Curious about the music industry? Find out stuff.

[Arkhangelsk]

I'm well aware that musicians don't bring in any money worth noting, and since only a few musicians "make it", they need something to fall back on.

So I want to ask: What is a good day job to have while being a musician?

It's good to think realistically about this. Some of the most well-known artists still have day jobs, I would list some but I'm sworn to secrecy - however you'd be amazed.

Government jobs are excellent. Usually no weekend work, decent money, and organising leave to go touring isn't too hard. If you've got the skills for it and you can handle leaving your soul at the door it could work out really well. Many semi-pro artists take refuge in this kind of work when not on the road.

Anything else that isn't going to conflict with gigging hours is fine. Or if it does, an understanding employer that doesn't mind giving you unpaid leave at the drop of a hat helps. Various well-known artists do factory work and other fairly brain-off stuff and save their brain for their music. What you want to especially avoid is jobs that tie you up at night every weekend, where the bosses don't give a shit about you, have no idea about musical culture apart from what they see on TV and thus probably won't understand the needs of a musician, like service station attendant, fast food, 24/7 convenience store, a lot of hospitality industry stuff, I'd avoid those jobs. Fine to get you started but once you start gigging those jobs become a liability. The exception is hospitality industry within the music business itself, in which case your employers are more likely to understand.

Regarding this, is IT programming and the alike a no-no? Right now my main goals in work and such are to either work in A)The music industry B)Programming C)Writing best-selling novels.

 

[BonsaiK]

I'm well aware that musicians don't bring in any money worth noting, and since only a few musicians "make it", they need something to fall back on.

So I want to ask: What is a good day job to have while being a musician?

It's good to think realistically about this. Some of the most well-known artists still have day jobs, I would list some but I'm sworn to secrecy - however you'd be amazed.

Government jobs are excellent. Usually no weekend work, decent money, and organising leave to go touring isn't too hard. If you've got the skills for it and you can handle leaving your soul at the door it could work out really well. Many semi-pro artists take refuge in this kind of work when not on the road.

Anything else that isn't going to conflict with gigging hours is fine. Or if it does, an understanding employer that doesn't mind giving you unpaid leave at the drop of a hat helps. Various well-known artists do factory work and other fairly brain-off stuff and save their brain for their music. What you want to especially avoid is jobs that tie you up at night every weekend, where the bosses don't give a shit about you, have no idea about musical culture apart from what they see on TV and thus probably won't understand the needs of a musician, like service station attendant, fast food, 24/7 convenience store, a lot of hospitality industry stuff, I'd avoid those jobs. Fine to get you started but once you start gigging those jobs become a liability. The exception is hospitality industry within the music business itself, in which case your employers are more likely to understand.

Regarding this, is IT programming and the alike a no-no? Right now my main goals in work and such are to either work in A)The music industry B)Programming C)Writing best-selling novels.

I guess it depends where you work. You certainly wouldn't want to be in game design or something like that, where the hours seem insane. Government IT roles might work well, as might "home maintenance" type stuff or working in IT retail, but the problem with a lot of other IT positions is that they expect you to pretty much be on call 24/7, or close to it. Obviously for an active music industry person that's not really possible so you'd want a really understanding employer.

Novels is fine though. Be wary though, authors get screwed by book publishers even more than musicians do by record labels.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I'm well aware that musicians don't bring in any money worth noting, and since only a few musicians "make it", they need something to fall back on.

So I want to ask: What is a good day job to have while being a musician?

It's good to think realistically about this. Some of the most well-known artists still have day jobs, I would list some but I'm sworn to secrecy - however you'd be amazed.

Government jobs are excellent. Usually no weekend work, decent money, and organising leave to go touring isn't too hard. If you've got the skills for it and you can handle leaving your soul at the door it could work out really well. Many semi-pro artists take refuge in this kind of work when not on the road.

Anything else that isn't going to conflict with gigging hours is fine. Or if it does, an understanding employer that doesn't mind giving you unpaid leave at the drop of a hat helps. Various well-known artists do factory work and other fairly brain-off stuff and save their brain for their music. What you want to especially avoid is jobs that tie you up at night every weekend, where the bosses don't give a shit about you, have no idea about musical culture apart from what they see on TV and thus probably won't understand the needs of a musician, like service station attendant, fast food, 24/7 convenience store, a lot of hospitality industry stuff, I'd avoid those jobs. Fine to get you started but once you start gigging those jobs become a liability. The exception is hospitality industry within the music business itself, in which case your employers are more likely to understand.

