I didn’t really understand the arithmetic until I had kids.

It’s one thing to starve yourself for your art. That’s almost romantic, in a stupid sort of way. It’s quite another to look at your children and know you’ve short-changed them because you took a gig that paid a hundred, had a rehearsal tied into it, ate up a tank of petrol, and once everything was totted up netted you a tenner—if anything.

Now hold that figure next to another one. In 2023 the UK music industry grew by 13%, to £7.6 billion. It employs 216,000 people, up 3% on the year. By every headline measure the business is thriving. And yet the average annual income a musician actually earns from music is £20,700,1 with only two in five able to live on music alone.

Both of those things are true at once. This whole piece is really just an attempt to work out how.

(A confession: I’m generally suspicious of statistics quoted out of context—they’re the easiest thing in the world to bend to whatever you’d already decided—so extend me some good faith here: for once, the data and the gut feeling agree.)

©2026 Douglas Whates (w/ AI)

Artwork concept by Douglas Whates, realised in Z-Image-Turbo (AI) & Photoshop

The sum that won’t balance

The standard advice—the advice everyone gives and nobody costs out—is “get a stable job to support your music.” It sounds sensible right up until you do the maths. A freelance musician’s working week runs around 40–65 hours once you count the practice, the gigs, the travel, and the bottomless admin. And past a certain point, the hours stop merely exhausting you and start doing real damage: the WHO and ILO cite long working weeks (55 hours the tipping point) as one of the biggest occupational health hazards there are.2 So bolt a standard full-time job of 35–40 hours onto the minimum a serious music career demands and you arrive at a stroke-inducing 75–105 hour week. There are only so many hours in a week, and a single body to live them in.

It turns out: “get a stable job to support your music” never meant “keep the whole career and bolt on forty hours”. What the advice really meant—though few who give it would put it so bluntly—was the deflating “get a real job”: let the music become the side thing. Scale it down. Make it the hobby. And that—not the impossible timetable—is the premise I refuse. Even part-time doesn’t spare you: to stay sharp you still need the full regimen. The practice, the availability for rehearsal, the travel. None of that shrinks because you’ve decided to take the music less seriously, which lands you right back in that 55-plus danger zone whatever day job you bolt alongside it.

And the day-job half rarely pays its way. Take teaching, the classic fallback: so many posts are zero-hours contracts with no holiday pay and no employer pension, which means you’re pouring your remaining hours into work usually paid worse than gigging—and gigging already doesn’t pay. Over half of musicians have to top up their income from other sources.1 The “other sources” are not a safety net. They’re the thing keeping the lights on while the music runs at a loss.

There’s an objection underneath all this that no spreadsheet can see. For a lot of us—I’ll include myself—making music isn’t a pastime crudely Sellotaped onto a life; it’s closer to how we negotiate the world, full stop. A coping mechanism, to use the unromantic word for it. And, handled with any care, something that helps other people negotiate theirs too. Reduce that to a hobby, or to a line on a balance sheet, and you haven’t been hard-headed—you’ve just taken the accountant’s view of what music is. Accountants have their uses. This isn’t one of them. (Though the bean-counter does get a sliver: a cheap gig can be the one that opens a door, and the hang does sometimes pay off down the line. But that return is speculative, it has a shelf life—and you can’t feed children on networking and hustle.)

I used to look at the Musicians’ Union’s recommended minimum rates and think they were fantasy—pious numbers nobody outside the classical world ever actually got. Then I started doing the sum properly: take a single fee, stretch it across everything the gig truly costs you in time, and work out what you’re really earning by the hour. Something uncomfortable falls out. Take a fee that looks handsome on the night—£150, say, for a three-hour function. On the drive home you do the mental arithmetic: knock off a tenner for fuel and a fiver for a sandwich, and £135 across three hours is forty-odd quid an hour. Not bad at all. But the gig was never three hours. It was three on the stage, an hour in the car each way, a get-in two hours before the start, and the prep before any of that—call it nine or ten hours of your day, gone.

