[looknee]

I think this is very interesting about Billboard Top 100 artists, however there are TONS of artists and bands that have never cracked the Billboard Top 100 yet have been making music and doing live shows for years/decades successfully. I would guess/assume that these artists vastly outweigh the # of artists who have had a Top 100 song or album.

While I'm sure most artists would love to have a Top 100 album or song and the associated wealth it brings, I feel many would also love continuing to create music and tour on it while making a decent living for years. Leaving out these artists in the discussion I feel skews the point of the article.

[joe_the_user]

I think most musicians "have been making music and doing live shows for years/decades successfully" don't actually make sufficient money to live but rather do it as a hobby (my only reference is living in a tourist town and knowing a few local musicians).

I believe the only working professional musicians out there are basically working for the film, video game or music (as session musicians) industries making music to order (plus some professional teachers).

[paulpauper]

All you need is a small and loyal fanbase to make a living with touring and merch , plus you keep a greater % of revenue instead of the manager taking it

[joe_the_user]

I've heard the claim you have a whole new crop of musicians making reasonable money with tours and Patreon. I'm skeptical - any references for how many.

It's a bit different but I watch a lot of D&D advice youtube channels. The single most popular of them (the entertaining Ginnie D) can make a bare living at it but nearly everyone else has a day job. It's hard to believe the situation for musicians would have a different distribution of results (money made from fame just naturally follows a Pareto distribution).