Is music as an art form compatible with free market capitalism...

Is music as an art form compatible with free market capitalism? Or can music can only truly thrive as an art form within socialism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zrTG-OQTXGM
youtube.com/watch?v=w0VZe1NseZ8
youtube.com/watch?v=9YcQdS8s6DQ
youtube.com/watch?v=B00Gaj4R0_U
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nothing worthwhille is compatible with capitalism.

music can only thrive with antisocialism i find personally

The perfect system for artistic creation is socialism without authoritarianism. It ensures the artist can fully dedicate themselves to their craft without having to worry about financial situation and without repressive government overreach they would be allowed free expression. A system like France's or Finland/Sweden would probably be best.

This
Take the Nazbol pill boys

>A system like France's or Finland/Sweden would probably be best.
Yeah that's why theres no noteworthy French or Swedish bands?

Holy pleb
Listen to more music
Sweden has produced many worldwide famous acts

...

>socialism without authoritarianism.
>A system like France's or Finland/Sweden would probably be best.
Neither of those are Socialist though.

Like who?

Music is only compatible with free market capitalism.
It costs time and money to make it, can't be a composer when working in the popcorn mines for your government issued tokens.

>ABBA
>a few Death Metal bands
that's about it.

ABBA is an obvious one, but there's also Max Martin, the man who has written/produced the majority of American top 40 pop since the mid 90s. Britney Spears, *nsycn, Christina Aguleira, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Bieber, they've all sang songs written by this one Swede.

That's just going by commercial success, not even artistic achievement.

There were plenty of musicians in communist countries. They had schools and conservatories dedicated to studying music.

music is best when politics keeps its fat nose out of it

And they all wrote commie marches praising the govt to no end

An artistic dead end if ever there was one

>American top 40 pop since the mid 90s. Britney Spears, *nsycn, Christina Aguleira, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Bieber, they've all sang songs written by this one Swede.
So he would even have a job without American free market capitalism? Great example.

Capitalism encourages shittier disposable music that sells. Country, rap, top 40 pop would likely not have an audience if it weren't for capitalism and the record industry. Quality music scenes would develop and be promoted in a socialist society because there wouldn't be labels solely concerned about wealth the artist generates, but rather quality of music or message.

>And they all wrote commie marches praising the govt to no end
1.) No, they didn't. Not everything they composed was agitprop.
2.) Even the agitprop was beautiful.
youtube.com/watch?v=zrTG-OQTXGM

>Is music as an art form compatible with free market capitalism?
Free market capitalism will always find a niche for anything, and that's the beauty of it. Is the commodification of music a problem? Yes. But within free market capitalism, music has been explored in pretty much every way possible because there is a niche for that sort of music and people interested in it for their own reasons will go after it.
>Or can music can only truly thrive as an art form within socialism?
I don't think it can thrive within socialism, actually. Now, this may sound absolutely fucking retarded but the issue is that there is no niche for anything at all. This happens not only in socialism but pretty much in all restricted markets - see: Nazi Germany's restrictions on jazz extending up to fucking synchopathion. Within a restricted market you basically may have a need for a certain thing, but because it is prohibited nothing can be done, and thus music cannot truly be developed as an art form. Another thing - socialism is generally very, very restrictive. A musician is going to be groomed to be a musician from an early age if we at least follow the original definition of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This leads to hyperspecialized musicians - the issue is that you can't have someone who takes an interest in music later in their life and brings a wholly new perspective on it. And again, that is bad for art forms.

You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

Well, there's someone that doesn't know Switzerland's history of Civil Wars.

Ya ok
Yugoslavia post punk music: youtube.com/watch?v=w0VZe1NseZ8
USSR music: youtube.com/watch?v=9YcQdS8s6DQ

As for bands, Pesnyary and Sedmina come immediately to mind as well as composers like Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Eisler, and Weill

Well this is some crazy stuff. I bet the government banned it and it was some black market shit.

Music technology is advanced and made affordable through capitalism.
Socialism is wholly dependent on capitalism, without the US free market, Europe's socialist countries would collapse in every aspect

wow stuff no one ever heard.
having to get your music from the black market would be great.

Yugoslav punk was lit
youtube.com/watch?v=B00Gaj4R0_U

Yugoslavia actually had fairly open access to Western goods because they weren't officially aligned to the Warsaw Pact despite being socialist.

>Europe
>socialist
They're social democracies at best

Yugoslavia not so much mostly due to their role as something of a middle ground, but Kino was a member of the first "legal" free rock scene - there had been another one which was state sanctioned - which was in a club that was under constant monitoring of the KGB. It wasn't black market shit, but it was very very measured to avoid getting KGB'ed.

Idk what the fuck that means but I know they were commie bastards so they probably censored hella shit. You call yourself an American defending this shit? YOu make me puke.

Social's in the name retard.

The Soviet Union wasn't communism. It was totalitarianism.

Go back to fucking Sup Forums you cretin
Yeah, the problem is more state repression than the economic system.

>Social's in the name retard.
He's right though. They're social liberals not socialists.

I'm not an American, and thank god for that.

imagine unironically being anything other than a centrist
music thrives under centrism

More like without the US subsidizing their defense, Europe couldn't afford all those nice things.

>Socialism is wholly dependent on capitalism, without the US free market, Europe's socialist countries would collapse in every aspect

Disgusting post

>Yeah, the problem is more state repression than the economic system.
Spot on, this is very noticeable in the Latin American dictatorships of the Cold War era, which were "free market" ones, but the main thing was that they were heavily censored, so the problems of most socialist states still applied - though to a lesser degree in the sense of often being 100% focused into being a musician, which generally meant that there rarely was going to be the discovery of someone very skilled that was in the wrong field of work, and it substituted that with the commercialist issue of music as a commodity.

Daft Punk, Abba, Europe, Avicii, Jean-Michel Jarre, Gojira, David Guetta, In Flames, Amon Amarth

that's just off the top off my head

So this is the power of capitalist music taste eh

Jesus Christ they sound more autistic talking about music than we do talking about politics.

the average capitalist is not a Sup Forums browsing mongoloid

yeah for that you want /biz/

The only good commie composer was Prokofiev and most every musician worth remembering from the USSR hated living there..