>> If you mean by that festivals are a source of extra money then I think you are wrong and I know a lot of artists and can think maybe of two who fit into that category.

If you mean to supplement their income as an artist they have to have other jobs - then sure, I can hardly think of any artists who do not fall into that category. <<

what I meant was I know plenty of people who have another means of making a perfectly good living and who are choosing to perform *as well*, because they want to, because they can, and because there is clearly a market for what they do.

Reason I mentioned it was because there seemed to be other posts implying that in order to perform professionally you couldn't possibly also have a career as something else (doctor, teacher, civil servant, computer programmer....) at the same time. Yes, one or other or both of those careers (musician and other) would have to be on a part time basis because there are only so many hours in the day.

You can look at it as doing other work to supplement their income as an artist. You can also look at it as busy people juggling two careers. Either is fine in my book.

What I don't think is fine is somebody demanding to be paid a comparable wage to... other people? ...the national average? (dunno where that £30k figure came from) or more to the point complaining that they're *not* being paid that wage, to do something if there is no market to support it. If I was an inventor I'd only expect to make money out of my invention at the point where lots of people suddenly decided they wanted it. Surely any kind of art is the same?