Financially speaking, which is best, to be a music star, a TV star, or a movie star?


Alan Chenkin, Learned about celebrities by reading the tabloids at the supermarket checkout line…
As said best by Joni Mitchell, “That’s one thing that’s always, like, been a difference between, like, the performing arts, and being a painter, you know. A painter does a painting, and he paints it, and that’s it, you know. He has the joy of creating it, it hangs on a wall, and somebody buys it, and maybe somebody buys it again, or maybe nobody buys it and it sits up in a loft somewhere until he dies. But he never, you know, nobody ever, nobody ever said to Van Gogh, ‘Paint a Starry Night again, man!’ You know? He painted it and that was it.”[1]
Music artists have to constantly reinvent themselves, and the money in the music business flows to promoters, ticket vendors, and not to performers (unless you are consistently producing top selling albums).
Which leaves you with TV and Movies. WHY? because you get residual income, which can fund your life while you pursue new parts and roles you find personally rewarding; like Broadway shows (when the show closes, by the way, your paycheck ends, just sayin’).
It is important for an actor to monetize their career, and/or get a sponsor (or sponsors) to support them in their journey to master their craft.
Financial security will give an actor the ability to eat while evaluating roles and donating their skills to good causes.  Residuals, whether from album sales, sitcom appearances, or movie roles can be a key component of an performers ongoing income.
-Break a leg!
Thanks for reading my blog!  Feel free to like, upvote, and share!
Edited and expanded from my answer on Quora.
If you enjoyed this blog, please feel free to Like, Upvote, and share!