Regarding this, is IT programming and the alike a no-no? Right now my main goals in work and such are to either work in A)The music industry B)Programming C)Writing best-selling novels.

I guess it depends where you work. You certainly wouldn't want to be in game design or something like that, where the hours seem insane. Government IT roles might work well, as might "home maintenance" type stuff or working in IT retail, but the problem with a lot of other IT positions is that they expect you to pretty much be on call 24/7, or close to it. Obviously for an active music industry person that's not really possible so you'd want a really understanding employer.

Novels is fine though. Be wary though, authors get screwed by book publishers even more than musicians do by record labels.

Well, the reason for the IT programming choice is because both my brothers work with it and claim they get well paid and good hours. From what I've seen, they never have to work extra hours or on weekends. (Unless they want to)

Novel writing I doubt I will ever get into, I may know my way around on writing like a pretentious snot, but I don't have much creative skills when it comes to intricate story-telling. But it's a nice little pipe dream.

 

[BonsaiK]

I'm well aware that musicians don't bring in any money worth noting, and since only a few musicians "make it", they need something to fall back on.

So I want to ask: What is a good day job to have while being a musician?

It's good to think realistically about this. Some of the most well-known artists still have day jobs, I would list some but I'm sworn to secrecy - however you'd be amazed.

Government jobs are excellent. Usually no weekend work, decent money, and organising leave to go touring isn't too hard. If you've got the skills for it and you can handle leaving your soul at the door it could work out really well. Many semi-pro artists take refuge in this kind of work when not on the road.

Anything else that isn't going to conflict with gigging hours is fine. Or if it does, an understanding employer that doesn't mind giving you unpaid leave at the drop of a hat helps. Various well-known artists do factory work and other fairly brain-off stuff and save their brain for their music. What you want to especially avoid is jobs that tie you up at night every weekend, where the bosses don't give a shit about you, have no idea about musical culture apart from what they see on TV and thus probably won't understand the needs of a musician, like service station attendant, fast food, 24/7 convenience store, a lot of hospitality industry stuff, I'd avoid those jobs. Fine to get you started but once you start gigging those jobs become a liability. The exception is hospitality industry within the music business itself, in which case your employers are more likely to understand.

Regarding this, is IT programming and the alike a no-no? Right now my main goals in work and such are to either work in A)The music industry B)Programming C)Writing best-selling novels.

I guess it depends where you work. You certainly wouldn't want to be in game design or something like that, where the hours seem insane. Government IT roles might work well, as might "home maintenance" type stuff or working in IT retail, but the problem with a lot of other IT positions is that they expect you to pretty much be on call 24/7, or close to it. Obviously for an active music industry person that's not really possible so you'd want a really understanding employer.

Novels is fine though. Be wary though, authors get screwed by book publishers even more than musicians do by record labels.

Well, the reason for the IT programming choice is because both my brothers work with it and claim they get well paid and good hours. From what I've seen, they never have to work extra hours or on weekends. (Unless they want to)

Novel writing I doubt I will ever get into, I may know my way around on writing like a pretentious snot, but I don't have much creative skills when it comes to intricate story-telling. But it's a nice little pipe dream.

In more than one workplace I work at, we have an IT guy who is on call 24/7 - if something goes wrong at 3am he gets a call, gets out of bed and goes to work to fix stuff. If you can get an IT job that isn't like this, you're lucky and more power to you. Maybe your bros can hook you up with something where they work...

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I'm well aware that musicians don't bring in any money worth noting, and since only a few musicians "make it", they need something to fall back on.

So I want to ask: What is a good day job to have while being a musician?

It's good to think realistically about this. Some of the most well-known artists still have day jobs, I would list some but I'm sworn to secrecy - however you'd be amazed.

Government jobs are excellent. Usually no weekend work, decent money, and organising leave to go touring isn't too hard. If you've got the skills for it and you can handle leaving your soul at the door it could work out really well. Many semi-pro artists take refuge in this kind of work when not on the road.

