Are charity gigs for masochists?

[pklima]

OK, they don't all turn out bad, but the odds of something getting seriously screwed up seem much higher than regular ol' money gigs. Or am I being too harsh?

I was supposed to play at one last weekend and didn't because two days before they moved us to a different timeslot that we had told them a week earlier we couldn't possibly make. Apparently one of the people putting it together didn't tell the other one, the main person responsible was too busy with work to keep an eye on things... The one before that did happen but they planned nine bands in the space of four hours and was in the middle of nowhere. At least we got some decent video out of it, though half the crowd was the other bands.

Now, I had played a few that went all right, even if you have to deal with the suspicion that any people who want to play for free probably suck, won't bring a crowd, and are doing it "for exposure". I had done as a sub where the bandleader promised we'd get fed, then the venue told us that, sure, they'll give us burgers, but if at least 60 people don't show up we'll have to pay for them. Haha. I don't really blame them, this was part of a series of concerts and I know the band that played there before us doesn't have a big following yet, but it was still funny.

So... are charity gigs more likely to be really badly organized, in your experience, or have I just been unlucky recently?

[Joebone]

Varies widely. Nine bands in four hours is a push; how did the stage management go?

[pklima]

Originally Posted by Joebone

Varies widely. Nine bands in four hours is a push; how did the stage management go?

Luckily we were on first, and a couple of those weren't really bands but solo acoustic acts etc. So, not really too bad from that point of view. The downside was trying to tell people to "come see us, it'll take you an hour and a half to get there and we'll play for 20 minutes!"

[rtslinger]

Originally Posted by pklima

OK, they don't all turn out bad, but the odds of something getting seriously screwed up seem much higher than regular ol' money gigs. Or am I being too harsh?

I was supposed to play at one last weekend and didn't because two days before they moved us to a different timeslot that we had told them a week earlier we couldn't possibly make. Apparently one of the people putting it together didn't tell the other one, the main person responsible was too busy with work to keep an eye on things... The one before that did happen but they planned nine bands in the space of four hours and was in the middle of nowhere. At least we got some decent video out of it, though half the crowd was the other bands.



Now, I had played a few that went all right, even if you have to deal with the suspicion that any people who want to play for free probably suck, won't bring a crowd, and are doing it "for exposure". I had done as a sub where the bandleader promised we'd get fed, then the venue told us that, sure, they'll give us burgers, but if at least 60 people don't show up we'll have to pay for them. Haha. I don't really blame them, this was part of a series of concerts and I know the band that played there before us doesn't have a big following yet, but it was still funny.

So... are charity gigs more likely to be really badly organized, in your experience, or have I just been unlucky recently?

YES! Done many, very seldom do you feel it is well plan, and at other times you are treated no different than the guy busing tables. example we were hiring to do a show no pay giving of our time for the cause. And as we are setting up the DJ they hired for the night asks where to put his stuff! Yeah we were set up for months with this show. and some one still screwed it up. Another time we were to play for a burn victim this time a paid gig but, we were going to donate the money to the family. They called and tell us it is called off. The next day in their local paper it has a big article about the event and the band and how much money they raised! After that one we do not do them anymore unless there is a contract sad right.

[RustyAxe]

Originally Posted by pklima

I had done as a sub where the bandleader promised we'd get fed, then the venue told us that, sure, they'll give us burgers, but if at least 60 people don't show up we'll have to pay for them. Haha. I don't really blame them, this was part of a series of concerts and I know the band that played there before us doesn't have a big following yet, but it was still funny.

Sounds like the only party to benefit from your charity was the venue owner. That's not charity, that's playin' for nothin'. Makes me wonder what the venue owner "charitably donated" ... his time and place? We do benefits, and sometimes for little to no pay, but if there's food and drink, the performers should be comp'd.

[Phalex]

I like to play "Benefits" (I think Americans are put off by the word "Charity"). Organization is usually kind of lax IMO, but the purpose of the benefit is to raise money for someone that has had something tragic happen and raise money. Bands are used to draw people in to the event, but the event is not about the bands.

I bring all my stuff, and I'm prepared to play, but if I get bumped for time constraints, I'm still gonna buy raffle tickets and help out the cause.

(Sorry if I went off on a tangent there......)

[MNAirHead]

Before doing them, I test the management to ensure they know what they're doing.

few things are as fun as playing through a bumbled event "for the exposure"

I normally try to get them to have our duo play as this has less logistics... in this case, I'll bring my own board, power amp etc... faster setup and no "my kid knows sound" issues.

[MNAirHead]

Charity coffee shop gigs are the ones to avoid.

