I agree with Martin. I supported my ex-husband musician - rock star extraordinaire for 14 years before I finally snapped out of it. He is very talented, but he cannot support three kids and a wife by playing a few local jazz gigs and giving lessons.The problem is he thinks he can because everyone tells him that he is so amazingly talented. EGO.

Nevertheless luck plays a huge part in being successful at doing what you love for a living and actually making it.

Pop bands are just another music form that relates to this modern time, but in a positive, low intelligence, self centered attempt. So many people I've known have said they relate to dumb-ass lyrics that are created by an "artist" who only sings and writes about love, sex, money, and other blind careless pieces of "art." In any modern society, this happens. It's because majority of the sheep who follow the society with a careless smile, do not want anything negative or anti to get into the system, because this explains them, no matter how low they truly are. That's why most people who actually use their brain, see through this shit in society and listen to true black metal, or a music that doesn't relate to these modern days, such as classical or celtic. Modern pop music is a form of music made from people who cater to a sick population of people, therefore, they hold the same values and morales of these careless types. Pop music holds the traditional style of "singing about how life is in these current days". I can look at all of this crappy music and say, "Why do they write meaningless shit like this, and why do people listen to it?" The dark craptastic ways of society are all in this sort of music. All you have to do is peer in and see what majority of people really want in this society. If you have a brain, just tell me... Is this right in any way? Ofcourse not. It's just a painting of how majority of careless dumb people have outgrown the careful intelligent people.

Any type of music genre artist will play for personal satisfaction, but most come to a point where they say, "I want to make a living out of playing music all the time, so I've gotta write something that isn't anti-society, and goes along with what the dumb majority of people want to hear." This is where bands "Sell-Out"... This leads to no creativity, and gains followers who are most likely stupid.

Music is treated as if it is only a sound. But to me, and to most good and intelligent musicians, music is an art. Majority of the music we hear nowadays, is not art. Neither is it music. It's just dumb meaningless trash.

All in All - I think your article is based on your own opinion rather than the truth, but I know I haven't seen or heard what you have seen or heard. Regardless, I hold strong values with music, along with another few people who actually know what music truly is. It is not done for money. It explains the ways of a person or society of followers as a whole. If the way you are is popular to some place, it means that you fit in with that type of person. If the music is written for money or social status, it is not called music. It is called "Sound."

I think you need to better articulate your actual thesis, which is that social status and esteem are compensations for success, and look at our attitudes as to why these are popular when actual success is not. If nothing else you'll unravel a self-hating society.

anti-globalism / post-modernism / heavy metal / organic spirituality

I see I need to clarify a couple of things.

I don't "assume that most musicians play only for social status or money (or both)". I am saying that is the reward we receive from other people for what we do. The reward is rarely the only reason they play - we play mostly because we enjoy it. It's just not a job that pays well enough to bother with if you don't enjoy it. But enjoyment is not a relevant variable here - I get paid the same for playing somewhere whether I enjoy the music or not.

I also never claimed that something makes more money if fewer people enjoy it, only that things usually make more money if people respect them less. Respect does not equal enjoyment - a lot of people "hate classical" but are still impressed when they learn that someone is a cellist from the local symphony. The same people really enjoy dancing to the music at a wedding, especially after a few drinks, but think the band are primitive hicks with no taste and no integrity. Maybe that's not a good thing but it is reality.

A similar effect exists in other professions, too. Take two plastic surgeons, one primarily enhancing the looks of rich people and one working on burn victims including charity cases. The first guy probably makes a lot more money but the second gets more respect and status.

Playing in a symphony orchestra pays crap

It doesn't if you are doing it professionally:

The average minimum salary for the 2003-2004 season for musicians in ICSOM orchestras was $57,370.

Source: The International Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians (ICSOM), comprised of 52 American orchestras.

Average minimum salary is almost $13,000 higher than the US median household income from 2004.

Source: US Census Bureau

Sounds fairly lucrative to me unless you are talking about hobby musicians, in which case money in itself is not an issue by definition. Is there a point to this article besides these false notions and weak, sweeping generalizations?

Listen to the crap on the radio. The music biz is just like Hollywood; they are running out of ideas.

I think it's obvious the author is referring to "musicians" as those guys in college who like to get laid by showing off the three chords they know on guitar. Those guys convince themselves they are doing it for more than just the attention but most of their music is rehashed crap from the 90s. I think the author is spot-on with his analysis of the reasons certain musicians do what they do - everyone loves music, that's a given if you've ever picked up an instrument; the author is looking beyond that.

I'll admit to having some guilty pleasures of melodic Brit-pop type stuff, but have you ever listened to those guys in interviews? They're completely full of themselves and they think the world needs them; they've created an industry out of selling themselves even though most of their music doesn't take a whole lot of talent to put together. Some of them become the establishment and have a guaranteed platinum record every four years (ahem, U2) no matter what it sounds like, but they are as replaceable as the tires on your car. That's what the author meant by "extremely lucky" when talking about the dude with a guitar who makes it big.

It's just like the teacher/CEO question about pay: who do you value more? The teacher is doing a much better job in most cases; the CEO provides no real meaning to society, but who gets paid more? The CEO talks about the mission of his company, etc., but what he's really after is pleasing the board of directors (who are personally liable if the company gets sued) and the stockholders. Same thing with pop musician vs. symphony musician. The symphony musician knows he/she will not ever get paid a ton of money unless he/she becomes a conductor in a well known orchestra some day; most of these people live and breathe music every single day just to get by, while the pop musician makes 15 or 20 songs every 2 or 3 years, spends a year or two touring, drinking, fucking, etc., living the rock and roll lifestyle, and says "hey - wow - allI have to do is record a few more songs and we can do that all over again! Then I can retire at 50 and do compilations and become a "producer"! Woo hoo!".

Societal values are partly to blame for this; people should value the symphony musicians much higher than the punks who make it big by playing three chords (Green Day, anyone?).

I think you are arguing from the point of view of what's considered "hip" and "original" by the average person and what's considered "fabricated" and "sell out". Either way, the whole argument is pretty irrelevant to wether something has artistic value or not, especially when the article seems to concentrate on genres and the image.
Sure, It is an interesting observation into how the average individual rates different kinds of music, but the truth is I despise the indie bands even more. At least the pop stars don't have the pretentious ego of acting like they're great artists, while every shitty "underground" genre (including a big part of the "metal" of today) has a claim to being artistic while essentially it's pop music dressed up to look different.

The fact that you assume that most musicians play only for social status or money (or both) is insulting. There ARE musicians like that. I'm not denying that. Any pop band is easy proof of this. They are hollow inside with no artistic integrity and try to fill that void with the social status, sex, and money that comes with their equally hollow music. Emo bands are the worst, not only do they play trendy music; they've got their trendy haircuts and clothes that scream, "I NEED attention!"

Then you go to say that you despise people who play solely for personal satisfaction; disregarding any external reward. (or accepting it and not caring) That pretty much translates to: I despise people who have good values and principals about music and despise people who are free from letting external rewards influence their music. (i.e. selling out) Even better: I despise people who view music as art. (rather than a job or a business)

You have a bit of explaining to do in your next article. Maybe you have some point to make that would make this article have a different meaning (in which case I will shut my mouth) but in its current context; its just shit.

How can something make more money if fewer people "enjoy" it? In a capitalistic society, social standing is directly correlated to money, because that's how we measure people. The music itself might not get you higher social standing, but money does, and that's what everyone's looking for. The two things you describe are the same phenomena.