Are musicians worse off as a result of the digital revolution’s impact on the music business? Or is that just a modern myth? Steve Johnson, writing in New York Magazine, disputes claims about the disastrous impact on artists’ livelihoods. Analyzing Occupational Employment Statistics data and information on live performance revenues from Songkick, Johnson asserts that musicians are doing fine as a group compared to a few decades ago, contrary to the oft-repeated anecdotes.

First, let’s get one thing straight. Musicians have never had it easy. There was never a golden age when musical talent and creativity was fairly rewarded, at least in the United States. The 20th century is littered with stories of bands, singers and rappers that had their revenue legally stolen under grossly unfair recording contracts. But recording contracts today are even worse, with the new standard “360” deals where record labels take a percentage of practically everything a musician does. (If record companies could find a way to monetize a musician’s breaths, they’d take a share of that, too.) At least there are more alternatives now for independent musicians.

But that doesn’t mean you can make a living from music. Johnson concedes that consumers spend less money on music than we did 20 or 30 years ago, even before factoring in the effects of inflation. But he shows that the creative-class employment data–Group 27-0000, comprising Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media occupations–has been stable over the past 15 years, growing from 1.2% of the job market to 1.3%. And annual income for the group grew by slightly more than the national average. Acknowledging that self-employed individuals are not captured in this data, he uses economic census data to show that the number of businesses that identify as “independent artists, writers and performers” has also grown. It seems there are more musicians per capita than there were before. Of course, that doesn’t mean they can make a living doing so, instead relying on other sources of income to get by.

Johnson’s main claim is that revenue losses from the sale of creative products like albums has been compensated for by revenue from live performance. Yet he provides data showing that only the top 5% of musicians earn 90% of the live performance revenue. Hardly a recipe for a successful career performing music, or a healthy music industry.

I know that during the late 70s I was able to support myself working in a dance band while attending college, without having to take on any student loan debt (rising college costs–that’s another story!). You couldn’t do that now. Even then, the market was changing, and bands were being displaced by DJs, who were much cheaper to hire. The L.A. studio musicians who earned their living performing on countless records and hits during the 60s and early 70s found their talents less in demand as popular music shifted to a singer-songwriter focus. I used to perform at The Cannery in San Francisco during the mid-2000s, and another musician I met recounted how she used to earn $1,000 a day in tips performing there during the 80s and 90s, a heyday that had since passed. So there has always been turbulence and change.

Yes, there are more opportunities for independent musicians to easily record their music and get it out into the marketplace. That’s certainly a good thing. But there is more competition, and people are less willing to spend money for music, so the revenue opportunities are greatly diluted for the average musician. Places where musicians are expected to play free for just tips, like The Cannery, are more common, and the tips aren’t what they used to be, for whatever reason.

Will this kill creativity, as some people fear? Not entirely. But it will undoubtedly dilute it, which is much harder to measure. Culture blooms when there is a concentration of shared creativity, a certain threshold of supported activity. Whether new models are emerging that will ultimately benefit musicians, such as YouTube monetization, remains to be seen. But what we currently lack is a culture that values skill and creativity. You can see that in the attitude that music should be free, or virtually free. Talented musicians may simply give up before they have had a chance to develop, because it is just too hard to sustain an income. This is nothing new, but the odds are worse now than they used to be. And that’s a shame.