Also, producers, engineers, etc. that enable recorded music to be fine tuned to perfection deserved to be paid. They won't go on tours.

The real question is: are labels/distributors paid too much? In this day and age, I think so, and that's why services like Bandcamp deserve to be supported.

Or you can take, in contrast, Like Spinning Plates by Radiohead. The music was recorded backwards, then run forwards. Thom Yorke learned the backwards melody, which gives the lyrics a clipped, alien quality. When they perform this song live, they use significantly different instrumentation.

Is the album performance fake? No, it's impossible to do in any other way.

There are many more examples I know, including bands that aren't worth a D live and bands that just record their live performances in the studio and call it a record. For me, hearing an album that is hard to perform live is a thrill, can't wait to hear what the band does with it.

Actually, from thousands of interviews I've read from artists, live tours are always a losing proposition money-wise.

Except for big bands (from Rolling Stones down to Kings of Leon or White Stripes levels of big) for any alternative artist, much less a group, it's bleeding money. And, no, merchandise doesn't do it, either.

>A real artist, or musician, can perform live, and that is where they should make their money, performing their art. That is the artist.

So those post 1965 Beatles albums, when they stopped performing live, are not real art. You know, like Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper, Revolver et al.

For small alternative artists (less 1 million album sales, which is the vast majority) it's almost always a losing proposition.