don't dare dance or do hobbies in public because they live in a panopticon of the mind, where everything you do or observe being done is assumed to be either performatively done for an audience, or involves massive personal risk of being surreptitiously recorded for the mockery and amusement of thousands of strangers.
Then there's the gambling, the body image issues, the parasocial influencer grifts... it's no wonder they're feeling burned out and demoralized. They live in a surveillance casino with no exits.
This video is begging the question, in both meanings of the phrase. Its only thesis is that rich people have more time to practice and more connections to leverage than poor people do. It then says in the past artists were from humble beginnings, without elaborating. So what changed? Why would that thesis be true today and not in the past? Seems like something that should be addressed in such a video?
Many of the big names in classical music came from privileged backgrounds. Others needed a helping hand. Dvorak (Slavonic Dances, New World Symphony) Just the other day, I found this:
"... the compositions of an unknown Czech composer fell into [Johannes Brahms[ hands in 1875. Fascinated by the work of the young Antonín Dvořák, who came from a small town near Prague on the banks of the Moldau, Brahms immediately had him come to Vienna and arranged for him to receive a state scholarship. For the then 36-year-old Dvořák who was eking out a meager existence as a music teacher and orchestra director at the Prague Theater, heaven had just opened forth.... "
https://web.archive.org/web/20080820143636/http://filebox.vt...
I wonder if a minority of composers came from privileged backgrounds. Brahms himself did not. As a young teen, he played the piano in houses of ill repute to earn money for the family.
Mendelssohn did come from privilege, of course. But many of the rest struggled.
Anyway, the Brahms-Dvorak connection is striking; lots of stylistic influence - Dvorak adopted Brahms’ liberal use of polyrhythms and his shifting/ambiguous downbeats.
Now do classical music.
My daughter graduates from HS this year and is beginning a performance degree program at a well-known US conservatory. There’s no way to acquire the requisite musical skills, contacts etc. but by spending prodigious sums of money. You are competing against kids whose parents spared no expense for upwards of 14-15 years.
I suppose it’s not much different than non-music disciplines; but for art in particular, it seems that something essential is at stake in the way that those who succeed/survive have unrepresentative backgrounds.
A massive amount of time is wasted on social media.
Visit the tiktok / instagram profile of any young person and you will notice thousands of hours invested in it.
It's just natural nothing else will be produced.
Creating an addiction-based economy around capturing and monetizing the attention of kids and young people like this will have a cost for society that we will be paying off for generations, even if it literally ended tomorrow.
The opportunity cost alone of all those hours is staggering, without getting into the issues with self esteem, 'brain rot' or the fact that young people increasingly don't dare dance or do hobbies in public because they live in a panopticon of the mind, where everything you do or observe being done is assumed to be either performatively done for an audience, or involves massive personal risk of being surreptitiously recorded for the mockery and amusement of thousands of strangers.
Then there's the gambling, the body image issues, the parasocial influencer grifts... it's no wonder they're feeling burned out and demoralized. They live in a surveillance casino with no exits.
It was the case in the recent past, see how many artists came out of Laurel Canyon and whose families happened to own properties nearby.
This video is begging the question, in both meanings of the phrase. Its only thesis is that rich people have more time to practice and more connections to leverage than poor people do. It then says in the past artists were from humble beginnings, without elaborating. So what changed? Why would that thesis be true today and not in the past? Seems like something that should be addressed in such a video?