[ppradhan]

Maybe.. just maybe... the market is beginning to correct the monies earned by musicians. The heyday of yesteryear when (successful )musicians were paid obscene amounts was due to 1. fewer mainstream musicians and 2. overcharged customers who had no other means of acquiring music and had to pay the price record companies saw fit.

Unsuccessful or moderately successful musicians didn't make a lot even back then.

Now, musicians are basically fighting for attention among a greater number of competitors. The choices are more varied. The output per year has grown significantly and internet has brought international music into the fold further increasing competition for 'ear-time'.

This should make one ask the question: what is the worth of musicians? Why was the high figures of the last decades the 'right' level of earnings and why are they being 'ripped off' today? Is the alleged ripping off due to content delivery platforms (like Pandora) truly taking a larger cut of the revenues compared to delivery platforms of the past (record companies and retail distributors)?

It is not exactly pertinent to put past and present in the same basket, compare the numbers and bring out the pitchforks. Circumstances have to be looked at, and that little question of what the musicians are 'worth' needs to be thought about. What makes musicians worth more than a farmer or a checkout clerk. An even fairer comparision - why is their an income discrepancy between a successful musician and a successful calligrapher. If the worth is more, the market will decide. A given musician will have to continue making music despite low pay if music is their true love. If not, time for career change.

The music industry and consumption is maturing. Musicians need to do the same. There's no point fighting the ebbs and flow of the market by crying foul. My opinions here are bound to be 'polarizing'. Do discuss.