And then the number everyone forgets, venues and players alike: the costs that reliably deplete the bank account whether work came in or not. Spread a year of insurance, practice space, repairs, strings, the website, the memberships and the accountant across the gigs you actually take, and that’s another £20 or £30 gone from this one night before you’ve played a note. Put the real money over the real hours and the forty-odd an hour collapses to eleven or twelve quid. The minimum wage, as of April 2026, stands at £12.713; the ordinary night—no long drive required—is already under it. So the MU rates aren’t ambitious or aspirational, but roughly what it takes to clear minimum wage at all. I had it exactly backwards.

The costs don’t care what you earned

The cruelty of the freelance maths is that the overheads don’t scale down with income. Those are costs unsympathetic to the cancelled gig, or the quiet month. And that’s to say nothing of professional development, or album productions (often costing thousands up front, while the merch table rarely breaks even). For disabled musicians the gap is wider still—a pay shortfall of around £4,000 against their non-disabled peers.4 We call all this “fixed costs”, but the phrase flatters it: nothing about these costs sits still.

I once came back from a seventy-five-pound gig I’d talked myself into doing—probably important for networking—misjudged a doorframe on the way in, and cracked my double bass. Badly. Burst the seam right open. I had insurance, but I was still out of pocket from every direction at once. I had to pay the excess. I had to turn down a gig while I waited for a replacement instrument. I had to pay to drive to my luthier. And because I’d forgotten to pack any food, I succumbed to overpriced service-station McDonald’s twice in the same day—once on the way there and once on the way back. One misjudged doorframe, and the sums for the month were underwater. That is the actual shape of a “fixed” cost.

Travel is the stealth tax on all of it. Only 40% of UK musicians can find work within ten miles of home,1 which means the rest of us routinely rack up serious mileage for a single fee—public transport costs always rising, car owners paying in fuel and wear, everyone paying in hours away from creative work, from family, from the unglamorous business of looking after yourself. And this is the part venues never see: the work was never just the gig. It’s everything around the gig—the travel, the admin, the meta-work nobody bills for—and that, not the playing, is what builds covertly and burns people out.

Funding, for all its value, tends to add to the pile rather than lift it: every application is unpaid hours, success rates fall as the pots grow oversubscribed, and the grant you win arrives chaperoned by its own admin and deliverables.

The function room

The function circuit is where the real machine is. Some of my most pointed memories are from up at Gleneagles, where I always seem to end up placed beside a silver tray of reeking fish while champagne corks go off and the guests produce their predictable little chorus of woo-ing and delighted titter. I’ve started to find that sound genuinely irritating—not the people, exactly, but what it represents: a kind of effortless excess, with the music as scenery beside the canapés. You are not a musician in that room. You’re a line item in somebody’s events budget, and you’ll never meet the person who decided what that line was worth.

And who else is in that room with you? Increasingly, people who don’t need to be paid properly—because they aren’t full-time musicians at all. They have “real” jobs. For them the function gig doesn’t have to sustain a life; it only has to supplement one.

But it cuts the other way too, and this is the part outsiders miss. Plenty of the serious players on that circuit—the jazz musicians especially—are using the function gig as their bread and butter. From the outside it can look like a living made from playing: there they are, out several nights a week, instrument in hand, apparently doing fine. The reality is that the function gig is itself the side-hustle—the thing subsidising what they actually want to do, which is to play music for art’s sake. And the platform for that is comically small and comically underpaid. On the jazz side, in Scotland there’s barely a regular listening gig to speak of; next to no one could build a healthy living on that scene even if their life were at stake.

(Exceptions exist. It would be a short list, in roughly two equal columns. Column A: the few who live on playing alone by leaning on one or two venues for the bulk of the diary—paid often rather than well, the burnout arriving as standard. An insecure living, fractured the moment a booker’s mood turns. Column B: those who built the living by earning well beyond Scotland—the English circuit, the continent—through a door that opens for one or two a generation, at most. So the scene is a casino. There are lucky punters; there always are—the visible winner is how the house keeps the room playing. But the house wins, and the graft only buys the seat, never the odds.)

