Musicians with day gigs suck, right? I hear this all the time. It's just not true and their seems to be little dialogue about why this feeling prevails. A lot of people complain about how the internet is full of garage bands and weekend warriors. But here is the first point I'd like everyone to consider: can you tell just by listening to someone if they have a day gig? I certainly can not. I don't really see how anyone could. So for disclosure, yes I have a day gig. It was not always the case. If we approached music like we approach sport, I have lost my amateur status.
Now, does everyone deserve to be paid for their art and set their prices accordingly? Yes to both, but in practicality it's quite difficult for us to really set our own prices. As independent artists, we try to price based on the prevailing market trend. A CD tends to be about $18 retail. A download $0.99. Those prices were set by the major labels and Apple. Both benchmarks are completely artificial. You read it here first, but the $0.99 download will not keep pace with inflation. As long as iTunes is a portal to music, singles will be $0.99.
Why does the price of music either stay stagnant or fall? The same reason housing prices are. Just as there are more houses than buyers, so is the same for music and listeners.
So one reason to pick on the non-full-time musician is to pretend to be the gatekeeper for the industry. The pro might reason that if they don't have to put up with us weekend warriors then there is more opportunity for them. But the very first thing I learned on my first day of college is that the music business is intensely competitive. So to this group, I'd say deal with it. You are not the gatekeeper for the industry. No gatekeeper is going to open that gate for me no matter what I sound like.
How about the listener? Does the listener feel somehow cheated if they fall in love with a garage band? Again this is just a prevailing attitude. Is it because most people can't listen critically to music to be able to decide for themselves what's good and what's bad? Kids loved to ostracize me for my love of the Beatles, Yes and the Who growing up. It certainly wasn't what all the cool kids were listening to. The music marketing industry thrives on everyone listening to the same thing. This is how multi-platinum albums are made.
How do we define a full-time pro? I think such people are incredibly rare. I love the playing of John Goldsby. He plays with the WDR big band in germany and has made several recordings. He's obviously "in the club". But he is also a magazine contributor and author of a few books. Yes, they are about playing the bass, but is that the same as playing music? He also teaches university. Freelance writing and adjunct teaching don't pay a hill of beans, but I'm sure it's a contribution to keeping the lights on.
How about the full-time pro, that does instrument repair? Or perhaps has a spouse who is the major breadwinner? Trust fund baby? Has any revenue stream that's doesn't come from playing gigs or selling recordings? Are they a "full-time" pro?
Outside of the record I buy or the gig I hear, it's really none of my business what a musician does.
So my thought is, I'm my own patron of the arts. I'm the first person that earns money elsewhere to then give to support my art. The outside world is free to join me in hiring me for gigs and buying records, but ultimately I support myself. Supporting oneself is the only definition of independence that matters.
In closing, judge music with your ears and your heart. That's what you were given them for.