Correction:
I posted above "...Some people make most of their living doinsional music for schools." That was a computer-internet slowdown boo-boo, where a chunk of the typed sentence didn't show up on screen. I think it was supposed to be "...doing workshops and educational music programs for schools..." or something like that.
-----------------------------

Kendall said... "The problem with being good at what you do is simple; they think it's easy and fun, so, you should do it for little or nothing.
Yup. That works for anything, music or otherwise. "

Yeah, Kendall, what a lot of folks forget is that artistic pursuits--dance, music, graphic arts, writing, etc. -- involve a lot of time investment and often become "fun" only because of all the lessons, practice, etc.
Beyond that, the time you spend doing the gig [and booking it, getting there, setting up, etc.] is time you could otherwise use earning or saving money.

BTW non-profit groups do not necessarily have a smaller budget than some small businesses do. They don't get all their services donated. Why assume that musicians, qua musicians, should donate what doctors, lawyers, chefs, accountants, and retailers charge for?
A lot of people in professions other than the arts love their work, too.

As I see it, if you want to have the time to really pursue what you love, and you are not of independent means, find a way to get paid for it. Otherwise, you'll have to get a real job. *G*

Mudjack, I, too, enjoy the freedom of non-paid gigs like open mics, and jam sessions (less pressure to sing "Danny Boy" because someone in the audience requests it). When I play for money, I often spend a lot of time researching and learning the music, on top of rehearsal time.
It's not so much that "money motivates [my] musical performances" as that it makes them possible.

Genie