Push comes to shove, even the elite of the musical world (think country stars riding around the country in a tour bus) have many conflicts between their well compensated career and their standing as a "family" person. They only survive musically by living out of a suitcase for most of the year, putting on their show every second or third night. Once a family comes into the picture, you have the opposing forces of a life of stability vying with the demands of a careers - performers make the most money by "entertaining" in a live (if supported by backing tracks) performance.
Sure, some pull down recording deals that boost them into a higher plane of income, but rock and country groups don't maintain grueling schedules on the road just for fun - they're doing it for the money.
Symphonic folks move in a different world, but even there they need to commit a lot of their time awake to their career. Evenings are often sacrificed to the career (not all symphonic work is during the day), and travel intrudes here as well.
And, symphonic folks (overall) just don't make that much money. A random survey that I do of the orchestral positions in the International Musician, the union's monthly paper, reveals that the average symphonic position pulls down something like $40,000 a year. Twenty years ago, that was great money - today, it's a lower middle class wage. (Bricklayers make more - far more - in Saint Louis MO.)
I'm not saying you can't get by on forty grand a year - I'm just saying that it's hard to make ends meet in a middle class lifestyle with a family pulling in that kind of money. With two such incomes a year, you will get by, but that's dependent on having the two incomes - not always easy to do these days.
I've known symphonic musicians (in Saint Louis) who had a spouse in a drudge job, piles of student loans, a mountain of bills, and the spectre of college tuition for a brood of children staring them in the face. Despite their "elite" status (and Saint Louis once had a highly rated symphonic operation), they were still hustling to get by, using their free time to teach students to rake in some (tax free - tax cheats all) income. It's not a life that I'd care to live, but if they were happy, so be it. Unfortunately, most (three of them) were not.
I also know a woman who was a virtual wizard on the 'cello, went to the right school (Curtis in Philadelphia), got her doctorate and ended up working at the Automobile Club as a receptionist while her viola playing husband sat at one of the back desks in the symphony. When last I saw her, she still had her beautiful long hair, she too had a mountain of student debt, and she was seated in the cheap seats at a performance of Porgy and Bess, still waiting for that break. They were putting off having children until they could afford the expense. And, as of two years ago, her husband was still at a back desk in the string section and her name did not appear on the chart.
So, those are two different "elite" profiles - touring rock/country folks, and symphonic musicians. Dropping down to the world of jazz performers, you move to a much lower plateau. How do they hold up?
I've no doubt that there are jazz musicians who make a decent living. It's just that I don't know any of them. I do know local folks here in Houston who are respected jazz folks, and their performance schedule is just as hectic as those in the top tier. To make a decent living (middle class standards) in pop music or jazz, you have to be "up" constantly. Playing evenings six nights a week, plus rehearsal, all at odd hours. Little time for family or relaxation when your family is awake.
The guys and gals that are in this loop are great people, but they tend to be young. Family life does not fit a professional musician or vocalist well. It can be done, but you'd not want to do it for long.
I know a session guy who plays for the folks that own Muzak. His is a life of rehearsing a chart three or four times, then recording it for the finished copy. Not a typical musician, but he has a stable, 8:00 to 4:30 job that provides him an upper middle class income (when combined with that of his teacher wife's). He lives a normal life in suburbia. And, there are perhaps five hundred others like him in the nation. A great "job" if you can land it (and put up with playing pablum for the masses).
Dropping down another level, this to the part-time folks that I employ. They are paid quite well at a first class job, more per hour than I was paid with my high level management job with the government. (I know this for a fact because I have the earnings statements from my job, and I do the payroll for my sidemen and women as well.)
In fact, it would be a great job, except for one thing - we don't play every night of the week and we don't play for an eight hour day. Twice a month is pretty good for a group of our type, with no more than four hours each time. Some play with other groups as well, but most have day jobs.
And, having done two four-hour jobs in a day one time, I'm not so sure that it would be worth it. Aside from the fact that I'm involved in the planning, erection and teardown of the group each time, getting it all to work right in such a case is a monumental effort. So, no eight hour days in the life of this musician, not when each eight hours comes with the freight of seven hours of planning, setup and teardown.
We have groups (maybe ten people) here in Houston that perform three or four times a week, 'bands' like Klockwork. They do a lot of weddings, and play the occasional benefit or club date as well. But, they too are "out of phase" with the rest of the world, much like emergency room nurses and fire and police personnel. It may be a living, but it's one in a maladjusted world of inconsistency - firemen have a constant job, but entertainers are dependent upon a fluctuating demand.
What it all comes down to is this: the recording industry destroyed the concept of the yeoman/journeyman musician. They made some individuals into "stars", able to pull down income from both recording and performing, but the days of the "go to work each day" musician are almost gone. And, with them went the "well paying" job for most in the field. The superstars make a lot at the price of a disrupted life, the symphonic folks make some but not all that much, some people scrape by with club jobs and the like, and the rest get a nice payday for the occasional band jobs, but the jobs are few and far between.
And, always lurking around the corner is the "threat" of someone realizing that they can get a perfect performance (maybe not legal, but otherwise pristine) by playing CDs or MPEGs produced in a recording studio. Sure, a "live" performance adds to the value of the entertainment. But, I've not listened to a symphonic group live in a long, long time - I take the price of one ticket and buy the same performance to add to my collection to hear whenever I want to.
Hotel orchestras are dead. My grandfather made a decent living when he emigrated here after World War I, by playing for hotel orchestras and movie theaters. Then came talkies, and half of his playing gigs disappeared almost overnight. How did he survive and raise a family of eleven children? He became a fireman, relegating music to a part-time status.
Pit orchestra are dying. Shows like West Side Story are often put on with reductions in strings, or even in the "band" desks. Some are put on with a synth, others with pre-recorded tracks.
And, sitting in the background, unnoticed but still functioning at full blast, is an education system that is turning out thousands of potential musicians each and every year - in effect, creating a product for which there is ever-decreasing demand. Not a pretty picture.