09 November 2009 — Julian Ensbey: Is Music Getting Better?
I found this post over at Way Cool Jnr. In it, Julian Ensbey deals with the idea of intellectual property laws being in place to give incentives for artists to create better music. I'm linking to it largely because - aside from it being a provocative angle - it tackles an issue I also tried to deal with here. Here's what Ensbey asks:
It is true that musicians who earn enough to be able to work on their music full time have a big advantage and will, on average, produce more or better music than those who have to keep a day job. But beyond a minimum level of financial security, does more cash for the musicians actually lead to better music? Would Kanye have thrown it all in to become a merchant banker if his only revenue was from gigs?
Here's what I wrote:
[O]ne of the hidden premises is that the average level of quality of work created by full-time professional artists is higher than that created by those people who work regular jobs to support their art. This may be true, but it can't simply be taken as fact.
I'm actually surprised that Ensbey is prepared to concede this point. I think his rationale is that the general level of quality is higher amongst professional bands than in amateur bands, which is probably a fair argument. And he's probably prepared to grant this point in order to move onto his actual question, which is about whether the additional income of royalties adds to that level of quality. But it's taking a very short-term view of musical quality. Many amateur composers were elevated to the ranks of the great posthumously. While it would be nice to think that the best musicians will earn more than the worst, it's difficult to prove that this is the case.