Where my money at?

[Ed Fuqua]

Check it out, sent to me by bassist Ron Brendle...

HERE'S AN EYE-OPENER

attachment shows Paul Whiteman band salaries 1928.
(thanks to Dave Rudoph for the forward)

the average among the 35 players was $206 a week
that equals (x12.24) $2521.44 a week in 2008 dollars.
even the valet made equiv of $612 (plus lotsa tips i betcha)

interesting site to compare purchasing power $ any years--
http://www.buyupside.com/calculators...powerjan08.htm

ok u want to say that's a nationally famous band?? sure..but
you think today's Basie/Herman etc players avg $2521 a week?
3/4 that ? 1/2 that? 1/3 that? keep going...and going...
my father-in -law (bassist) made $300+ a week in the depression!
that's $4600 a week today.

when i openend my nyc loft Jazzmania in 1975, the standard
bottom-line accepted pay around town was $100 sideman. $150 leader.
and many considered that "chump change". (esp the "country club date" players)
guess what? that $100 is now worth $25.66, and it's not considered
chump change anymore, it's considered a GOOD gig! what is taking over
today is the $50 gig..it's threatening to become the new standard here.
(In Nyc $35 became the new low-end acceptable jazz gig 10 yrs ago!)
so for $50 you are working for $12.33 in terms of 1975 $,
when $100 was worth $389.78 today
...and was considered just passable or even chump change!

there are 3 issues here:
1)why did this happen?
2)does it have to remain this way?
3)is there anything we can do about it?

[Gornick]

Ahhh, thanks Ed... very well done. Out here in Frisco it's even worse. Wasn't it a thread a couple years ago featuring a guy giving away a free gig in Frisco that led to a long heated discussion and a couple valuable posters leaving the boards?

I am going to pass this along to the white collar folks out here playin' for free because it's fun, if you don't mind. Not that they end up caring, really, their bills are paid for.

I had a lesson with an older bassist out here, and he laid the same thing down. 1968? it was a bill a gig. Now? it's half that, not adjusted for inflation.

someone's makin' money, and it ain't us.

[Sam Sherry]

I'll be contrary. Not because I like the situation, but because it boils down to these few facts:

In 19xx the only alternatives to great musicians were not-great musicians or no musicians.

Sometime listeners started to get the notion that listening to records in bars was a superior alternative to not-great musicians. I can't say that I miss their point altogether too.

Fewer gigs + same number of great musician = lower bucks. So Ed, you may be lookin' for your money, because you are a great musician. But as a not-great musician, I'm sayin, 'Where my gig?'

I'll crawl back to my cave now . . .

[Ed Fuqua]

Not to be unduly contrary, but I'm pretty sure (talking to folks who were around in those days) there were just as many not-great musicians around. Some of them did go on to become great, but that's another story. Pretty much anybody's bio you read has stories about the first groups they worked with, in high school/orphan's home/civic organization sponsored etc. And it weren't purty.

I think it's more the inundation of alternatives. TV, radio, Ipod, cable, dvd, satellite, ESPN, mixed martial arts - I mean WHAT public venue can you walk into today that they don't have SOMETHING going on in the background? At one point in history that was ALL live music. Or it was nothing.

And don't sell yerself short there Sam'l....

[chris dammann]

The sad truth is, Jazz is no longer mainstream popular music. If you want to make bank you have to you-know, play popular music.

[Marcus Johnson]

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

I think it's more the inundation of alternatives. TV, radio, Ipod, cable, dvd, satellite, ESPN, mixed martial arts - I mean WHAT public venue can you walk into today that they don't have SOMETHING going on in the background? At one point in history that was ALL live music. Or it was nothing.

Yup.

[salcott]

When I came to NYC in '79, the better gigs (example-Gregory's w/Joe Puma and Hod O'Brien ) paid $50; now they all do.

[bobalew]

Originally Posted by Gornick

I am going to pass this along to the white collar folks out here playin' for free because it's fun, if you don't mind. Not that they end up caring, really, their bills are paid for.

I guess I'm a white collar guy since I have a really good day gig. But I don't give this stuff away because to do so establishes the value of my product in this market. And if I work for free - for whatever reason - then the expectation in the market is that other jazzers should work for 'free'.

I have been able to demand $125/man for private parties in the DFW market, double that in December. A steady gig at an upscale restaurant goes for a little less, with the understanding that the rate is based on steady work. My duo works a lot, the quartet less.

This is a CW and Classic Rock market, but a good product well placed sells. The work isn't what it was in the day, but this is a great time to recruit a new, younger audience that is hearing it live for the first time.

FWIW

[Kam]

Originally Posted by chris dammann

The sad truth is, Jazz is no longer mainstream popular music. If you want to make bank you have to you-know, play popular music.

This pretty much sums it up. It's just not realistic to compare Swing-Era salaries to post-WWII salaries because after WWII Jazz was not pop music anymore. After the whole WWII draft/rations/cabaret tax thing + the recording strike which bolted singers into the foreground of american popular music, instrumental jazz just doesn't have the demographic base to draw from compared to the 20s and 30s.

