[besson3c]

For many years I've heard all sorts of crazy ideas and opinions about how musicians should make a living, but my belief has been that most people simply have no idea how these things work, and that their ideas of how things *ought* to work simply don't line up with reality.

Let's take a look at a few common opinions:

1) Musicians shouldn't make their money selling CDs, but at putting on live concerts...

Okay, how do these concerts happen? How do people hear about these musicians if not for a recording that gets aired on the radio, or something that people can sample beforehand? What kinds of expenses go into these concerts? Travel costs, paying the band, event planning, marketing, some musicians need to hire a booking agent... My point is that these events don't just happen out of thin air - a lot of work and expense goes into these.

Then, consider what live on the road for a musician away from family must be like. It is hard living on the road and staying healthy.

Finally, look at all of the lame excuses people come up with for not attending these live concerts when a band you like rolls into town... The tickets are too expensive, I'm busy that night, I'm tired, I don't like crowds, I don't like people, or... I'll just buy their album...

2) Musicians should sell CDs, but for much less than they are now

I'm not a sound engineer, but what Doofy quoted in the Radiohead thread of $28,000 to produce an album sounds about right. There is a lot of expense that goes into a recording - everything from paying the musicians, studio time, engineering, artwork, marketing, CD production, etc. A musician would have to sell literally thousands of copies of the same CD, competing with all of the other CDs out there, in order to recoup their costs... Forget making a living, this is just breaking even! It's hard selling thousands of copies of *anything*.

Some people suggest that musicians can cut corners in producing an album. Unfortunately, we are conditioned to expecting a certain amount of quality out of the recordings we buy. We probably wouldn't pay $15 for a CD that sounds like some guy with a mic at a live concert, and how can a band compete against others that are putting this sort of money into their recordings? The actual price of a CD is debatable, but it depends on the band, the costs of the album, their popularity, etc. How can a musician make a living selling records when they are practically giving them away?

3) Most of the records/top 40 out there is pure crap, why should I pay for this?

Well, how do you plan on supporting the artists you *do* like when we come up with these weird justifications for not paying musicians, for staying at home, for not buying that album, and for file-sharing? Honestly, I think that if people were to actually think about this stuff and the *causes* behind why they don't like the top 40 stuff being cranked out, perhaps they would be more supportive and understanding of the fact that just like voting on election day, they have a part of the future of music and the artists they like.


Please, the next time you hear somebody assert some stupid **** about how musicians ought to make money that you know is flawed, correct them I'm not saying that there is a right or wrong answer to my original question, because if there were a formula to being financially successful as a musician, more people would be doing it. It's extremely difficult, I'm only being preachy about the stuff that I feel is destructive to the music business...

[besson3c]

Forgot to add...

Balance everything I've said against the fact that gas/travel costs have increased significantly in the last couple of years or so, and that the American dollar is sucking right now....

[peeb]

We're assuming that being a musician is a 'profession' - the vast majority of musicians, many of them very good, don't make their living playing music. They have day jobs. It's a relatively small number that dominate the mass airwaves - local music scenes are usually alive with semi-professional musicians.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not a sound engineer, but what Doofy quoted in the Radiohead thread of $28,000 to produce an album sounds about right. There is a lot of expense that goes into a recording - everything from paying the musicians, studio time, engineering, artwork, marketing, CD production, etc.

I'll clarify a little. That $28,000 is just studio time (well, resident engineer and tea boy included) for a passable recording. That's pretty much what I'd call the absolute minimum if you want it to get anywhere near the charts. We could easily go a lot more in better facilities (or with more parties. heh).

It's pretty much a variable sum. Less experienced musos equals more studio time equals more money. Extensive pre-production (i.e. tracking at a home facility) equals less time equals less money.

Then add the artwork (actually quite cheap), physical production (cheap if the label owns the plant or you go international shopping, some good cheap places in Eastern Europe), marketing (expensive).

Sorry for the slight derail.

[Doofy]

OK, on topic...

Originally Posted by besson3c 

1) Musicians shouldn't make their money selling CDs, but at putting on live concerts...
...
Then, consider what live on the road for a musician away from family must be like. It is hard living on the road and staying healthy.

Nail on head. I hate it when people suggest that musos should earn their money playing live and give all their recordings away. Who's going to feed the cats back home?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

3) Most of the records/top 40 out there is pure crap, why should I pay for this?

