You can't plan to be the next Beatles (just as you can't plan to be the next Microsoft), but you can absolutely plan to make a living in the arts (just as you can plan to make a living in software).

When people look at a field from the outside, they only see the celebrities, but this is a completely unrepresentative sample. As Phil Greenspun once put it, "I can't decide if I want to be a scientist like James Watson, a musician like Britney Spears, or an actor like Harrison Ford."

You can make money in music, but it's very difficult to make money making music, which I think is essentially the same analogy here.

A band I love called Periphery is fairly popular, they do global tours etc. They have been very vocal that the band itself generates no revenue. They are happy to break even because they love making music. Instead they use their influence to extend their brand, such as pedals, pickups, clothing brands, etc. They absolutely make money in music, but they don't make money making the music.

You can make money in Open Source, but you're unlikely to make money developing of Open Source. But, if you do contribute or maintain OSS, then you can likely get a job at any of the million companies that need a dev. So you're still making money and you're still in OSS, but they are separate.

I think that was the point OP was making here. Someone makes money on art, but the actual creation of that art isn't likely being paid out to the creator, just all the components that bring it to the consumer.

I disagree there, too. Attempting to make money makes you a business. As a business, your fate is in your hands. You're the one making the decisions.

If you decide that the path you want to take in the business of music is to give control to record labels because all the business-y marketing production stuff isn't fun for you, that's your decision. You don't have to do it that way.