As for pay in the past 30 years..I'm in no position to speculate, I'm just going to keep learning Maroon 5 and Outkast tunes so I can pay my rent..

[Gornick]

It's a tough issue. you want to play, it's why we own basses, why we study music, practice etc., so you gotta get out there. It's not like I am a great player or anything, but when I hear the stories of older pros who aren't making the bucks they used to, it ain't pretty.

And it's hard to watch lesser players go out and cheapen the deal by accepting free or very low paying gigs, with no real intention of doing the music justice or working towards becoming a better musician. And the next thing that happens is that the going rate for real money gigs, corporate or weddings, start slipping because of the trend in the restaurants and club circuits.

I agree that you can't compare the 30's to now, considering the electronic revolution, but you can compare the 70's to now, and that comparison is pretty sad.

Oh, and I agree with Ed, don't sell yourself short Sam, you sound great!

[Chris Fitzgerald]

It's a little of all of the above (except for Sam's self deprecation), IMO. Jazz isn't popular music, and most laypeople don't value it monetarily. Many jazz musicians don't make much effort to incorporate repertoire that was born before their audience - and as with classical music, that makes it harder for younger people to relate to and therefore harder to sell.

Here in town, I play the odd $50 gig, but it's gotta be with great players and at a place where they treat you well and with respect. We sometimes have students out in the community playing for less, and occasionally even for free. The difference is, they sound like students. Personally, I teach to support my playing habit, so I look at opportunities to play as just that and try to enjoy them. I won't go out for less than $50, though.

[MLysh]

You may want to call it jazz now, but wasn't Paul Whiteman considered the Kenny G./Jonas Brothers of his time? I read that Bix hated playing in his band.

[fingers]

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

there are 3 issues here:
1)why did this happen?
2)does it have to remain this way?
3)is there anything we can do about it?

The way I see it the club owner holds all the cards. There are always groups, especially in bigger cities, that sound great and are willing to work for peanuts.

Then it comes down to a business deal.

Why should he pay your group more than the others?

The answer is your group makes him more money than the other groups. You put butts in seats.

This means that as a solution we need to take promotion into our own hands. Club owners might take out there one ad in the local 'zine and call it promotion.

We also need to get out and support eachother. Musicians are notorious, at least in Chicago, for bitching about the local music scene but rarely going out to support it themselves.

I'm definitely not defending the club owner. Quite the contrary, I get really pissed sometimes but I do think it is important in any situation to influence the one person you can... you.

I NEVER play for free and I brow beat anyone who does.

The other question is... What's the deal with this allusive jazz gig that pays lots of money and the owner treats your like royalty? I hear cats talk about it but I've yet to see it, at least in the USA.

[Ed Fuqua]

Originally Posted by chris dammann

The sad truth is, Jazz is no longer mainstream popular music. If you want to make bank you have to you-know, play popular music.

Well, no not really. The scene for most rock/pop/funk etc. is pretty much the same, or worse, what with Pay-To-Play and all. Your scenario (jazz=Not Popular) may speak to why live jazz isn't more prevalent, but it doesn't speak at all to the question of why the pay for jazz performances in jazz venues where people who like jazz go to listen to people play jazz has declined.

[fingers]

I'm with Ed here. Rock clubs are the worst. At least most jazz places give you a #. Many rock clubs do a cut of cover AFTER they pay the sound man out of the door.

[hdiddy]

I think it's safe to say that music is moving from general entertainment into the world of performance art, esp Jazz. Performance art, or even "good" art, in general usually pays squat, but most of us aren't doing it for the money.

[Paul Warburton]

I keep saying this, I know.
Listening is out. Seeing is in. People go to see, not to listen. Even here on TB...."I went to see **** last night".
I think that spells b a d n e w s for an art based on listening.

Humphh....

[hdiddy]

these ****ers just want to be entertained Unca, cuz that's all their attention span can handle. Appreciation in the traditional arts is highly devoid out there.

American Idol and Guitar Hero (as fun as it may be) are a detriment to culture. It trivializes it and turns it into some amatuerish act that pays no real homage to art and it's mastery.

[Jazzdogg]

The good news is that there are still jazz fans coming up through the ranks. I went to hear a friend's middle-school jazz band perform the other night (I coach several of his students), and was very pleased to hear kids in the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades playing jazz - and enjoying it immensely! They even swung a tune in 9/8!

Granted, hearing 12-year-olds playing Swinging Shepherd Blues isn't exactly an earth-shaking experience, but I've gotta tell you - it felt great to hear these kids talking among themselves about Ellington, Basie, et al, without any prompting from adults!

[TroyK]

Originally Posted by Paul Warburton

...
Listening is out. Seeing is in. People go to see, not to listen. Even here on TB...."I went to see **** last night"...

Lucky for me and my bandmates, I'm easy on the eyes!