I don't think there's any "should" about this. My view is that a particular piece of music is a consumer product when the consumer has to pay to hear the music. That doesn't mean that the music isn't other things as well such as a true work of art.

 

A very good point. It seems to me that music is almost always a "consumer product" except when composed by somebody who has neither the inclination nor the need to make money from it. Either way, it's intent does not preclude it from being "art" or even "great art", however we want to define those terms.

 

It is a feature of capitalism to reduce everything people make, do and even think to "product."

In the case of music, and art generally, I believe this should be resisted, not embraced.

 

It is a feature of capitalism to reduce everything people make, do and even think to "product."

Capitalism? In what way did the Soviets not consider music a "product"?

 

As long as I support ITunes, music is always a consumer product. As long as quality still exists.

 

Would selling lower the quality of your offering? Only if you decided to consciously make it worse to please in which case the fault lay with the artist, and not commercialization.

Doubly so because it is the job of the artist to turn others around to his point of view and tastes, to make people explore instead of society's job to support any individual artist's POV.

 

If an artist doesn't try to get money for her art, then it's not a product. It's just art. It's whatever supernatural zeppelin thing people are trying to portray art as.

The microsecond when the artist wants some money, her art is a product, the same as my teaching which is also glorious supernatural zeppelin thing, and a prostitute's sex, which is also a supernatural glorious zeppelin thing, and a church's religion, which is also a glorious supernatural zeppelin thing. From food to fashion to healthcare to art, there are many things that are part of being human, and all of them become a product the moment someone tries to get money for them.

 

Who cares? Authoritarian is good enough. Communism is deader than Marx himself, but authoritarianism is alive and well, even on this our dear message board.

 

Indeed... consider the plight of Seth Rogen who confronted this very issue against the North Koreans.

To get back on point, consumerism is not my thing but I realize that I buy stuff and am glad to support the artist if I can.

Every CD or iTunes album is a consumer product. When DG decides to add extra tracks to the iTunes version, there is no doubt that it is a marketing way to get people to prefer the iTunes version over the compact disc.

 

I listen to, and consume, what I like merely because the world is imperfect. Now, what I really should be doing would be to only listen to things that the Absolute Spirit likes. But since it hasn't manifested yet, let's continue mstrbtng on the altar of the Id. Who knows, Baal may yet appear and send a fire. Rufet lauter!

But really, "What do you want?" is a dangerous, dangerous question. Best not touch it too much. The gray mist between the black letters may swallow you whole.

 

Personally, I think that CDs, tickets, CD players, turntables etc. are consumer products. The music on the CDs and the live performance of music are not consumer products but rather a presentation of art from a collaboration of creative minds.

How does this apply to other art forms? The book is a consumer product... but not the words? The canvas is a consumer product... but not the paint?

 

The images and meanings behind the creations aren't to be valued as a "consumer product" really, the customer can never be right in allowing their judgements of an artwork to be more important than the artist's intention. Imagine if an art gallery only showed art that its visitors wanted to see, or a bookshop that only ever sold what's on the bestseller list?

 

It is a feature of capitalism to reduce everything people make, do and even think to "product." In the case of music, and art generally, I believe this should be resisted, not embraced.

And how do you propose the artist support himself/herself let alone a family? I paint for myself... because I have a "day job"... so I don't need to sell my paintings. But that day job is no less of a compromise than if I were to accept a commission, work as an illustrator, or continue to churn out works in the same manner as what I find has sold in the past.

 

If art were really a consumer product, then "painting for yourself" would be a meaningless concept.

But I don't understand how working a day job could be an artistic compromise. It's a lifestyle compromise.

 

I guess y'all can rest assured - if everyone continues downloading music or getting it from youtube, and people stop actually purchasing it, music could actually cease to be a consumer product. You'll have what you want: a bunch of great musicians working at Starbucks, and no one buying or selling any music.