Well, how do you plan on supporting the artists you *do* like when we come up with these weird justifications for not paying musicians, for staying at home, for not buying that album, and for file-sharing? Honestly, I think that if people were to actually think about this stuff and the *causes* behind why they don't like the top 40 stuff being cranked out, perhaps they would be more supportive and understanding of the fact that just like voting on election day, they have a part of the future of music and the artists they like.

What we have to understand is that the vast majority of people who listen to the crap in the top 40 do so because they're complete sheep who don't know what they like, thus have to be told. Now, to a bunch of intelligent individualist guys like Mac users this may sound a little off, but I assure you it's the truth. It's the same thing which sees Windows with such a large market share - most people will listen to or use any old crap as long as everyone else is doing so.

The trick to making large money out of it is to steer the top 40 in a direction which suits your purposes. Hence marketing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll clarify a little. That $28,000 is just studio time (well, resident engineer and tea boy included) for a passable recording. That's pretty much what I'd call the absolute minimum if you want it to get anywhere near the charts. We could easily go a lot more in better facilities (or with more parties. heh).

It's pretty much a variable sum. Less experienced musos equals more studio time equals more money. Extensive pre-production (i.e. tracking at a home facility) equals less time equals less money.

Then add the artwork (actually quite cheap), physical production (cheap if the label owns the plant or you go international shopping, some good cheap places in Eastern Europe), marketing (expensive).

Sorry for the slight derail.

Not a derail at all, this adds quite a bit.

Thanks!

[residentEvil]

how should they make money? make music that isn't crap. i don't listen to the radio cause what i hear is crap. also, the music i want to hear isn't on the radio (non-internet) to begin with. it has to be live shows or nothing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

We're assuming that being a musician is a 'profession' - the vast majority of musicians, many of them very good, don't make their living playing music. They have day jobs. It's a relatively small number that dominate the mass airwaves - local music scenes are usually alive with semi-professional musicians.

Yes, but it's extremely hard to get ahead as an artist with 8 hours a day being occupied by a day job. Would we as a society be happy if everybody's favorite artist had a day job starting tomorrow?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

how should they make money? make music that isn't crap. i don't listen to the radio cause what i hear is crap. also, the music i want to hear isn't on the radio (non-internet) to begin with. it has to be live shows or nothing.

Okay, so how do artists sustain themselves making music that isn't crap?

[residentEvil]

lets see.

johnny cash or britney spears. just because both got air play does that make their music "not crap"?

you answered your own question.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, but it's extremely hard to get ahead as an artist with 8 hours a day being occupied by a day job. Would we as a society be happy if everybody's favorite artist had a day job starting tomorrow?

Yes, I think so. You would loose the megabands, but gain vast diversity of local bands. People would adapt! Also, it's not necessarily an 8 hour day-job - you can make some money as a musician.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

lets see.

johnny cash or britney spears. just because both got air play does that make their music "not crap"?

you answered your own question.

People don't wake up one day and are all of a sudden great... how does somebody like Johnny Cash get to where he was in today's music business? What does an artist get discovered?

[Kevin]

Musicians? Depends, you could always be a studio musician.

For those that are better than the average, they usually have no problems making money from their music.

I find a lot of average musicians that have super star goals always blaming the man for not being able to make it as a musician. Such jobs aren't like other jobs where you go to collage and get a degree etc. You have to have something to bring to the table since there are so many out there with the same dream.

I myself have no supahstah aspirations, and I am sure there are tons better performers than me. Music to me is about something else entirely.

But those that are "naturals" .. those special ones.. they can have the best of both worlds.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes, I think so. You would loose the megabands, but gain vast diversity of local bands. People would adapt! Also, it's not necessarily an 8 hour day-job - you can make some money as a musician.

Many of the musicians I know are the busiest people I know, and they are full-time musicians.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last point though.

[besson3c]

A trumpet player came into the University a couple of years ago is that is one of the first call musicians in Hollywood/LA... He is the trumpet player on the opening to the Jetsons, but has also done the Simpsons and several other shows and movies.

He reported that a lot of the orchestral music in Hollywood is now being outsourced to European orchestras. The outsourcing of jobs is affecting musicians too!

He also addressed the highly competitive nature of the studio music scene in LA... There are literally just a handful of players that get the calls, although there are literally thousands of players that want the gigs (and could probably play well on many of them too).

If the music scene is drying up in LA, this does bode well for the rest of the country. There was a time where people went to LA to work, and you can be sure that the supply GREATLY outstrips the demand in a city like New York or Chicago too.

There are no simplistic solutions, the music business has virtually become an oxymoron...

