Historically, music has always been a privilege. A form of art only the wealthy and noble could partake in creating and enjoying.

I would think that the access to greater sums of money will allow you to be more musically inclined. A musical hobby can get pricey.

I wanted to play the violin as a child, but we had no disposable income. When I became old enough for the public school concert band I wanted to play the trumpet. Well, that was a no go. Trumpets were not provided by the schools, but trombones were.

I hated that trombone. I played the hell out of it, but I always resented it. It was a symbol of poverty. (That was way off base, but I felt like responding to the poor/rich part of the post)

Have to say I couldn't agree less. Wandering minstrels and singers in medieval times had little or no money but made their living with just a lute or even their voice. You don't need money to play music, never have. It's always been the simplest of pleasures; anyone can play if they have the talent or the time to learn.

Never heard of folk music or blues?

Much of the music we're discussing in the early 21st century has roots in the slavery of the early/mid 19th century

Exactly. When it comes right down to it, all you really need is a wooden box and a stick and you have a drumkit. It's not Pearl, but it'll make the same sound. Music is the great leveller; anyone can play it if they want to and it needn't cost the earth. As Urban says, or intimates, the old blues masters usually only had a beat-up old guitar and their voice, and you certainly couldn't call any of them privileged.

Sorry Katsy, I like ya but that statement you made has to be one of the most ill-researched and just plain wrong I have ever encountered here. Music is not, and never has been, just a rich man's game. It's available to anyone who wants it, at often a cost of zero dollars, zero cents.

Her statement is no more wrong than the OP's assertion that most musicians come from poverty.

It couldn't be more wrong, Jansz: "Historically music has always been for the rich"? Where did that come from? Even if she'd said "I think" but "Historically" makes it seem like she believes it's a fact, researched, and it just doesn't stand up to any examination, for at the very least the reasons I gave previously. It just makes no sense. You might as well say only rich people could write, or paint, which is just as off the beam as that statement.

I'm not trying to get at her, I just don't see where she got that assertion from. It's not an opinion as far as I can see, it's being offered as historical fact, and it most certainly is not. If anything, the reverse is true. The rich couldn't be bothered learning/playing music and historically the nobles, kings, landlords etc would engage bands or musicians to entertain them. These would often be from a much lower class. In fact, in many cultures musician was often ranked alongside beggar or pedlar in terms of social strata. It certainly was not a badge of nobility or wealth. Mozart, one of the most gifted musicians in history, died a pauper.

I think you misunderstood my point, which was that the comment she was responding to is equally incorrect. The OP was talking about modern right-wingers and had made the claim that "most artists usually come from a poor background". To me that's a pretty baseless claim, especially in the context in modern times. As others have pointed out there are numerous examples of artists who come from privileged, or at least not poor, backgrounds. Are there some artists that come from poverty? Absolutely. But I don't think they're the majority.

Yeah, you're right. I misunderstood. I think I came from reading and posting in Exo's "serious advice" thread and was a little on-edge. Sorry about that. :)
:beer:

All musicians are descendents of a green, fifteen foot tall supra intelligent platypus named Frank Johnson. I think we can at least agree on that.

Well yeah, obviously.

Yeah, I'm of the school that disputes that.
We think he was red...

I certainly see your point. I don't feel that my comment is ill-researched. I was just repeating what I was taught by a phd in music in my general music studies class; so that's where it came from. We covered music starting in the 18th century on.

Not to discredit folk/minstrels, but the main focus of music was by the rich, in the above mentioned eras. Maybe, I didn't provide the proper background for the basis of my statement.

But I do know for a fact that the more money you have to easier it is to have a musical hobby-- or anything in life that matter.

This only works if you laser-focus on classical music

Yeah, pretty much. That was the basis for the "historically" bit. I do not believe music is only for the wealthy. I just think it is easier obtained.

Or art music in general actually.

I think a musical *education* is more easily obtained. There's no economic barrier on musical inspiration or talent

That video perfectly expresses the point I was making. Classical music, okay to some extent you probably had to have the money to own a piano, flute, whatever, and to be trained, but classical music doesn't encompass all of history. Like I said, back in the dark ages any peasant could hit a, well, other peasant with a stick and make music out of it! :D

Not to mention hip hop. The Wu Tang Clan literally recorded the first music they put out on the ****tiest mixers in the middle of the projects. Also an acoustic guitar or bass can be had for under 100 bucks. Music is not just for the rich, I think OP is living in the middle ages.