Given the amount of time, both practice to get and stay as good as they are and performing, that performing artists spend on what they do, my view is that they do have a job and it's a damn hard one. They deserve far more than they're paid (at least in the case of most classical musicians). Your comments may be directed at the successful pop artists, but they unfairly target all artists.
Jagger gets a real job, finally.
Not really. But I'd like to know if he thinks he deserves the remuneration he's enjoyed for the last 50 years. Notoriety, yes, celebrity ?, respect...for what? Okay, so market forces drive the value of what we love the most(other than our wives of course:). But should a monetary value be placed on music? Should money be included in it's intrinsic value? Should I receive accolades just because I came up with a catchy tune ? Do I deserve to be rewarded for loving music? Seriously. Granted, musicians need to be payed. I also have a day job. I get it that the economy must play it's role in delivering the product. But the kinds of profiteering by the industry and the players is obscene. Did Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky etc. miss out? What is a fair reward for what we've been listening to and what's been driving our hobby? IMO, it's notoriety. Honorable recognition is the highest reward one should aspire to as an artist. In the meantime, get a job! That's my position. I'm curious to know what you guys/gals think.