[Kevin]

I am betting those handful of players are being called back because of the abilities AND attitude and work ethic. Once you find someone you can trust, and is talented and has good work ethic, they usually don't want to let them go. I used to do jingles for the local TV station's studio in the 90s for on the side work when I was taking care of my Uncle.

I remember they'd always call the same singers and or voice overs to do the work because they didn't have to "train" them their "ways" of doing things over again

Time saved is money saved.

Studios usually call said person because of word of mouth. Worth of mouth started because you have something special, or a talent that is required at the time.

That is just how I saw it work in the small amount of time I spent doing stuff of the like.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

also, the music i want to hear isn't on the radio (non-internet) to begin with. it has to be live shows or nothing.

Not available on CDs ?
What kind of music / artist is that ?

-t

[Kevin]

Well you can get live bootleg shows off the net turtle. Live shows from bands and such. Stuff you can't BUY off the shelf. So you can't tell someone "you should buy that" cause there is nowhere to buy it...

I have tons of live stuff in my collection. That is where it's at for me too. I remember back in my college days when the local "headshop/music store" place sold a few rare CD bootlegs. But they always cost like $29 or more.

Usually not HIGH quality, but sometimes you get some gems.

I have a Jane's Addiction concert live from Milan Italy from 1991 that just rocks.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well you can get live bootleg shows off the net turtle. Live shows from bands and such. Stuff you can't BUY off the shelf. So you can't tell someone "you should buy that" cause there is nowhere to buy it...

I have tons of live stuff in my collection. That is where it's at for me too. I remember back in my college days when the local "headshop/music store" place sold a few rare CD bootlegs. But they always cost like $29 or more.

Usually not HIGH quality, but sometimes you get some gems.

I have a Jane's Addiction concert live from Milan Italy from 1991 that just rocks.

So, just that I understand: there are bands who are utterly brilliant when playing live, and utterly crappy on studio recordings ?

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I remember they'd always call the same singers and or voice overs to do the work because they didn't have to "train" them their "ways" of doing things over again

Yep. Even within the tech side of things (before even talking about the talent), it's important to work as a close team. For example, sessions go much quicker if the second engineer has already done what the first engineer was going to ask him to do. In the best sessions, you get something like a physic connection and really start to behave like a well-oiled machine - totally in the zone. Less time fussing with the mechanics of it all (whether they be the tech or performance mechanics) means more time for creativity.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So, just that I understand: there are bands who are utterly brilliant when playing live, and utterly crappy on studio recordings ?

-t

Not at all... I just said I like downloading live, can't get in stores, concerts.

Sometimes they mix up the songs, and do them differently. Take for example, a certain guitarist might do stuff live, he doesn't do on tape.

Frank Gamble is a good example of this. He is a bit more showy live than on tape. And experiments a bit more.

But anyhow, the TRUE musicians and talented players I know didn't go into music for money. They did so because they HAD to. They had no other choice. It consumed their life.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For many years I've heard all sorts of crazy ideas and opinions about how musicians should make a living, but my belief has been that most people simply have no idea how these things work, and that their ideas of how things *ought* to work simply don't line up with reality.

Funny.
That is how I feel about every post in the PL when uneducated morons discuss their opinions on legal issues.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Funny.
That is how I feel about every post in the PL when uneducated morons discuss their opinions on legal issues.

Or the environment, or public health care systems...

[ort888]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that musicians SHOULD make all their money on live shows... I think this is the common belief.

Or maybe a rationaliztion people use to justify pirating music.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that musicians SHOULD make all their money on live shows... I think this is the common belief.

Or maybe a rationaliztion people use to justify pirating music.

Really? I've heard this several times...

That and musicians should only make money on their musical product once rather than selling multiple copies of the same product (CDs), that musicians should want to tour and have their music heard, etc.

In my opinion, it is entirely up to the artist as to what they are comfortable with in terms of file sharing, taping their concerts (as a lot of people do, as you can see by the number of bootleg concert videos up on YouTube), having their music available on eMusic, iTunes, whatever... sometimes their reasons for justifying their decisions seem a little loony, but they should still be respected.

[Kevin]

A lot of people don't have what it takes to make it as a musician. When I say that, I mean they don't have what it takes to start out and get the ball rolling. It takes a lot of dedication and sacrificing on the musicians part.

Most all of the ones I knew that did "make it" in any sort of way usually had to live a humble lifestyle for a good while until they made a name for themselves.

Some think they should be able to just jump into it, and get a bunch of money. And get upset when it doesn't happen.