 

if everyone continues downloading music or getting it from youtube, and people stop actually purchasing it, music could actually cease to be a consumer product.

Not in my opinion. It is still a consumer product, because those sites exist through the revenue generated from advertising. It is a paid for commodity, hence a consumer product. The same, if it is delivered via a monthly streaming subscription.

 

The images and meanings behind the creations aren't to be valued as a "consumer product" really, the customer can never be right in allowing their judgements of an artwork to be more important than the artist's intention. Imagine if an art gallery only showed art that its visitors wanted to see, or a bookshop that only ever sold what's on the bestseller list?

Art galleries only exhibit what they think they can sell. I can tell you this as a former owner/curator of an art gallery. I only ever showed work that I liked... but I also needed to consider whether I could sell it. There were paintings that were too big for the market... and there were some that were too expensive. I remember some fabulous works rooted in calligraphy... huge minimalist script paintings done in gold and silver ink that were simply stunning... yet ultimately both I and the artist agreed that our gallery wasn't the right venue. I simply didn't have enough patrons who could shell out the $50,000-$75,000 price tag.

Book stores are the same. They don't carry something if they don't think they can sell it... or if it is likely to lose them money.

 

As a matter of fact, the metaphor transfers pretty readily to other media.

The book is a consumer product; the text is not.

So if I buy a book... they don't have to include the text? Even if we are speaking in terms of copyright, the text is just as much of a product that can be bought and sold as anything else.

The same is true of the image in painting.

 

So if I buy a book... they don't have to include the text? Even if we are speaking in terms of copyright, the text is just as much of a product that can be bought and sold as anything else.

The same is true of the image in painting.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

The text can exist independently of any book; in manuscript, in Notepad file, whatever.
The image can exist independently of being a salable item, although paintings themselves, the physical objects, are indeed bought and sold.

The music can and does exist independently of any normally salable consumer item, and it is only once such things are produced that they become products. These products (including sheet music), of course, depend on the music for their existence, but in any case the music itself is not sold.

 

I've long suspected that one of the reason teaching is underpaid is because it is a field (like the arts) laden with too many Romantics who imagine it to be a calling... something they would do even if they weren't paid. I don't think anyone here is glorifying capitalism... rather they are simply being realistic.

 

Well, I am neither underpaid nor romantic, but I would do what I do (at least a little) even if I weren't paid. In that sense, it is something like art might be to an artist. I am not a teacher because it is my job; it is my job because I am a teacher. If no one wants to pay me for my services - which is unlikely because I am a great teacher, and not only do I know it, my students know it, my coworkers know it, my students' parents know it - I will find another way to pay my bills. But I will still be a teacher.

I am also a traveller. No one is paying for me that at present....

 

In the parent thread to this I posted about governments supporting scientists and artists. Scientists, in general, produce general knowledge, and that knowledge is not a consumer product. (Yes, some knowledge can be written into patents, but that's a very small percentage). One might view art, especially music, in similar terms. Today even composed music is a consumer product because one must purchase the music to perform or hear it, but we could imagine a world where music is like knowledge. Composers produce the music, and others are welcome to turn that music into products. Of course, it generally requires much more work to turn knowledge into products than, for example, to create a CD. Still, in that world many composers would be funded by the government to produce music which, by itself, would not be a consumer product. It's a different question of whether that model would benefit society (or how much).

This model is much harder, As StLukes suggested, for art other than music.

 

so far, I read a lot of differentiated semantic qualifications about 'what is a product.'

Those who teach, consult, are selling a service. They bring what they know, impart the knowledge, tutor a student or client in developing skills in the particular area needed, and though concentrated thought and real effort go into it (the work part) the teacher or consultant does not walk away from that job with less of that product needing to be resupplied. That is very different from manufacturing gross upon gross of ceramic mugs to supply diners and restaurants, or stores, throughout a large area.

