This seems a little overstated to me -- most of the places I go to see a show open their doors when they say, most openers aren't *that* late and most gaps between acts aren't *that* long, in my experience -- but tweaking the details doesn't change your overall point, and there's a lot of truth in your post. I don't go to shows as much as I used to, despite how much I want to because I know that's how acts make their money; I've got to go to work in the morning and I just can't get away with it like I used to.

Except it doesn't imply that at all -- the difference being the difference between making a statement about an individual and the world at large. I tried to clarify that in the reply to the post immediately preceding yours.

I wish there was some way to reply to several posts in a tree with one reply, so one didn't have to choose between saying the same thing a zillion times, or only replying to one time someone said it and leaving others' questions/comments/ripostes/whatever unacknowledged. Blah.

I do think it's a problem that almost no artists are making a simple living selling music anymore; but it doesn't logically follow that I think anyone should expect to make money selling music.

If it's still not clear what I'm actually trying to say, let me rephrase it by making a similar statement: I don't think anyone should expect to grow up and become a doctor, but I think it would be a very bad thing if nobody grew up and became a doctor.

But again, my comment a few parents up wasn't that anyone expects to make a living at it; so I don't know why this comment keeps getting made. To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said that.

Let me put what I am saying another way: I have no expectation that any specific individual artist should be able to make a living making music. Long before the internet era, I'd seen tons of people with tons of musical talent and ability and devotion get exactly nowhere; so I'm not under any illusions that anyone that decides to make music professionally should have any expectation of making a living at it. But I do think that it would be a good thing if somebody, somewhere (other than, of course, the major labels' American Idol-ish diva of the month) was able to make a living at it. For me, what sucks isn't that John Doe or Jane Schmoe don't make a living at music; it's that seemingly nobody does anymore.

A year ago or so, I had a conversation with the lead guitarist for one of the really popular bands out of Seattle in the 90s. It didn't surprise me at all when he told me that he really doesn't make any money at music anymore; it's been a long time since their peak in popularity. What caught my attention, though, was his emphatic statement that nobody else he knows makes money at music these days, either.

I think from the late 60s into the early 90s, it was true for more acts than just a few really big ones; it just simultaneously wasn't true for many acts that you'd expect it to be the case for, because (to put it very simply) they were being screwed by their labels. Much of the over-the-top pagentry of the stage shows for arena rock bands from the 70s (e.g. Electric Light Orchestra's spaceship on the Out of the Blue tour) was intended to serve as promotional material; Parliament/Funkadelic even took a loss on their tours for years, despite selling out most venues, for that very reason. I agree, though, with the general notion that even then, the pendulum eventually swung back in the other direction as you looked at smaller and smaller (in terms of popularity) bands.

I think both are true. I agree that it's a paradigm shift. Where I think the problem lies now is that much of the music audience doesn't realize this -- doesn't realize that if you like an artist and want them to keep making music, the best path to see this happen is to go to shows and spend money at shows.

Related story: at a sold out Sebadoh reunion show I went to maybe a year ago, also in DC (hi neighbor), my wife pointed out when we arrived that Lou Barlow was working the merch table. I've seen a lot more of that lately -- big artists working the merch table themselves. It's probably good for all parties: fans get an opportunity to meet and actually talk with performers they love; performers save money on another person in the van during the tour, and likely sell more stuff because people enthusiastically come to the table and interact.

Your response strongly suggests that you didn't actually read what I wrote. So just to make a couple of things clear:

1. I'm not *trying* to make any money in music; my "real job" is as a physicist. I'm paid just fine. My post wasn't about me or my situation in the tiniest bit.

2. In no way did I assert that anyone deserves to make money at something simply because they want to do it. How you got that out of my post, I'll never know.

You're not wrong that that's how it is; you're wrong that it was always this way. Historically, gigs existed to promote music sales. These days, for all but those at the top of the heap, it's the other way around.

Or it could be that your sarcasm detector is broken, and the parent how s/he thinks most people here see it.