Currently, I do not make a living playing music. I work as a Barista at a locally-owned coffee and teach part-time as a substitute teacher. I do not know how to claim "musician" on your taxes, because I don't yet make enough money playing music. I have no idea how to get into the best bars or clubs, because I have yet to get into these places myself. I have no hands-on experience with the ins and outs of the music industry, and have very little to show for my career as a solo musician.
These are the reasons that I feel I am more qualified to explain how it works than Gene Simmons.
I recently read an interview where Gene Simmons lamented the death of the music industry. To him rock is dead, and there can be no more great artists that have the longevity of bands like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. In far greater words, Gene Simmons argues that the effects of file-sharing has ruined the hopes for musician's ability to be relevant beyond a few years. He states, "longevity is practically dead, and new artists that stand the test of time — meaning, artists whose art can survive them, who become icons — are so rare as to almost be nonexistent."
It's not just Gene Simmons who is weary of the current state of musical affairs. The Huffington Post recently ran an opinion column using an Avril Lavigne as proof that Rock is dead. The article argues that music today will not be on the "oldies" rock stations and the music which sells today is inferior to that of yesteryear.
With all these older and wiser gentleman explaining to me, a solo guitar player, that the decision to play music is foolheartedly chosen, why should I bother to create my music?
I do not claim that the decision to pursue music is as stable of a career path as being a teacher, or a banker, or some other occupation. In fact, the life of an artist is in no ways practical or rational.
Imagine if the people who chose other career paths had to do what musicians have to do to be successful. Would you expect to see stockbrokers on the street, portfolios in hand, asking people to take a look at their how much money they generated for their company in the last quarter? Would you expect doctors to perform free procedures until they make their big break?
Why does society expect the same things of their musicians? I went to a four-year university to get a degree in music. I have the same student debt as someone who wants to be a grade school teacher or an accountant, but I do not have nearly the same earning potential. I am on the left side of the income bell-curve along with people who did not choose to go to college, but with $50,000 more debt.
Why would a rational adult choose to do that to themselves: because, in their soul, they have to no choice but to pursue their fantastical dream of being successful in music.
There is no greater reason beyond that. I wish I had a better reason for you, but I do not. Every time I think perhaps I should start doing something else with my life, I end up falling back to music. Look at the artists out there who came before me. The soul of the artist is one that needs to create no matter what circumstances exist, and this soul burns insatiably.
This spirit of creation continues to exist because, I feel, it is part of some people's spirit to create against all odds. Colloquially, we know this to be true. We see musicians in the street as we walk through heavy foot-trafficked areas. Guitar cases opened, self-produced albums on hand, there are musicians everywhere waiting for their big break. These musicians bear rejection and poverty just for that one shot to do nothing but make their art.
I know in every ounce of my being that I will not be satisfied with my life until I can hold my head up and say to those people who tell me to look for a "real job" that I am a musician and I get along just fine. I would be an excellent lawyer, journalist, teacher, politician, or businessman, but what I want to be is an excellent musician.
Is this feeling inside me any different than the feeling Bach must have had when he walked hundreds of miles to hear Vivaldi play? Is this any different than the drive Wes Montgomery must have had when he would work shifts as welder and play music at night to support his family? I think this must be so.
The motivations of musicians do not change, and neither can the reasons they produce music.
So, in response to the Huffington Post article, to say that music today is over hyped, mediocrity compared to music of bygone days is completely unfounded and is a slight on up and coming musicians who are trying to make music.
Yes, there is great music that was written well before I was born. The Swing Era had music like Duke Ellington's Harlem Nocturne or Glenn Miller's Moonlight Serenade. The sixties and seventies had Stairway to Heaven and Hey Jude. I can never listen to Debussy's Clair De Lune without an feeling something swell up inside of me. There are thousands hours of indescribably beautiful already in existence, but this does not mean that new creation is pointless.
