Maybe you join a club, start a band, discover an aptitude for art, start your own business.. who knows?
The problem is not all "work" is equal. The value of the work you do is how much useful economic productivity you generate - how useful what you produce is to other people. The market modulates this by overvaluing productivity which is in short supply (STEM workers), and devaluing productivity which is oversupplied (musicians, artists). This differential pricing then encourages people to "work" in the more productive jobs like STEM, rather than the less productive but more fun jobs like joining a club, starting a band, discovering an aptitude for art (these things are often so unproductive that people have to pay to be able to do them, rather than be paid).
That's the big problem with a UBI. The market prices labor to encourage people to do jobs that are needed, rather than jobs that are fun. A UBI encourages people to do what they find fun rather than what's needed. At first glance, layering a market economy on top of this seems like it would work (i.e. you can still get paid extra on top of a UBI for doing a STEM job). But if you crunch through the math, the pricing for the STEM job then leads to non-UBI income following a divergent series.
Considering how much of what you call "useful" economic productivity is generated by "fun" jobs like art and music, your entire premise feels backwards, especially as it does not consider there is a very real drive to push "useful" economic productivity towards zero cost with ever increasing automation.
A small group of artists at Marvel has become an economic juggernaut as armies of artists and artisans translate the comic page into movies and then toys and other banal products for the, as you call them "useful" economic producers to manufacture. A couple of musicians messing around in a garage share their sound and it catches on with clothes, jewelry, etc. geared to the people who want to be part of that scene. Again, giving the, as you call them "useful" economic producers something to take to market.
Yes, a lot of artists are overlooked and underpaid, but that's attributable more to how they are disadvantaged by people who are inclined towards business rather than their true economic potential. Most creative people aren't good at promoting themselves or taking charge of their works and the businessmen who control what you call "useful" economic productivity take full advantage of that. You need look no further for a prime example than the music industry and how a typical record contract is structured to see how artists receive a fraction of the real economic reward their works generate.
The rest of your argument just reads like the typical "Get a STEM job!" mythos you always see on Slashdot that devalues any form of liberal art.