:
This isn't always the case. You've got to take into consideration the fact that not all musicians conduct their business in that way. There are musicians who spend a great deal of time composing music. A good deal of these musicians also spend a great deal of time learning to play the music. It is also not unheard of for the composer or the performer to produce the piece himself. This takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money. Tours are necessary, because they are (among more sincere things, at least in some cases) good promotional devices and often generate a good amount of profit themselves. However, they are very tiring for the performers, and I think that it would require a lot of stamina to make a living off touring alone.
I think that another thing to take into consideration is the fact that the kind of music that you're talking about is music designed to make profit. The most economically viable route is the one they're going to take. Touring will involve all kinds of extra costs, so doing too many tours would be a bad business move.
|
Big or small artist makes no difference. In fact, for a small starting artist it's probably easier to start touring as people won't be expecting a huge light show.
My point was that just because you make music doesn't mean you are entitled to money. You have to work for it, just like anyone else. Being a construction worker is hard work too, probably harder than writing and composing. I don't hear any construction workers claiming they should get a penny each time someone enters the building they built. They get paid for their hours or the project and that's it. On to the next project.
Music shouldn't be any different. You write a song, you finalize it and you put it out there. If you're lucky some people will buy it from you but if you want to use your music to create income you should work for it, not sit on your lazy ass expecting money from royalties.