[analog31]

I have a tech career, but am a working jazz musician on the side. I have a couple of thoughts about this.

First, ignore the economic implications. The reason is simply that the economics of an arts career are a known known. Nobody goes into those careers blindly. You won't either. Perhaps the only widespread misconception is that there's a tier of artists below the superstar level, who can earn a living at it. There isn't. At the second tier, you're already competing with day-jobbers like me for $100 gigs.

Second, consider the skill level of first tier artists and how they got to that level. This varies from field to field and might help you choose a field where you have a realistic chance of getting a job aside from the economics (sociology), or don't (classical violin performance). To clarify the comparison:

Classical violinists are already playing at close to a professional level before they start college. At your age (assuming you're older than 8), you don't have a chance at making your hands do those things, or mastering skills such as sight-reading. I started playing music at age 8.

On the other hand, sociologists start college with a fairly general skill set but no particular expertise in sociology. A friend of mine went to grad school in sociology after a masters degree in classical guitar performance. Between the requirement for a graduate degree, and the lack of interest from anybody else, the job market is still overcrowded and underpaid, but not to the same level as music.

Consider as an alternative working yourself up to a very high skill level as a dedicated amateur. There are people in my area who do things like write books about the local history and culture, that sell 50 copies. Or, they work up and perform obscure musical styles that are not commercially viable. There's a guy who specializes in baroque keyboard music, and even the local pro's go to his performances.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> Perhaps the only widespread misconception is that there's a tier of artists below the superstar level, who can earn a living at it. There isn't.

I'd put one minor twist on that, in that it depends on how "commercial" the art field is that you're getting into. For example, for anyone in a pure entertainment field (musician, actor, comedian, etc.), I'd agree. But I have some artistic friends who got into other fields like carpentry and painting who actually make a good living at it.

The carpentry example is a guy who studied traditional Japanese woodworking in Japan, and now has a pretty thriving business designing and making high-end furniture for interior design clients. Same with the painter, he's a pretty incredible portrait painter so he gets a lot of commissions from rich clients to do portraits and other interior painting for big remodel or new build projects.

[burntoutfire]

> Perhaps the only widespread misconception is that there's a tier of artists below the superstar level, who can earn a living at it.

Music and writing are especially bad, but in areas where you make an unique non-copyable artifact, such as a painting or a sculpture, there's a significant number of working artists who are definitely not superstars. Probably most of them take commissions to make ends meet, but they get to do them with their choice of style and technique, which is half of the fun for many.

[wpietri]

For sure. I have a friend who shifted from being a chef to an artist making stuff in the neighborhood of paiting. She works as hard at her new career as she did as her old. A lot of effort goes into marketing and sales, but she's making art she likes and has a solid income.

[homie]

>Classical violinists are already playing at close to a professional level before they start college. At your age (assuming you're older than 8), you don't have a chance at making your hands do those things, or mastering skills such as sight-reading. I started playing music at age 8.

Sort of bewildered by this statement. You can't learn to sight read after age 8?

[SamoyedFurFluff]

I think the argument is that someone who started learning music at age 27 is unlikely to ever professionally compare with someone who is also 27 but started music seriously as a career at 8.

[analog31]

Well... in the case of sight reading maybe 8 is extreme. But even with that specific skill, it gets exponentially more difficult to learn after your teenage years. I follow a web forum for the instrument that I play, and people who learned it informally have talked about their attempts to learn sight-reading as adults. I actually get some work because I've managed to maintain my reading chops over the decades.

[noname123]

I'm a jazz/blues guitarist dilletante who can only go by fakebook lead sheets for comping and rigid arpeggios and scales for improvisation... So could someone enlighten me why sight reading is a precarious skill you can learn only if you're a child? Isn't it just combining two skills ear training and tabs reading (and recalling from memory what pitch it was) ? Thanks!

[analog31]

It is those skills, with the added nuance of doing it at speed. In this sense I think it's like getting fluent at reading and speaking a language: For some reason it gets harder as we get older.

Naturally there are some social barriers as well. The joy of playing music as a kid is that you're allowed to suck and everybody claps. As an adult, you're conscious of your own suckage, so you have to work on your skills alone. And when adding a skill like reading, you can already play and the reading is making it noticeably worse not better, until you get over that hump. Learning it by immersion gets harder when people expect you to be good at it.

Not saying it can't be done, but it just gets harder. It can certainly be done starting at middle school age, which is when most wind players start.

Now, get that fakebook out again, and use it for reading practice. That's a valuable resource. There's also a huge pile of classical guitar literature including etude books that are graded by level, so you can work through them progressively.

The weird thing about jazz is that the opportunities for doing actual reading are disappearing as the whole jazz and live music scene evolves. I've been lucky to play in larger jazz ensembles, where the charts are largely written out and reading is a vital skill, so I've been able to maintain my reading chops possibly better than some pro's.

[wpietri]

I'm a non-musician trying to learn some musical stuff now and think language acquisition is a great analogy. I can learn this stuff, but my pace is just so slow compared with what any child can do. I feel this both for music and for foreign language skills. I will just never be as fluid as a native speaker and I have to be ok with that.