It's not idiotic at all. Most musicians, even of the mega pop star variety, make most of their money performing music, not from royalties. I would go so far as to say that musicians should make most of their money by giving concerts.
I upvoted you, because you make an interesting point, but I disagree. What if I'm a conceptual musician? What if I'm a terrific composer but a terrible performer? Shouldn't there be a venue where I can make money through my compositions even if I can't assemble a traveling band to tour and perform them?
> Most musicians, even of the mega pop star variety, make most of their money performing music
Especially of the mega pop star variety. The highest-grossing band in the US last year was Bon Jovi. The idea that the new emphasis on live gigs somehow benefits new or "alternative" is a fiction. It in fact benefits well-established acts with long and successful recording careers.
Incidentally, how is recording in a studio not "performing"? Why should it be less deserving of audience's cash?
> I would go so far as to say that musicians should make most of their money by giving concerts.
I'm guessing that this is because it fits your romantic view that a musician should be essentially like a bard in the middle ages.
Also, as other another poster pointed out, some acts are not designed to be "live" acts. Like Steely Dan. Some can't perform live, or at least not to the extent necessary if there is no revenue from recorded music. The late Michel Petruciani would fall in this category (he had esteogenesis imperfecta).