The only time that usually happens is when the person is extraordinarily gifted.

There are LOTS of kids that want to be astronauts when they grow up. But we all know just because all of those kids WANT it, doesn't mean that is what they will get. Those that want it the MOST, and are most qualified and willing to make sacrifices are usually the ones that you see "making it"

[analogika]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes, I think so. You would loose the megabands, but gain vast diversity of local bands. People would adapt! Also, it's not necessarily an 8 hour day-job - you can make some money as a musician.

A single job as a musician is usually something around a 16 or 18-hour work day, including prep, packing, driving, set-up, sound-check, waiting, playing, tearing-down, packing, getting hold of the club manager, driving back, and unloading.

That's assuming somebody else is doing the booking and promotion, which is easily a full-time day job in itself for any band that actually wants to play out a bit, and assuming the gig isn't an overnighter.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

A single job as a musician is usually something around a 16 or 18-hour work day, including prep, packing, driving, set-up, sound-check, waiting, playing, tearing-down, packing, getting hold of the club manager, driving back, and unloading.

That's assuming somebody else is doing the booking and promotion, which is easily a full-time day job in itself for any band that actually wants to play out a bit, and assuming the gig isn't an overnighter.

Right. Long Hours + Little Pay = sacrifice a lot of people aren't willing to make.

I knew a guy back in the early 90s that was a GREAT guitar player. Could play anything (every town has one) Well he was going to LA to either be a studio guy, or join a band and "make it big"

The problem was, at the time there wasn't a really BIG CALL for flashy guitarists that actually knew how to play their instruments.

He did end up getting a studio job at some small unknown studio barely getting buy. He realized that there was thousands of guitar players just like him that decided to do the same thing. He decided he wanted a better life that payed more money. He wanted the Posh existence more so than he did a musical one. He though he could simply stroll into LA and get both.

There is just a lot of factors that have to be into play. For example, you'll have to learn different ways to make Vienna Sausages into a edible meal.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Right. Long Hours + Little Pay = sacrifice a lot of people aren't ABLE to make.

Remember, my post was in response to somebody talking about how it's to be expected that any real musician also has a day job.

[Dork.]

I'll hop on the other side of the fence for a moment and hurl some poo at besson3c:

I may be oversimplifying in the interest of time, but besson3c's seems to be wondering how people expect musicians to make a living when people percieve their product (the recorded music) as too expensive, and essentially want it for free. I'm not a musician (my entire musical career consists of Faking It), but I have actively listened to music for well over 30 years, and I have this perspective:

1) Nobody is entitled to make a living. If you're not cutting it as a playing musician, do something else (either get a day job or teach music somewhere). This will result in fewer musicians, at which point the people who pay for music will notice its missing and be willing to pony up again. It's harsh, but the way things work here.

2) The reason why music on CD is percieved to be overpriced is because it is. I'm not contesting that is costs money to produce an album, but duplication costs are practically nonexistent. Even if duplication costs you 2 grand, $30000/10 = 3000 albums sold to break even. And even that music can be compressed down to a few hundred megs of data, which these days can fit in someone's phone. When everyone's phone is playing music, is it really all that special? When I can download flashing web ads that are bigger than an MP3 file, why should I consider the bits that make up the MP3 file any more valuable?

The answer, of course, is that it still is special, that the music is more just than the bits on the CD because of its power to move the soul, and has intangible value that is worth more than the cost of duplication and mastering. That's great, find a few thousand other people who agree with that assessment and you've made a profit selling your CD. Congratulations!

I'm also skipping over the part where we realize that in order for music to sell, people need to hear it, and in order for them to hear it, they need access to at least one copy they didn't pay for, since most people don't just buy music they've never heard. So musicians need to provide a way for their future fans to discover them cheaply.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I've got to go to work....

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Remember, my post was in response to somebody talking about how it's to be expected that any real musician also has a day job.

And you are referring to someone that is willing to make sacrifices that having a day job would give them...

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Not available on CDs ?
What kind of music / artist is that ?

-t

yeah, you buy their CDs at the show...or if you are lucky, some small time label picks it up or their own label makes/produces limited quantities.

what happens to some of those small labels is they get bought buy a larger one and bam, that catalog becomes available in the mainstream.

but before that happens...it is live shows or nothing.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So, just that I understand: there are bands who are utterly brilliant when playing live, and utterly crappy on studio recordings ?

