Josh Chasin wrote:
> This whole Owsley thread reminds me of something I heard Kurt Vonnegut say
> years ago when asked what advice he had for young aspiring writers.  He
> said, basically, get a job, because you can't expect to make a living from
> the craft anymore.

Yes. This is not a popular viewpoint, but for all practical purposes, it is
impossible to make a living as a "popular" musician. Yes, there are and
always will be a few people who do it, but they are so few that they are
statistically insignificant. (There are also people who win the lottery.)
The same is true of writing fiction: there are a few Steven Kings and J.K.
Rowlingses out there, but most novelists -- and most musicians -- have day
jobs.

Part of the problem today is the Internet and computer technology, and I'm
not talking about MP3-swapping. The fact is, with today's technology,
anybody can record and distribute a CD for very little money. Consequently,
there are a lot more music choices out there than there used to be, and the
audience has become more fragmented. Yes, there are still some sheep who buy
what they hear on commercial radio, but that is dying.

This is good news for listeners because it means there is a LOT more music
out there. No matter how obscure your musical taste, you can pretty much
find as much music as you want to listen to (this list is a perfect example
of that). But for artists, it means that it's unrealistic to hope for
anything better than recovering some of the cost of recording the CD. I'm
sure Bruce Brodeen could confirm that a typical "Audities" artist is doing
well to sell CDs in the triple digits.

The only good reason to make music is because you love it. And if you do
love it, you're not likely to stop just because it isn't making you rich.

Robert Berry