A singular work of art is also 'product,' but it is a one-off. Recreations of that work (concerts, plays, ballets, recordings, etc.) remain 'product' while the original work, currently under copyright, is not essentially 'sold off' like the ceramic mugs.

An artist takes a commission for a work from an individual, musician, group of musicians or a symphonic organization, and it is understood that 'the product' will be delivered as per contract stipulations. This is more clearly 'product,' and 'consumer,' or customer. Commissions are by nature specific, as to at least the instrumentation and duration of the work to be produced. Often, in the fine arts arena, those are the only stipulations, with perhaps a request from one player or ensemble that the work's content will show off a player's particular strengths, or an ensembles' particularly strong brass section, for example. In this area, artists are well aware of 'creating a product to order,' and many do just that. Still, this is all a very far cry from the more commercial aspects of marketing, study upon study before any money is spent on a prototype which is then tested on a selected group of potential buyers.

I do think it healthy for artists to realize what they make is, if to be sold, a product of sorts... as some do not realize even that much, though it is usually the youngest amateur or student who does not 'quite get that... yet.' When I schooled, there were constant reminders from my comp teacher about the pragmatica of the business, i.e. writing first for smaller ensembles where you had a chance of directly finding your own performers; not using that mandolin for just one bar of an entire piece because that would call for a separate union player not a usual part of the orchestra and rack up another full union wage; that the moment the score called for the multi-instrumentalist (third flute going to alto flute) the player in rehearsals and in performance, as per union regs, would be payed time and a half; that if you are established like Stravinsky you could ask for and expect to get a contrabass Sarrusophone in that large orchestral work and the additional cost would readily be met -- if you were not yet established, not to even think about it, etc.

Many pros in the arts routinely work within these types of restrictions, commissions now often coming from two orchestras, which can 'flatten out' what instruments are available, i.e. what is common to both, and there is no telling from the work there were any limitations whatsoever. This is radically unlike the more commercial end of commissioned music like scores for film and video games, where the director has a full say in the type, style, mood, etc. and the composer must comply. Relatively, the classical composer who is commissioned still has parsecs of latitude in what they write and how it sounds.

I don't know why that distinction is so difficult to make, or why a proposal of how to market a singular work of art should be pounced upon as if it could / should be marketed following the model of selling the ceramic mugs. Both the mugs and art are sold, the model from one mode of marketing just about as foreign to the other as could be. Multiple copies of artworks, recordings, repeated concerts are in another realm yet again.

When it comes to music, multiple copies of the score might be sold or rented (like buying those more generic blueprints to make a house, someone other than the composer / architect still must provide the necessary tools and labor to realize it), but the rights to the piece or architectural plan itself are not 'sold.' It is not anything like the ceramic mug, i.e. when the demand for another piece or another blueprint comes in, you don't just run off another exactly like the last one... and there I get some sense those coming from the more consumer-product angle of marketing seem to ignore that completely.

It is not stunning news that what a teacher or consultant or artist provides is not a mass-manufactured ceramic mug, but I find it rather stunning some would reduce all of those and plunk them under the same category of "product" and then apply the same principles of marketing for the mug to the more singular types of services or works of art.

 

I don't understand how working a day job could be an artistic compromise. It's a lifestyle compromise.

Whether I spend my time making illustrations for a commercial firm, or I work a "day job" teaching art I am giving up valuable time and energy which I could/would rather be spending upon the art I personally love. But I live in the real world, not some 19th century Romantic fantasy.

 

Whether I spend my time making illustrations for a commercial firm, or I work a "day job" teaching art I am giving up valuable time and energy which I could/would rather be spending upon the art I personally love. But I live in the real world, not some 19th century Romantic fantasy.

If you find the synergy between both sides, you can serve both masters at once. Just look at Maxfield Parrish. When he was working at his peak, there were more prints of his work in American homes than there were Americans. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being successful at doing what you love. That's been my goal in the animation business, and it's worked out fine so far.