Anything else that isn't going to conflict with gigging hours is fine. Or if it does, an understanding employer that doesn't mind giving you unpaid leave at the drop of a hat helps. Various well-known artists do factory work and other fairly brain-off stuff and save their brain for their music. What you want to especially avoid is jobs that tie you up at night every weekend, where the bosses don't give a shit about you, have no idea about musical culture apart from what they see on TV and thus probably won't understand the needs of a musician, like service station attendant, fast food, 24/7 convenience store, a lot of hospitality industry stuff, I'd avoid those jobs. Fine to get you started but once you start gigging those jobs become a liability. The exception is hospitality industry within the music business itself, in which case your employers are more likely to understand.

Regarding this, is IT programming and the alike a no-no? Right now my main goals in work and such are to either work in A)The music industry B)Programming C)Writing best-selling novels.

I guess it depends where you work. You certainly wouldn't want to be in game design or something like that, where the hours seem insane. Government IT roles might work well, as might "home maintenance" type stuff or working in IT retail, but the problem with a lot of other IT positions is that they expect you to pretty much be on call 24/7, or close to it. Obviously for an active music industry person that's not really possible so you'd want a really understanding employer.

Novels is fine though. Be wary though, authors get screwed by book publishers even more than musicians do by record labels.

Well, the reason for the IT programming choice is because both my brothers work with it and claim they get well paid and good hours. From what I've seen, they never have to work extra hours or on weekends. (Unless they want to)

Novel writing I doubt I will ever get into, I may know my way around on writing like a pretentious snot, but I don't have much creative skills when it comes to intricate story-telling. But it's a nice little pipe dream.

In more than one workplace I work at, we have an IT guy who is on call 24/7 - if something goes wrong at 3am he gets a call, gets out of bed and goes to work to fix stuff. If you can get an IT job that isn't like this, you're lucky and more power to you. Maybe your bros can hook you up with something where they work...

They work at different companies, but the day I get my education done, I can probably ask them for some help.

 

[achilleas.k]

Awesome thread. Very informative, even if it's just for feeding curiosity.

I got a question for ya. It's one I've seen answered in some form or another on various sites and forums, but I'd like to see what you have to say about it as well. There was a related question on this page which sort of sparked my question - the one about how much money artists get from sales.

So my question is the following:

Of all the ways to buy a song or album, which one is better for the artists themselves? This would include physical CDs and online digital music stores. Are digital stores better for the artists? Are there digital music stores that are known to share more money from sales with the artists themselves, or is it all up to the record label and the contract, regardless of distribution method?

 

[BonsaiK]

Awesome thread. Very informative, even if it's just for feeding curiosity.

I got a question for ya. It's one I've seen answered in some form or another on various sites and forums, but I'd like to see what you have to say about it as well. There was a related question on this page which sort of sparked my question - the one about how much money artists get from sales.

So my question is the following:

Of all the ways to buy a song or album, which one is better for the artists themselves? This would include physical CDs and online digital music stores. Are digital stores better for the artists? Are there digital music stores that are known to share more money from sales with the artists themselves, or is it all up to the record label and the contract, regardless of distribution method?

There's no definitive answer to that, as there's too many factors that come into play. It would vary from artist to artist, and obviously from one contract to the next, as different contracts both online and off have different royalty rates and arrangements concerning advances, expenditure, etc, and a label will control online sales just like they control offline ones (to the best of their ability). This is also a still-evolving thing so it wouldn't do you much good if I started talking about specific companies and their MP3 practices or whatever, because the way things are currently, it could all change next week.

Speaking generally, the advantage of a physical product is that it is incorporated into the creative statement of the artist. The art has a meaning when married to the music, that fans are interested in, and the better the "complete package", the more allure it has. One of the ways certain niches of the music industry are reacting to piracy and MP3 downloading is to greatly enhance the packaging and presentation of their physical products. In the neo-folk scene for instance, artists are completely going to town with some of the most outlandishly lavish packages I've ever seen... recently I was given an artist's CD that was encased in a fucking hand-carved marble/laser-etched granite statue box, complete with cloth patches and jewelery. That's an unusually high-quality example, but overall as a result of luxurious packaging almost across the board, sales in this genre haven't dipped much at all since the advent of file-sharing. People buy it partly because they want the "fetish object". The idea is to give the fans something that can't be downloaded.