We arrive at an impasse, then. An acceptance. A magnanimous reframing of the soulless gig as patron of the real art. However (risking pessimism now), that’s the flattering version of this mode of existence. Work that way for long enough and it sours, and a harder, spikier shape shows through—not the romance of the struggling artist but the cold mechanics of a dependency. I don’t reach for that word lightly: addiction is its own real and terrible thing, and music has lost more than its share of people to it, so take what follows as a description of how the trap is built, not a borrowing of anyone else’s suffering. But the form of it holds. The thing you can’t stop needing, to put it crudely, is self-expression through music—the thing you love, that you’d do for nothing, that you can’t not do. It doesn’t fund itself, though, so you take the work that’s going—the function gig—not out of love but because there’s nowhere else to go: trained for little else, student loans deep, reinvention a cliff. And it’s music-adjacent, which is precisely what springs the trap; an instrument in your hands is enough to convince you you’re still doing the good work. You’re not. You’re wallpaper—there to decorate an occasion, to be functional, a function musician in every sense, not to express anything. The honest name for the function gig is hospitality work. And the cruellest turn is that this supposed funding-work becomes the work, crowding out the real thing until you’re a costume of the player you meant to be—fed just enough to keep you from walking away, never enough to satisfy.

The need isn’t our fault. But the fee we find ourselves accepting is.

A great deal of the damage is done by musicians themselves, en masse, accepting the lowball—and not merely accepting it, but letting it rot in place. I have the invoices: as a relative newcomer in 2008, aged twenty-seven, I played The Jazz Bar in Edinburgh for fifty pounds; I now take home around ninety pounds for a comparable gig at that same venue. That’s an eighteen-year differential, and by the kindest measure of inflation the fee has gained less than a tenner in real terms.5 As an added bitter pill: age and experience have not been reflected in the fee, only as grey hairs in the mirror. Set it against the cost of actually living—which for me now, at forty-five, also means a mortgage, kids and a car where once there was a rented flat and no one to feed but me—and that same ninety quid has gone backwards.

I wondered whether I could further prove the complaint against my own books, and the figures sprang a surprise: my average fee has risen—in real terms, and not insignificantly. Little consolation, though, as it only proves the earlier point rather than denting the current: the rise has nothing to do with the music paying better; it’s that I now play more weddings and corporates and fewer jazz nights. So the raise exposes little more than an ominous creeping coercion away from art towards function.

The current point still stands, then. The market pays a flat fee for the room and could not care less who’s standing in it. If I turn down a gig because the fee insults me, there is always—always—someone who’ll take it cheaper. The comforting reply is that they won’t be as good. Often they’re perfectly good. There’s more supply than demand, the colleges keep turning out accomplished players year after year, and the appetite for quality has, as far as I can tell, gradually slipped.

No great solace, but the person undercutting you usually can’t sustain it either. They take the fifty-pound gig until they too have a child or other life-altering commitments, and realise they can’t be out of the house for six hours for that money. Or the music stops paying and they take the stable job, and now they’re simply not available. The undercutter, in other words, is just you a few years earlier, or you a few years from now. Nobody in this ecosystem is an obvious villain: we’re each, by turns, the one undercut and the one undercutting; an endangered species, thinning our own ranks; every one of us a bad season or two from extinction.

The function gig is the gentle end of all this. Take the musician out of the wedding and the wedding goes on—a DJ, a playlist, two players where there were four; the night survives the subtraction, and it pays, because the money in that room was never really about the music. Conversely: take the musician out of the jazz night and there is no jazz night. Run a jazz festival without musicians and you’re left with a bewildered bunch of non-musicians in a tent clapping on one and three. The gig is the players. By every rule of supply and demand that should be where we name our price, yet it’s where we name none. Ninety pounds buys a performance at The Jazz Bar, where the band is the whole reason anyone came; the wedding where you’re furniture beside the canapés pays two to four times that fee. The Union’s own recommended minimum is £167 a head for the night;6 in over twenty years of gigging, the straight-up jazz gig has cleared it a bare handful of times, always by fluke and never by rule. The listening gig pays a pittance (or uncertain door split), and we’re lumped with the unpaid promo work for the honour. We accept these terms, because it’s the thing we’d have done for free anyway—and a thing you’d do for free has a way of costing exactly that.

