Musical talent have very little to do with whether you can live from your music.
For some genres of music yes, for others, no. There are genres where sound design is of the utmost importance. I'm not saying competition isn't a factor universally- I'm saying genres without significant competition still have the same problems, so it clearly isn't the dominant factor.
A few electronic music acts might disagree with you here. Daft Punk? Skrillex? The Prodigy? A lot of importance on sound design here, and it is major enough to be on topic on most of those debates.
So you're saying that their music isn't actually outstanding, they just got lucky? If so, I'd be grateful for a list of artists who makes as good stuff as Daft Punk or Prodigy does, but who didn't make it because of "timing, culture etc.". They can very well be my next facourite bands.
No I am not saying that. I am saying it's a much larger chain of events than simply their skills and talent that makes someone popular. Luck is one of them the same way it is for startups. Timing is another again just like startups, network and so one.
Yeah probably, but also a lot of the stuff that is acclaimed is just really good. Luck plays a factor, but I'd be surprised if there were guys who make music as good as say Radiohead's, who are toiling away in obscurity because they were unlucky.
My point is, a a lot of the indies make music which, while being solid and obviously requiring tons of work, still can't compare to the output of the few talented guys who made it. For the most part it's not luck, just skills gap. Almost nobody wants to listen to decent music if they can enjoy masterpieces.
For some genres of music yes, for others, no. There are genres where sound design is of the utmost importance. I'm not saying competition isn't a factor universally- I'm saying genres without significant competition still have the same problems, so it clearly isn't the dominant factor.