-t

Yes, there are!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by analogika 

A single job as a musician is usually something around a 16 or 18-hour work day, including prep, packing, driving, set-up, sound-check, waiting, playing, tearing-down, packing, getting hold of the club manager, driving back, and unloading.

That's assuming somebody else is doing the booking and promotion, which is easily a full-time day job in itself for any band that actually wants to play out a bit, and assuming the gig isn't an overnighter.

Well, that's true for some bands, there are also others that have mainly local gigs, and an easier time of it. There are different levels of being a musician - the type of thing you're talking about is not compatible with having a day job. I actually think that loosing the mega bands would be a great thing though, re-invigorate local distribution channels and local diversity in music.

[JonoMarshall]

They could busk?

Why should it be easy though? The market has changed... big woop. Fine artists have been sluming it for years and only make money when they die - not so great.

This is the digital age, there's no 'magic' of hearing something on the radio and then finally owning your own metal-disk version a month or so later. Music tracks are ten-a-penny for most folk, heck I don't even own new music anymore, we stream it around our shared house and pod-swap shuffles for exciting new groups.

When I used to freelance design I'd do a 'gig' at minimum wage and then have the honor of seeing it up in lights, that was it, no comission. no bonus, no guaranteed future work. Why is it not enough for the musician to get some popularity and respect then gig it round the country at various pubs and bars?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes, there are!

Ok, so who are they ?

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall 

Why is it not enough for the musician to get some popularity and respect then gig it round the country at various pubs and bars?

Because, quite frankly, spending your life in the back of a minibus and in cheap hotels is crap.

You go home and snuggle into your own bed every night - why shouldn't musicians?

[wallinbl]

Reality is that most musicians have a very small audience, and aren't going to make a living doing it. The fact that a CD is $28,000 to record is a risk you have to be willing to take. You may not sell enough to recover that. You may have to do concerts to make up for it. You may lose money when all is said and done. Those are the breaks. It's no different than starting any other business venture, because, let's face it, a band is a business venture. Most business ventures fail. When you start a business, you lose money for a long time before breaking even and starting to make money. That's why people save up money before they try it.

Don't get caught up in some romanticized crap about how everyone has a right to make a living. If you want to make a living, go to college. If you want to be a rock star, be willing to take the risk.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Reality is that most musicians have a very small audience, and aren't going to make a living doing it. The fact that a CD is $28,000 to record is a risk you have to be willing to take. You may not sell enough to recover that. You may have to do concerts to make up for it. You may lose money when all is said and done. Those are the breaks. It's no different than starting any other business venture, because, let's face it, a band is a business venture. Most business ventures fail. When you start a business, you lose money for a long time before breaking even and starting to make money. That's why people save up money before they try it.

No. That's why RECORD COMPANIES EXIST.

They finance the production and cover the risk by hoping to make enough money off 10% of their ventures to finance the 90% that barely break even or fail utterly.

That's the whole idea of how this business works - ideally.

Since it's now fairly cheap to produce a mediocre record (compared to what even a basic studio cost in the 70s), there is a *deluge* of material - most of it complete crap - on the one hand, while on the other hand record sales have slumped to the point where even artists that sell no longer recoup costs for the risks, record companies are no longer able to take risks.

But producing and promoting your own album at decent quality is a financial risk most people cannot afford to take.


Incidentally, back when people started to complain about how insanely expensive CDs were, recorded media were actually cheaper than at any point in history - inflation-compensated.

People in the 60s *rarely* had more than a handful of records, because they couldn't afford to buy them.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, that's true for some bands, there are also others that have mainly local gigs, and an easier time of it. There are different levels of being a musician - the type of thing you're talking about is not compatible with having a day job. I actually think that loosing the mega bands would be a great thing though, re-invigorate local distribution channels and local diversity in music.

Um.

Unless you're in a regular in-house band (usually crap jobs for crap pay, playing the same 50 top-forty favorites of the past forty years up and down, and down and up, to drunk party-goers night after night), gig contracts at clubs come with a clause that you're not allowed to play within 150 miles of that club within the next THREE MONTHS.

So - if you're a working playback yob, you can scratch by (though often enough, it will mean being based in a different city for four months, while you're hired by the musical or other show that's setting up shop there for that time. This works great for musicians with families. ). If you're actually in a band doing your own stuff, FORGET playing local gigs more often than three or four times a year. Which will most likely be pay-to-play, as well, so the chances of walking home with enough money to cover gasoline are fairly slim.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Reality is that most musicians have a very small audience, and aren't going to make a living doing it. The fact that a CD is $28,000 to record is a risk you have to be willing to take. You may not sell enough to recover that. You may have to do concerts to make up for it. You may lose money when all is said and done. Those are the breaks. It's no different than starting any other business venture, because, let's face it, a band is a business venture. Most business ventures fail. When you start a business, you lose money for a long time before breaking even and starting to make money. That's why people save up money before they try it.