Which is, if you squint, the whole folly of the union idea. A union only works if everyone’s in it. The moment a handful opt out, the people keeping to the rates get punished for it and the people ignoring them carry on, unbothered. (The musician-run co-op is the same idea with a friendlier face—same dependence on everyone holding the line, same vulnerability to the one who won’t.) The MU can recommend all it likes; it can’t force a venue to pay a player a penny above minimum wage. The only version that actually functions is total—everyone in, everyone holding the line—at which point, of course, we’re on the slippery slope to communism.

And so we keep our heads down. Don’t rock the boat. Be grateful for what you’ve got. There’s a genuine risk to being the one who says any of this out loud, and it isn’t only about seeming ungrateful. To complain about a fee is to make everyone else glance at their own situation—the compromises they’ve made their peace with, the defences they’ve built around taking the low-paid gig—and people don’t thank you for that. Worse: grumble about the money and the assumption is that you didn’t want to be there in the first place. Which is almost never true. You do want the gig—you’d just give a great deal for it to pay what it’s worth. But nobody wants to be the grumpy, begrudging one, stating the obvious that everyone is working very hard to ignore. So you say nothing, and you keep playing. It’s the bit in Jurassic Park where the children are told that if they keep perfectly still, the dinosaur won’t see them: don’t move, make no sudden complaints, and perhaps the whole unsustainable business won’t notice you standing there. (Which makes this essay, I suppose, a rather large and ill-advised movement.)

Goodwill is not a system

There are stirrings, to be fair. The government has floated a stadium-and-arena ticket levy to funnel money down to grassroots venues—but it’s opt-in. A handful of major artists have moved first and admirably: Coldplay pledging 10% of their UK stadium proceeds, Enter Shikari putting £1 from every ticket on their 2024 arena tour towards smaller venues.7 I take my hat off to them. But notice the pattern. The voluntary levy, the unenforceable MU rate, the half-empty union—these are the same failure wearing three different hats. You can’t fix a collective-action problem with goodwill, because goodwill is exactly the thing the free-rider declines to supply.

(Since I wrote this, the levy has gone live—the LIVE Trust’s £1-a-ticket scheme, with Harry Styles and Sam Fender among the signatories. But it stayed voluntary, and so, on cue, it falters: under a tenth of arena and stadium shows carried it in 2025, and the dominant promoter, Live Nation, predictably declined to implement it. Live Nation, incidentally, the company a Commons committee has since found to meet every test of market dominance, its inquiry witnesses so wary of reprisal that MPs described a “climate of fear”—a whole industry frozen stiff, scared of that T-Rex.8 And the government set a mid-2026 deadline to legislate if goodwill wouldn’t; that deadline has since passed, so far to the sound of nothing at all.9 Then brace for the facepalm moment: of the £6 million the scheme has raised, the Treasury is surreptitiously recouping some £1.2 million of it in VAT—the state skimming its cut off the rescue fund on the way down.10 I’d have been glad to be wrong.)

The free-rider I’ve been describing, of course, is me. I’d keep playing more or less regardless—I’ve told you as much—and a supply that turns up no matter what is exactly the supply you can pay least. But that isn’t an argument against a base rate; it’s the argument for one. You can’t ask the cornered to hold a price line by choice. At least, not any more than you can ask the hooked to abstain when the quality’s poor and the reward’s thin. That’s the whole point of a minimum rate: it’s built for labour that can’t be trusted to refuse the work, because refusing would mean walking away from the only thing it knows how to do.

So stop relying on goodwill. The honest answer to the free-rider is the one we already apply to every other sort of work: a mandated minimum. If a gig fee below the MU rate is, in real terms, a fee below the minimum wage—and the sums say it routinely is—then a legally enforced minimum rate for live music isn’t some drastic imposition. It’s the most ordinary protection there is: the one every other worker in the country already has. And that, finally, is the answer to the communism gag. “Everyone in, no opt-out” sounds like a closed shop right until you notice it’s exactly how the minimum wage already works—and nobody calls the minimum wage communism. Musicians just don’t happen to have it.