Of course, this is all a hassle to make, expensive, time-consuming, and logistically tricky. The advantage of MP3s, for artists, is that distribution is piss-easy. Just throw it up on a site and there you go, just about everyone in the business has a friend who is good with computers. The problem then becomes promotion - sure, it may be accessible, but who is going to care enough to look at your song instead of the millions of others out there? How will they even think to find it? Online-only models are fine if you're a band like Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails who have already made millions off the back of previous CD sales, but what about if you're a new artist without a name for yourself? Nobody is going to care. I read a statistic recently that said that out of the 11 million or so songs you can buy on iTunes, 9 million of those haven't sold a single copy. Chuck a few songs up online, watch nobody give two shits, and all of a sudden that "evil" record label is suddenly looking tempting because they have got something you haven't got as much of - promotional power.

My favourite format is vinyl. Big sexy artwork, lots of room for liner notes and the artist to generally express themselves, better sound quality than anything else (on a good system) fiddly to pirate and a joy for DJs to work with. On the downside, it's not cheap to make, especially not these days. MP3s are nothing if not economical.

I realise I haven't really answered your question directly but I hope my response has been of some use.

 

[achilleas.k]

snip
I realise I haven't really answered your question directly but I hope my response has been of some use.

The response was great.

Of course, this is all a hassle to make, expensive, time-consuming, and logistically tricky. The advantage of MP3s, for artists, is that distribution is piss-easy. Just throw it up on a site and there you go, just about everyone in the business has a friend who is good with computers. The problem then becomes promotion - sure, it may be accessible, but who is going to care enough to look at your song instead of the millions of others out there? How will they even think to find it?

I understand the points made in the entire post and the quoted part. My question was particularly about when I know what to buy (so the promotion's already there) and if I don't care about the physical stuff that comes with it. So basically I was asking which distribution mechanism I would go to if I want to maximise the money the artist makes off me. You answered that right at the beginning of course which is sort of what I expected, that the labels handle each case differently just like with normal sales. On the other hand though, there's also the question of which distributor makes the most (or less) money off an equal price sale. Does iTunes make more off a $10 sale than, say Amazon MP3? Do physical distributors take a bigger slice than digital distributors? I know this might be hard to figure since the prices are also different between distributors and mechanisms, but let's say all else being equal, does the label/artist (let's bundle them together) get more money from selling 1000 songs physically or digitally (as a general rule, if there is one of course)?

 

[BonsaiK]

snip
I realise I haven't really answered your question directly but I hope my response has been of some use.

The response was great.

Of course, this is all a hassle to make, expensive, time-consuming, and logistically tricky. The advantage of MP3s, for artists, is that distribution is piss-easy. Just throw it up on a site and there you go, just about everyone in the business has a friend who is good with computers. The problem then becomes promotion - sure, it may be accessible, but who is going to care enough to look at your song instead of the millions of others out there? How will they even think to find it?

I understand the points made in the entire post and the quoted part. My question was particularly about when I know what to buy (so the promotion's already there) and if I don't care about the physical stuff that comes with it. So basically I was asking which distribution mechanism I would go to if I want to maximise the money the artist makes off me. You answered that right at the beginning of course which is sort of what I expected, that the labels handle each case differently just like with normal sales. On the other hand though, there's also the question of which distributor makes the most (or less) money off an equal price sale. Does iTunes make more off a $10 sale than, say Amazon MP3? Do physical distributors take a bigger slice than digital distributors? I know this might be hard to figure since the prices are also different between distributors and mechanisms, but let's say all else being equal, does the label/artist (let's bundle them together) get more money from selling 1000 songs physically or digitally (as a general rule, if there is one of course)?

All else being perfectly equal, assuming the same costs of the final product to the end consumer, the label/artist makes far more money of the digital version, because they don't have to pay for CD production, art printing, transport, storage, graphic design, distribution channels etc. Of course, things are not anything like equal, firstly because nobody is going to pay CD prices for just an MP3. Then there's the fact that your online distributor takes a cut, just like a physical distributor of CDs does, and that cut varies from one situation to the next, whether it's iTunes, Amazon or whatever - how much the artist/label vs the distributor sees isn't standardised - it depends on what was in the contract. Distributors might have a base rate for nobody artists that then gets negotiated and pushed around depening on volumes of sales, etc - but generally speaking the cut that goes to the artist/label is higher than the cut the distributor gets (whether online or physical). Also, some distributors promote, some will just put your product on a list, and how much a distrubtor gets will depend on whether they're pushing your product as well, or just doing the equivalent of sticking your name on a catalogue somewhere. Generally stuff like iTunes, Amazon etc falls into the second category, but there are exceptions... as you can see it gets pretty complex, but I'd say in very very general terms that digital distribution has a little bit of a cost advantage for the artist/label.

