At the end of the day, a playback singer has to depend on live shows as their source of income.
While I used to make my living principally as a record producer, as time went on, I had to depend more and more on my live performances because of the evolution of the record industry, which has de-emphasized what made it possible to make a living.
I did 15 shows a week when I lived in New York. I did five shows on a Friday and seven shows on a Saturday. It was everything I did and it was my sole source of income.
There's no money in television, but TV provides the wherewithal to get the dollars for live performances.
I do work a lot. I mean, most of my income, I would say, comes from live performances. And then you've got publishing, you've got record royalties.
People assume that because you have graced the same stage as the star act, in front of thousands, you must be reaping similar financial rewards. This is a complete fallacy.
Royalties are not how most writers or musicians make their living. Musicians by and large make a living with a relationship with an audience that is economically harnessed through performance and ticket sales.
The biggest income we make is from live performances, without any doubt. That's about a 4-to-1 ratio from anything else.
A play that works well and is done quite a lot - I've never done the math - but it's probably more remunerative than a movie.