The obvious objection is that we’re self-employed, and the minimum wage protects workers, not freelancers. Fair enough—on paper. But let’s look back to our bread-and-butter gigs and how many of those venues actually treat us. We’re told what to wear. We’re told how long a break is permitted. Increasingly it is verboten to have a drink from the bar. We’re handed codes of conduct—sometimes even in writing—enforced by the quiet punishment of never being booked again. That is the entire apparatus of an employer operating with impunity: all of the control, none of the obligations. You don’t get to direct someone like staff, pay them like a contractor, and then hide behind “but they’re self-employed” when the minimum-wage bill arrives. The Uber and Deliveroo fights over worker status are this exact argument, one industry across.

The economist is mostly right

But there’s a harder objection waiting behind that one. An economist will say a minimum fee shrinks the very thing it means to protect: force the fee up and the marginal venue books fewer acts, swaps the trio for a duo, drops the weekly residency to a fortnightly one, or reaches for the playlist altogether—so it shields whoever still gets hired and saws the bottom rung off beneath them. I used to think I had a clever rebuttal to this. I don’t. I’ve watched this market from the inside, and I have a friend who books it for a living, and in my corner of it the objection mostly lands. There is no venue I play in Scotland that would absorb a rate much above what it already pays. Set the minimum at £150 a head and the economist’s prediction comes true: the trio loses the bassist; the £100 soloist plays once a fortnight instead of weekly, or gets replaced by an algorithmically generated, mood-labelled Spotify playlist (the 21st century’s more offensive, more ineffectual form of Muzak). The fee isn’t grudged because it’s generous—it’s grudged because, at most venues, budgets are already stretched. And even when they could expand comfortably, at venues where the din of those popping champagne corks drowns out the band, the music is a line item the accounts department would gladly zero out entirely if the law allowed. There’s no secret surplus being skimmed, no tacit bargain a base rate could trim.

A minimum rate in isolation doesn’t protect the work—it prices it out. It protects no one unless the shortfall between what the room will pay and what the work is worth is met from somewhere. And the obvious somewhere is where the money’s already pooled: the stadium tour, the streaming catalogue, the promoter’s margin. Why not widen the proposed levy beyond the ticket, into everywhere else the money pools? And make it compulsory? An enforced levy on the commercial users of art wouldn’t be untested radicalism—Germany has mandated one for forty years. I’m a bass player, not a Treasury economist, so I won’t pretend to have drafted the mechanism—but the outline isn’t complicated. Make the grassroots-sustaining levy compulsory, or just notice that the public purse already takes a fortune off that £7.6 billion; either way it’s reinvestment, not a handout—the industry’s own money pointed back down to the greenhouses its talent is grown in, maintenance on the infrastructure the booming top draws from. The rate and the subsidy were never a policy and its fallback. They’re one mechanism in two halves, and neither does a thing alone.

And, crucially, a venue subsidy means the admin burden rests with the venue, not the player. Which matters more than it sounds: hand it to the musician and it arrives as one more grant to chase, another oversubscribed pot, more of the unpaid admin already doing its share of the burning-out; hand it to the venue and the player just gets paid, like a worker, instead of auditioning forever for charity.

It matters, though, which rooms are subsidised. Not the hotel ballroom or the corporate marquee—those have the money, they just don’t rate the music and never will; offer them a minimum and they’ll buy the same evening cheaper (and the economist gets to feel smug again). Let them. That was never the part worth subsidising. The subsidy is for the other end—the monthly jazz night, the small listening room, the residency someone’s fighting to keep alive. It’s for venues where the music is the point and not the garnish, and the till honestly can’t meet the cost alone. A chink of light (risking optimism now), the levy money that survived the Treasury has begun landing at exactly this end: the first £500,000 paid out early this year, with £5 million promised across 2026 to venues, promoters, and even artists (though through another inevitably oversubscribed pot).11 A drop against the need, but falling, for once, in the right place. Funding that end does the thing the rate alone never could: it hands a player somewhere to earn that isn’t the marquee at all. The only reason we wade into the function waters is that the function waters are where the money is—make the grassroots pay a living and the wading stops being compulsory.

