Re: Why SHOULDN'T musicians be paid?

["Warren Sirota" <wsirota@wsdesigns.com>]

Thanks to all for their comments, especially your most gracious reply, 
Rick.

I want to be a bit clearer here: I never thought Rick was criticizing
me in any way, and I don't think that *he* thinks that I expressed an
opinion against professionals making a living. I love professional
musicians - they've provided me with a goodly portion, if not most, of
my musically transcendent experiences. I *did* initially take some
issue with the way Rick phrased a response to Travis, but I wasn't
trying to play it up like it was a *big* thing -  I was kind of using
it to jump off on a riff. If I came across as more critical than that,
I apologize for the clumsiness of my expression.

I think part of the point of the original topic (as I interpreted it,
anyway) was to consider what a world would be like if most musicians
didn't get paid, surely a state that seems probable. I think it's
natural to think about the history of how musicians have supported
themselves.

There used to be wandering minstrels, griots, etc., who would carry
news from town to town. They lived on the kindness of the towns they
visited, told stories, etc.  At a certain point, there were
court-employed entertainers, and eventually composers. Does anyone
think that either of these periods were better for music/musicians
than now? (I do not ask this disingenuously - I don't have a clue).

Recorded music changed everything - didn't it eventually cut down on
the widespread music-halls that were performers bread-and-butter for a
long time? Didn't it have the effect of concentrating the wealth in
music?

So now comes total de-concentration. Is that a good thing? Is the long
tail a real effect, or just a bunch of high-tech marketing BS? Will
live performances become more valued  as recordings are devalued? Is
there a way to adapt? That's what *everyone* wants to know.