When you start separating the artist and the label, that's when things get murkier, as online sales attract a lower royalty rate...

 

[Ivan Brogstog]

Hey BonsaiK - My mate's girlfriend's band is gigging at the moment, and I've seen their show a few times. They're not exactly my style of music - but I'm liking some of their songs.

Just out of curiosity - what is the best way I can support them - would offering my advice in aeras I think could be improved help, or should I just keep my mouth shut and let them do their thing? Or should I just attend their gigs and encourage as many people as I can to come along to watch them?

 

[BonsaiK]

Hey BonsaiK - My mate's girlfriend's band is gigging at the moment, and I've seen their show a few times. They're not exactly my style of music - but I'm liking some of their songs.

Just out of curiosity - what is the best way I can support them - would offering my advice in aeras I think could be improved help, or should I just keep my mouth shut and let them do their thing? Or should I just attend their gigs and encourage as many people as I can to come along to watch them?

Honest feedback is something bands very rarely get, and the worse the band is, the less likely it is that they'll get honest feedback because nobody wants to be the bad guy who says "you lot just ain't all that". You should certainly give it if you can - if you make it constructive that will help. Don't be too surprised if your feedback isn't taken very seriously though, many people just don't want to hear it. Telling your friend, who can then sugar-coat it a bit before telling his girlfriend, is a better strategy than proceeding directly.

Other than that, yes you should do all those other things.

 

[johnsom]

Neat thread. Ill have to give this a more careful read later.

 

[Ivan Brogstog]

Honest feedback is something bands very rarely get, and the worse the band is, the less likely it is that they'll get honest feedback because nobody wants to be the bad guy who says "you lot just ain't all that". You should certainly give it if you can - if you make it constructive that will help. Don't be too surprised if your feedback isn't taken very seriously though, many people just don't want to hear it. Telling your friend, who can then sugar-coat it a bit before telling his girlfriend, is a better strategy than proceeding directly.

Other than that, yes you should do all those other things.

Ah right, yeah - I'll make it constructive then... The positives and the negatives, thanks for your insight. (Yeah, all my friend seems to say is "That was great" or epic or something, but it's hardly going to improve their stage show at all)


Another question or two - I know it's a bit off-topic but about song-writing in particular...

What are the specific roles of a rhythm guitarist and a lead guitarist. In Alice Cooper, for instance, what is Micheal Bruce doing that Glen Buxton isn't and vise-versa. Also - with a single guitar band, say Black Sabbath - What is Tony Iommi doing (Also I believe that Geezer Butler is often playing what Iommi is, but as a slight variation) could you perhaps be able to clarify this for me?

Oh - One more thing - What makes Bon Scott such a good frontman/performer?

 

[BonsaiK]

I have a straight forward question. Songs on iTunes generally cost $1 or so, but how much of a cut do the artists themselves get from such a sale?

Depends on the artist. For a major label artist, probably about 10c, depending on their deal. Smaller labels might give more to the artist, or they might not, and if there is no label at all (or the artist actually owns the label), then you're looking at about 2/3rds of the money going to the artist, which is the maximum (Apple keeps the other third).

 

[Offworlder_v1legacy]

What courses do you recommend to do to get access to jobs in the industry? On top of that which jobs do you recommend that can get me far?

 

[BonsaiK]

Honest feedback is something bands very rarely get, and the worse the band is, the less likely it is that they'll get honest feedback because nobody wants to be the bad guy who says "you lot just ain't all that". You should certainly give it if you can - if you make it constructive that will help. Don't be too surprised if your feedback isn't taken very seriously though, many people just don't want to hear it. Telling your friend, who can then sugar-coat it a bit before telling his girlfriend, is a better strategy than proceeding directly.

Other than that, yes you should do all those other things.

Ah right, yeah - I'll make it constructive then... The positives and the negatives, thanks for your insight. (Yeah, all my friend seems to say is "That was great" or epic or something, but it's hardly going to improve their stage show at all)


Another question or two - I know it's a bit off-topic but about song-writing in particular...

