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.