Don't get caught up in some romanticized crap about how everyone has a right to make a living. If you want to make a living, go to college. If you want to be a rock star, be willing to take the risk.

It's just a question of what society values and is willing to pay for (there are, BTW, literally hundreds of music colleges and universities around this country). Why is it that professional athletes can make a living doing what they are doing while many professional musicians can't?

The thing is, what society values can be shaped. I hear all the time people whining about how they hate top 40 and they'd be happy to support artists they like. I'm saying, okay, DO it!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Um.

Unless you're in a regular in-house band (usually crap jobs for crap pay, playing the same 50 top-forty favorites of the past forty years up and down, and down and up, to drunk party-goers night after night), gig contracts at clubs come with a clause that you're not allowed to play within 150 miles of that club within the next THREE MONTHS.

So - if you're a working playback yob, you can scratch by (though often enough, it will mean being based in a different city for four months, while you're hired by the musical or other show that's setting up shop there for that time. This works great for musicians with families. ). If you're actually in a band doing your own stuff, FORGET playing local gigs more often than three or four times a year. Which will most likely be pay-to-play, as well, so the chances of walking home with enough money to cover gasoline are fairly slim.

Yeah, there is little money to be had playing the bars, restaurants, and clubs like you said... Moreover, people are only willing to go out and see a certain local act so many times, knowing full well there will be other opportunities.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's just a question of what society values and is willing to pay for (there are, BTW, literally hundreds of music colleges and universities around this country). Why is it that professional athletes can make a living doing what they are doing while many professional musicians can't?

It has little to do with how society values these things, and everything to do with the various leagues putting an artificial ceiling on the number of professional athletes. From there, it's simple economics. Less supply means each individual unit is worth more.

Maybe you can fulfill your dream by starting a "National Musicians League" who's sole responsibility (beyond generating enormous profit) is to tell most people they aren't anywhere near good enough to make a living through music.

IOW, careful what you wish for.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It has little to do with how society values these things, and everything to do with the various leagues putting an artificial ceiling on the number of professional athletes. From there, it's simple economics. Less supply means each individual unit is worth more.

Maybe you can fulfill your dream by starting a "National Musicians League" who's sole responsibility (beyond generating enormous profit) is to tell most people they aren't anywhere near good enough to make a living through music.

IOW, careful what you wish for.

On what basis are you comparing the supply and demand of musicians to athletes?

[peeb]

That's sort of what we have with the major labels and radio airtime.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

On what basis are you comparing the supply and demand of musicians to athletes?

Professional musicians and athletes.

I don't really understand the question though. Can you be more specific?

[hayesk]

People who say musicians should give their albums away and make money by touring are just making a lame rationalization to illegally acquire music.

1. What if you don't go to concerts? Why do you deserve to enjoy a musicians product for free?

2. What about people who write lyrics, music, etc. but can not perform? Are they not entitled to a living?

The problem is not musicians selling their albums - it's the middleman who is taking too large of a cut. There needs to be more independent labels who understand that the marketer and financier are not the most important part of the equation - the music is!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Don't get caught up in some romanticized crap about how everyone has a right to make a living. If you want to make a living, go to college. If you want to be a rock star, be willing to take the risk.

This man speaks the truth. In an idealistic world everyone that WANTS to make a decent living in the music business can.

But this isn't a idealistic world.

Veruca doesn't always get what she wants.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

This man speaks the truth. In an idealistic world everyone that WANTS to make a decent living in the music business can.

Concur. There's a certain je ne say quois also required. You can spot it a mile off if you know what to look for.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Professional musicians and athletes.

I don't really understand the question though. Can you be more specific?

You're saying that there are fewer opportunities for professional athletes (I'm assuming we are talking about a major sport here) to play, so therefore these positions are prestigious, highly sought after, and pay more.. is that about right?

What I'm asking is how do you know that there are less of these opportunities for athletes than there are for musicians?

Let's compare pro teams to major orchestras... How many orchestras in this country are there that you think people can make a living off of? I'll give you a hint - you can count them on one hand. Seriously. And, of course, once a musician has attained these elite positions, the pay is much less anyway... however, I guess that's a different argument altogether.