These moments in music are each beautiful for their own individual reasons. It takes a different skill set for an artist to create each piece of music. An orchestra, may be able to play every note in Stairway to Heaven, but it can never completely replicate the product that Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones, and John Bonham created in 1971.
Each is beautiful, each has rabid fan-bases that would argue why their favorite music is the "greatest," but, ultimately, neither is objectively better or worse than the other. They are both just variations in vibrations of air. To say that music created today is less relevant today than it was in yesteryear is unobjective. There is not "more or less" in music. There is not "better or worse." There is only sound.
Furthermore, the articles insinuation that music today is frivolous is unfounded, because the article makes this claim by only focusing on a few genres and movements in each period of music history. Assume that music could be objectively grouped into music that is "serious" and music that is "corny." While you had "serious" music in the swing era, you also had songs like Don't Sit Under the Apple Tree. I feel that this song is to Duke Ellington's music what Gangnum Style is to Radiohead's music; they may exist in the same era, but one of them is focused on creating an instant gratification for the listener while the other is meant to be contemplated. The reason Don't Sit Under the Apple Tree may sound "dated" to me is I do not have the same experiences as someone who would enjoy that song during the swing era. I can not say whether it is more or less relevant as I do not have the same experiences as a swing musician.
Corny music exists throughout history. This isn't to belittle corny music, as I find myself humming along with Pop Tunes as much as anyone, but to say that what someone may deem as "artistic development" occurs often outside of what is deemed the mainstream music of the day.
To say someone like Miley Cyrus, an act that does not take itself seriously, should define the music of today would be the same as saying that acts like AC/DC should define music of the 70-80's.
If I were to say "AC/DC defines rock music of the 1980's in America," someone who loves music from the 80's, but dislikes AC/DC may argue, "There are other, more 'serious' bands such as Metallica and Ozzy that better define the music of the 80's." To try and define an entire era with a few songs or one or two genres is to discount all the things that occur during that period of time. Only by looking at all of the music created during an era can one hope to begin to have an unbiased argument about whether one era is "better" than the other.
I feel that the author of the Huffington Post article fails to deal with a full picture of both generations of musicians. Instead he focuses on very narrow and loosely defined musical idioms to make a broad and sweeping generalization about the music of today
This process of skewing the view of music by only focusing on certain parts of the history of music is what makes Simmons's insinuation that music of today has no "longevity" so baseless to me. Simmons says that artists have no hope for long lasting influence because recorded music alone is no longer a means of sustaining a livable income. If that is the case than how does one explain the cult-like following among high-art snobs for arts like Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach? Even if one does not care for their music, the longevity of the influence of their music is difficult to argue.
Longevity, as an attribute, can not be measured until well after the fact. Music that has been recently made can not have the same longevity of acts that came out a hundred years ago because they haven't existed as long. Gene Simmons's inability to name bands from the past few years is meaningless because he values record sales numbers and nostalgia over what people look to for music today. I could easily see bands like Rage Against the Machine, Avenged Sevenfold, System of Down having a lasting influence on the music stemming from the rock genre.
All of these musicians have been able to make a living and influence music despite the decline in record sales. The addition of technology does not mean creative people will stop creating beautiful things but instead ushers in a change in business model.
So why am I a "better" example to look to for advice than an already financially successful musician? Because I do not look to outdated business models as a gauge for my success. Because I am not afraid to fail and do not think that music today is inherently different today than it was yesterday. Above everything else though, because I have a soul of a musician, and know that I can not fail.
While I appreciate the thoughts of artists who found financial success before me, my climb to the top is happening now. One day, if I succeed, I will have as irrelevant practical advice as Bach might have navigating today's musical climate. In the meantime I can give in some ways more relevant advice than those who have achieved success because I am in the thick of learning how to turn my art into a career.
So here is my blog on how to turn your passion into a career.
___________________________
Visit me at reverbnation: https://www.reverbnation.com/stevemiller5
