Somehow we're akin to believing that a musician's poor financial decisions are of a different nature, than anyone else who has poor money management skills. There are urban planners that go out and buy sports cars when they don't have the equity to justify such a decision. There are, I'm sure, plumbers with terrible drug habits that naturally skew there fiscal priorities, as an aside it's fairly likely that they both make more than 30k a year. To be blunt, why do we isolate the case of the musician abusing drugs and making poor financial decisions and try to tenuously relate it to their chosen profession? the music industry and the lifestyle of what I'll loosely refer to as a 'rock star' with replete is pitfalls and dangers, but on the other hand, so is life. The question is "why doesn't a professional musician, specifically, deserve to be paid what he/she's worth?". The answer is they do deserve to be paid the value of their product, and more often than not, they aren't.
|