by Whopbamboom » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:27 pm
To put the $100 in perspective... local massage therapists (legit) charge $80/hr to give massages.... if they did this for 40 hrs/week, 50 weeks/year, that would be $160,000. Yet, many of these therapists don't earn much more than $40K/year. You have to remember that they are first of all physically unable to perform massages for 8 hours per day. Then one must consider that there is no realistic way to line up clients one-after-the-other anyway. It's just the nature of that type of line of work. So they must charge enough money while they are physically working in order to meet all their financial obligations all the rest of the hours of the week/month/year. They can't go out and get another job, they must remain available to do massages whenever each individual 1-hour massage job comes up. I really suspect that music instructors must do the same thing. I don't really think that $100/hour is CRAZY, when you look at it in that light. It's actually quite logical from a business standpoint, even if it is pretty high.
That being said, I personally won't spend $100/hour for music lessons (unless there is something very SPECIFIC that I am going after). There are, quite frankly, far too many other options--- DVD's, books, other instructors, self-teaching, listening to others' music, etc. etc. etc.. Heck, most of what I do now is mainly self-taught anyway. I just do not feel the need to spend my own cash without restraint. Personally, I'd rather spend the $100-$200-$300 (that 1-2-3 hours would cost) on more of my own equipment and continue to self-instruct and to develop my own sound and own techniques. There would have to be a real specific reason for me to lay down $100/hour for lessons with someone else. I'll probably grab a few lessons at $50/hour here and there, but even then I must have a reason for seeking out those lessons.