What are the specific roles of a rhythm guitarist and a lead guitarist. In Alice Cooper, for instance, what is Micheal Bruce doing that Glen Buxton isn't and vise-versa. Also - with a single guitar band, say Black Sabbath - What is Tony Iommi doing (Also I believe that Geezer Butler is often playing what Iommi is, but as a slight variation) could you perhaps be able to clarify this for me?

Oh - One more thing - What makes Bon Scott such a good frontman/performer?

Yeah "that was great" is flattering and everyone loves to hear it, but it's pretty worthless as actual serious feedback.

In a two-guitar band, lead guitarists actually play rhythm 95% of the time. Some bands double the rhythm part exactly, so the two guitarists are doing the same thing. Sometimes they'll play it slightly differently to add some texture, or sometimes they'll play a completely different, complimentary part, like a melody or something. Since you mentioned Bon Scott, let's look at this video (although it's mimed, but hey whatever):


The two guitars start off doing the same thing. Then at about 0:16 the verse starts, and Angus does a complimentary melody while Malcolm nails down the rhythm. This continues until the chorus at 0:59, where the guitars start doubling each other again.

In a one-guitar band, the guitarist has to do lead and rhythm, and the bass has a more critical role to fill the rhythmic gap during the times when the lead guy is off in solo-land. Here's another video:


The bass is mostly doubling the guitar and octave lower, but he's doing slight embellishments here and there. However, when Tony Iommi goes into his solo at 1:23, Geezer keeps it simple on the bass, otherwise the song would sound like it has no balls at that moment. Actually it wouldn't on the recording, because there's more than one guitar overdubbed, but live it certainly would be lacking something. You generally can't have a bass player and a guitar player both wanking off at once, it gets too messy.

Although I'm not exactly a fan of the band, Bon Scott had a lot of charisma and confidence, yet his "rock moves" are more down-to-earth and laconic than a lot of instrument-less frontmen, something which I think the AC/DC video above clearly demonstrates. Sure, that charisma and confidence may have been at least partially fueled by alcohol, but it's there nevertheless. If you've ever fronted a band with only a microphone in your hand and no instrument, you'll appreciate what a talent it is to do your thing, be entertaining to watch and not come across as forced, awkward or stagey. Bon Scott certainly had that talent.

 

[BonsaiK]

What courses do you recommend to do to get access to jobs in the industry? On top of that which jobs do you recommend that can get me far?

An audio engineering degree will help. The qualification isn't worth much at all, and the skills that it gives you are ones you could get yourself by reading enough technical manuals, but it's such a great opportunity to meet like-minded people that it's hard to pass up. It plugs you into the network and that's important. The only way you'll really get anywhere in the music industry is by meeting the right people in the business and showing them that you are a hard worker who can be trusted, and that you're also not an asshole. If there's anything that most people in this business are absolutely shithouse at it's reliability, honesty and a solid work ethic, so if you have got those parts down you'll be a valued commodity in the business once you can demonstrate that you do indeed possess those characteristics.

Not sure exactly what you mean by "get you far", also depends where you want to go...

 

[Offworlder_v1legacy]

What courses do you recommend to do to get access to jobs in the industry? On top of that which jobs do you recommend that can get me far?

-snip-

Not sure exactly what you mean by "get you far", also depends where you want to go...

By go far I mean a sustainable job that will give be a long career, but from what I've read from your other responses that is a hard thing to do.

 

[BonsaiK]

What courses do you recommend to do to get access to jobs in the industry? On top of that which jobs do you recommend that can get me far?

-snip-

Not sure exactly what you mean by "get you far", also depends where you want to go...

By go far I mean a sustainable job that will give be a long career, but from what I've read from your other responses that is a hard thing to do.

You bet. Even I struggle with it at times, and I'm quite well-connected. The problem with the music industry is that it's a "glamour" industry, and like all glamour industries (the arts, acting, etc), the demand for jobs far exceeds the supply of jobs. This drives wages and conditions down, as the hordes of people oh-so-eager to work in the industry compete for the few positions that are out there via whatever means are available to them. The most steady, lucrative jobs I've seen are:

* Anything for the government
* Teaching
* Studio work (but you need a studio)
* Mastering and post-production
* Administration/clerical

Note "performing" or "being a touring musician" doesn't appear anywhere on this list.