I think this thread title gets closer to what I have been working with. It is different.

Yes.....folk musicians responding here tend to be telling me that it is their business.

They join unions, go to conventions and fly from one city to another to do jobs.

However.....

Despite the fact that you and others tell me that there is no money in it the same musicians will not investigate ways to increase their audiences by re structuring the food chain from supplyer to venue operator to musician to customer.

Yes one can choose to go to any number of venues however, for many choices are limited due to high costs.

So I ask folk musicians why don't they look into profit taking levels up the food chain and they say no need.

I tell them that convention attendance is nice but it drives up costs and I tell them that flying from gig to gig also raises costs overall.

The bottom line is that wether or not musicians make a fortune or not they seem to be enabling economic segregation.

This narrows rather than expands the market for them and limits accessibility.

The question is do folk musicians wish to expand their market or rest content with a relativly small part of the potential market that can easily afford to pay three hundred present of the retail price for a pint while essentially locking a lot of people out.

Not everyone can get extravagant and that is segregation and that limits the potential growth of both folk music and the professionals.

If there is more work trying to make it more affordable maybe prices can come down maybe not but it is better than simply doing nothing and say ok.....we must remain elite, small and exclusive.

Trouble is that if you don't look into the restructuring of costs and profit taking then you can't complain about not making much money.

Conrad