Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, likewise for classical music too. I'm pretty involved in my local music scene. Everybody I know who makes a decent middle class income from music, teaches. For one thing, there's reasonable demand. For another, it's a way for a performer fill your schedule with work during the hours when they pretty much can't be performing.
While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.
I took music lessons as a kid, from around age 6 through high school. My parents had no expectation that I would become a professional musician. (In fact, my dad later expressed his relief when he knew that I wouldn't). And in reality I would never have made the cut. Jazz bass was easier for me to get into than classical cello, because there was at the time a shortage of bassists, and nothing like the insane auditions that classical players go through. I was happy to let music be a serious sideline while I pursued math and physics as my college majors.
Today, my kids are themselves taking classical lessons, playing in the youth orchestra, etc. It's interesting, when the orchestra has its final concert every year, the program gives a little bio for each kid who is a high school senior, and many of them mention their future plans. A huge percentage of the kids in the orchestra are planning on studying science, math, computers, etc. A few will actually study those subjects in college, paid for by music scholarships. One of my band mates went through college that way, and is now employed in the software industry.
So it's a good kind of Ponzi scheme. ;-)