 

The audience is the whole reason why an artist creates. If an artist isn't connecting with the audience, they aren't doing their job. Communication is different than commerce. I'm talking about the former, not the latter here. If you are successful enough communicating with an audience, chances are you can parlay that into making money. But not always. And making money isn't the point of it. It's the side effect of it.

 

The audience is the whole reason why an artist creates.
Not at all a primary motivator or concern of many an artist, that includes some of the very most successful ones.

If an artist isn't connecting with the audience, they aren't doing their job.
Turnabout is fair play on that one.

Communication is different than commerce. If you are successful enough communicating with an audience, chances are you can parlay that into making money.
Yep.

But not always.
Right again.

And making money isn't the point of it. It's the side effect of it.
Complete agreement with this one.

_____________________________________

 

That doesnt sound right. Pizza is certainly a commercial product. Is making pizza for myself therefore a meaningless concept?

Sounds like something else I do on a regular basis. :lol:

 

You can share iTunes tracks via AirPlay functionality.

 

ignore. redundant.

 

In the spirit of this thread.

 

This topic has been brought up in another thread, I think this will be a better place for that conversation.

Personally, I think that CDs, tickets, CD players, turntables etc. are consumer products. The music on the CDs and the live performance of music are not consumer products but rather a presentation of art from a collaboration of creative minds.

Yes, it is a consumer product in the sense that human beings - you, me, everybody else - consume music by listening to it primarily or exclusively, after making a choice to do so and usually giving up resources to do so (time, money, computer hard disk space, whatever).

 

Surely Bach's cantatas, Vivaldi's concertos, and Haydn's symphonies all can be regarded as consumer products?

 

You aren't really paying for the music so much as the skill of the people who present that music to you. I have no skill, in and of myself, to stage an entire symphony to perform, for example, Mahler's 2nd symphony. As such, I rely on the services of another to allow me to appreciate it. Sure, I can go find the score, and try to appreciate the music all in my head, or go through the process of trying to learn each individual instrument, and thus achieve a "free" performance. But that won't work that well. So I am relying on others to provide me with that experience. In all reality, those people have chosen that as their vocation, and it is the way that they provide for their living - they exchange the performance of their skills for the means to provide for the necessities of life, through the intermediary of currency. Since it is art, must they provide their services free of charge? Do you provide your services free of charge, so long as they aren't art? Should only artists work pro bono? Can one not work to produce good art AND expect to be paid for it? Beethoven and Bach produced wonderful music - and I am sure they expected to be paid for it. Or, sometimes, they no doubt provided it for free to some patron in the hopes that it might generate interest in employing their talents in the future with accompanying compensation - in essence, an early version of the "loss-leader" model of marketing.

I don't get this notion that, if it is art, it belongs to all, and should not be subject to capitalistic forces. It may be art, but, first and foremost, it represents the effort of someone or someones, whether it be the composer who relies on it for their livelihood, or the performers that provide the service of helping me to appreciate the music in a way I might otherwise not be able to, or the recording industry that allows those who cannot travel across the globe to view various and sundry performances of classical masterworks.

 

I somewhat agree with OPie COAG regarding an artistic bent, but only in the creative process. Once the artist decides to sell it, as in distribution, it then becomes a consumer product (with the usual restrictions of course). Some exceptions, no doubt...such as a private commission in which the client may choose to keep the work "silent". I don't know or wouldn't know the legalities of such "property".

 

An example of that: Paul Wittgenstein, a wealthy one-armed pianist, commissioned most or all of the left-hand concertos and other music we have from after WWI: Ravel, Prokofiev, Britten, Hindemith, and so forth. He insisted on sole performing rights in his lifetime; works he didn't like just didn't get performed at all, by him or anyone else. He wrote:

"You don't build a house just so that someone else can live in it. I commissioned and paid for the works, the whole idea was mine [...]. But those works to which I still have the exclusive performance rights are to remain mine as long as I still perform in public; that's only right and fair."

It seems that you can own music.