However,I don't know one of my fellow pros who would trade their life's work for any other.

Naturally. If anyone else could receive a living income from their music, they'd happily join you and your fellow pros! :-)

Thing is, as far as I can see there are two sets of musicians around, and whether you can make a living depends on which group you're in.

The first set are so monstrously technically talented that they will always stand out. They might not necessarily choose to go pro (even then, the money might not compare to what they can get elsewhere), but they have the technical ability to step into any band anywhere. Even if they can't find a band, they can always get a fair income as session musicians or music teachers. For this group, music as a career is a serious possibility.

The second set aren't in the "Premier League" talent-wise. Sure, they'll work on it and they'll be pretty good, but they're never going to be in the top flight technically, so their contribution is more likely to be by songwriting and arranging. If they can make a name for themselves in this (most likely as part of a band) then they might make the jump to being pro, but most won't. This group *need* full-time practise to keep their skills up to scratch and get the songs written, so if they want to play music full-time they either need to make it big before they get families so that recognition will keep them going, or else they need a spouse who'll work and support them, or else they need to wait until they've retired and have a pension to back them up. I'll freely admit to being somewhere down the bottom of the league table in this second set, myself - I'm waiting for my pension so I can go touring (in about 35 years time ;-)

Pro and amateur aren't "tainted" or "clean" for me, Wordy. However, I'm sure other people share my ambiguous feelings towards other people in that second group who are stood up on stage when they don't necessarily have anything outstanding to offer. Sure, they're better than most of the audience, but if they're not better than (or different from) you then you might not be as interested.

And yes, there *is* an element of envy in that too - added to the technical aspect, there's also the knowledge that if you happened to have a partner who could work to support you then you too could jack in the day-job, spend all day practising and start playing the clubs. Or if it's someone who's not that good but had some luck to make it big early on, then even more so - think of Dido for example, who doesn't write particularly good songs or have a great voice, but whose song happened to be chosen by Eminem as the backing for one of his hits and so found her way into the big-time when many better artists haven't.

And re the jacking it all in to do what you love, music isn't the only place where this is an issue. IIRC, James Cracknell (British Olympic rower) had to be drafted into Steve Redgrave's four at fairly short notice, and because he wasn't in the top squad he wasn't rowing full-time. He was noticeably slower than the other three initially, but the full-time training pulled him up to the same standard as the others fairly quickly. If he'd had that level of training before, clearly he could have been competing seriously for a place in that squad on his own terms, instead of only getting there through "dead men's shoes".

Graham.