The danger, of course, is that a living wage in the grassroots simply keeps more players in the game, all chasing the same fixed handful of slots: the subsidy raises the prize and deepens the scramble for it. Which is why it can’t only lift the fee; it has to multiply the rooms. Raise what a night pays and you help whoever’s already on the stage; add the stages—more paid nights, in more of the towns that fell off the circuit—and you help everyone still queuing for one.

And there’s a second gap no rate can reach: the lean stretch between gigs, when the fee—however high you’ve set it—simply isn’t there to earn. On one side of the water, France catches that with the intermittent du spectacle; Ireland on the other, after a trial that returned €1.39 to society for every euro, has just made a no-strings basic income for artists permanent—the first of its kind anywhere (even if it reaches only 2,000, picked by ballot).12 We catch it with nothing. Set beside any of that, Scottish arts funding is a grim joke.13,14

So—the two numbers I started with. The reason £7.6 billion and £20,700 can sit side by side is that the headline is an average laid over an extreme distribution. The growth is real, but it’s concentrated in streaming and stadium-scale touring, captured at the very top and skimmed by the intermediaries in between—the very pot that could stake a scheme like Ireland’s here, and stakes nothing. And there’s a tell in the deceleration: growth more than halved to 5% by 2024, with the industry’s own report pinning the slowdown on weak touring and shrinking grassroots venues.15 Less obliquely, the musician I’ve been describing doesn’t live in that “growing” economy at all. They live in the local one: the function room, the grassroots venue, the teaching diary—the part where 125 venues shut in 2023, two a week. (Updating in 2026: the raw closure rate has eased—but the deeper rot hasn’t: by 2025 most grassroots venues turned no profit, and 175 towns no longer get regular touring at all.16) Two economies, one statistic. The money exists. It just stops well before it reaches the silver fish tray.

A rally whisper

It would be tidy to end with a stat, so here’s the one that matters most. I’ll let the Census put it plainly:

The Census reveals that almost a third (30%) of musicians are experiencing negative mental wellbeing.17

The biggest factor, unsurprisingly, is money: among those who can’t support themselves or their families from music, it climbs to nearly half—48%.17

I’m not going to pretend this is a rally cry. I’m too tangled up in my own introspection and self-doubt to lead anything. Call it a rally whisper, then—the kind of thing that does nothing on its own, but might, if enough people happen to murmur it at once, eventually get loud enough to be inconvenient. If nothing else, perhaps the asymmetrical picture I’ve painted will help others, as it has helped me, feel like the struggle is less of a personal failing. I’ve done the maths. It doesn’t balance.

Many of my favourite recordings were realised with just a single stereo pair of microphones. If one has an acoustic appropriate to the music being performed, this low-key setup is almost always all that is required. (And even in multi-mic recordings it is the humble main pair which tends account for 90% of the mix.)

©2015 Douglas Whates

While such an approach is not always possible—or even desirable—given the right set of circumstances, the results can be astonishing. Have a listen to the playlist below. Everything you hear there I recorded direct to 2-track recorder with only a single stereo pair. When the minimal approach works, it really works.

In essence, there's little more to it than finding just the right spot to place the performer(s) and then just the right spot to place the mics. You know you've found it when suddenly everything converges: the tone of the instrument/ensemble is right, the stereo image is strong, and the balance of direct-to-reverberant sound is conducive to the repertoire. Sounds easy, but it's rarely a task without a certain degree of challenge.

Once the mics are set up, the session proper can begin. The format varies from situation to situation, performer to performer, but I generally favour a hands-off approach with all focus on cultivating a relaxed atmosphere and capturing a captivating performance. I try to keep takes long and not to get bogged down in too much patching, saving that for only the most difficult spots. I find that if a session gets too patchy, the music almost always suffers.

To read (and hear) more about my recording practice, head over to redstereorecording.com.