So here's my question about the legendary Hal Blaine. I have read that he sadly died broke. If true how did/does that happen? I never heard he had any kind of substance abuse problems and he probably didn't get a lot of royalties. But come on this guy is probably the most prolific session drummer in music history.
Though I will say that many pro musicians do wind up with little at the end. I'd think we'd be surprised at some of the big names who wound up with little financially in later years.
OK - maybe I can shed some light on the financial realities of being a studio musician - at least in LA over the past 40-50 years... Studio players are generally (99.99999% of the time) hired guns... they are not profit participants. They are pay a flat fee... per hour, pre day, per song or per album... negotiated in front and that pay happens regardless of whether a recording is a hit, or a flop, or whether it is ever even released.
By contrast, a member of a band will likely be a profit-participant - a co-owner of the project. They aren't working for someone, they are working for themselves - and thus, to a great degree, make little or know money unless the project generates a profit.
So studio musician #1 could play on 10 tracks for say $500 each and they could all be flops and he would've still made $5000 total. On the other hand, studio musician #2 could play on a different 10 tracks for $500 per and they could each, everyone of them earn Gold Records and that player would still make.... $5000 total.
So with the money being the same fr a hit or a flop, what does playing on a hit gain for a player. Two things. First, artists want to hire players that have played on hits - primarily because they have proven that they are able to go beyond just playing the right notes, with a good feel and do something that is all of that plus a special little bit more. And the more people that want to hire you, the more sessions you get called for. And more sessions add up to more money. Second - the more a player is in demand the more than can charge for a session (song, day, hour, album, etc.). If the basic going rate - or non scale where applicable - is $500. Then an in demand player might be able to charge double that - double scale, The AAA top tier guys can even charge triple. Or again whether they can negotiate - whatever the market will bear.
Simple put - playing on hit paves the way for more work and the opportunity to charge more for that work.
But that hit itself only pays what was originally charged. Back in the 60's -70's, I would venture that Hal probably made in the neighborhood of $150 to play on Good Vibrations. $200-$250 to play on Close To You. Or in today's dollars, $1000 each. Maybe $2k.
The point is - back then, just like now - the reality is as a studio musician, you are only making money while you are working. And working requires being in demand - and nobody stays in demand forever. Probably in any field - but absolutely one as trendy and fad-ridden as music.
And so for any musician to come out at the end of their career requires financial discipline - and none more so than music, where there are no pensions to speak of, and every player to the greatest degree is not an employee, but a self-employed, independent contractor. Not only needing to plan for retirement - but also figure out the ups and downs that are par for the course along the way. I've had years where my income doubled from one year to the next - maybe a string of tours, or a number of album projects happen one after another. The pitfall during those high income periods is believing that they are for sure going to last - which might happen, but also might not. Players get in all kinds of trouble notching their lifestyle expenses up prematurely. Only to have the next year come up with no tours, no albums, just a sampling of wedding gigs.
I didn't know Hal well enough to comment on his situation - just pointing out that playing on a bazillion hits in no ways insures lifelong wealth.