[steve_rolfeca]

I do a ton of this stuff, and for the most part, the only issues I've ever had have been with power at outdoor events.

On average, I seem to get treated better at benefit events than I do at regular paying gigs.

[Tampabass]

As someone who has played several of these, and is in the midst of organizing (and probably playing) a benefit concert for a keyboardist friend and former bandmate facing a serious, life-threatening illness, I have to say this - there are tons of complexities related to managing these things.

I'm fairly good at organizing things involving music, and I'm doing a lot of planning, and getting support from people who know what they're doing, I think.

But the reality is that, ultimately, something minor or even major may go askew - sound not perfect, band members showing up late, the promotional poster not being quite right, schedule getting delayed, someone's feelings getting hurt regarding placement in the lineup.

My advice: Take the charity gig if you believe in the cause and/or enjoy being around the musicians and others involved. Don't go in expecting $$ or tons of exposure. If things don't work out perfectly - chillax. Yes, you want everyone to play their best and the music to be heard properly, and the right mix of promotions/publicity to happen. But nobody (aside from the venue) is getting paid, and it's likely that the organizer is not doing it full time.

One other suggestion: Don't become "that band" that primarily plays at charity events. Pick one or two a year that really make sense, and beg off the others.

[Tampabass]

Hey, since someone mentioned play time at these events, I have a question, as I'm trying to figure this out right now:

If/when you play a charity event, and given that there's some kind of backline (so that you don't have to spend hours setting up): Would you prefer to do a quick, short set, 30-40 minutes, or would you rather do something like play an hour?

Obviously, with shorter sets, there can be more bands, meaning more, different kinds of people will come out and the benefit could potentially raise more money.

On the other hand, would fewer bands and longer sets be more appealing to audiences? more appealing to bands?

[pklima]

Originally Posted by Phalex

I like to play "Benefits" (I think Americans are put off by the word "Charity"). Organization is usually kind of lax IMO, but the purpose of the benefit is to raise money for someone that has had something tragic happen and raise money. Bands are used to draw people in to the event, but the event is not about the bands.

Actually, now that I think about it, benefits to raise money for a specific person's specific expenses have always gone all right in my experience. It's the fundraisers for large national charitable organizations which have been around for years that tend to get botched.

Originally Posted by RustyAxe

Sounds like the only party to benefit from your charity was the venue owner. That's not charity, that's playin' for nothin'. Makes me wonder what the venue owner "charitably donated" ... his time and place? We do benefits, and sometimes for little to no pay, but if there's food and drink, the performers should be comp'd.

The exact same thought crossed my mind, but I have no idea if they donated part of the bar's take or whatever. I was just a sub, and to this day I don't even know if the girl I subbed for had a hand injury or faked one specifically to get out of playing there.

[Audiophage]

Not for profit organizations are notorious for having all kinds of nasty politics. As unfortunate as it may be, when some money is involved people tend to take things more seriously.

[kcole4001]

Originally Posted by Phalex

I like to play "Benefits" (I think Americans are put off by the word "Charity"). Organization is usually kind of lax IMO, but the purpose of the benefit is to raise money for someone that has had something tragic happen and raise money. Bands are used to draw people in to the event, but the event is not about the bands.

I bring all my stuff, and I'm prepared to play, but if I get bumped for time constraints, I'm still gonna buy raffle tickets and help out the cause.

(Sorry if I went off on a tangent there......)

This.
We do these all the time, and by that I mean perhaps too much.
But what ya gonna do? It's always a good cause, and if it isn't, it's pretty easy to say no.
As far as travel distance is concerned, we only do those that are close by (within 50 miles).
There are still plenty of opportunities to play, sometimes it seems that we could play (for free) 2 or 3 times every week of the year, and the local scene is actually very limited for paying gigs.

Organization is always the potential weak spot, almost always amateur, but when it's done right, it can be a very good evening.
I've also witnessed some of the most interesting (and occasionally avant garde) performances at these fund raisers, so it can be quite fun.

[mboogiemanusa]

I don't mind playing benefits as long as the bands name is being promoted. My cover band has played a number of benefits for the local biker community. Some of them pay at least travel expenses. We are almost always the only band however and probably would not play a free show with a bunch of other bands. We also demand that our band logo is prominently displayed on all charity promotion including posters, e-mails, websites and radio spots. We also return the favor by promoting the gig in all our fan websites and craigslist etc etc. We tell benefit promoters that listing the band's effort as only "live music" or "live entertainment" on flyers without mentioning the bands name is considered an insult in the music community.

[seanm]

Originally Posted by Tampabass

Hey, since someone mentioned play time at these events, I have a question, as I'm trying to figure this out right now:

If/when you play a charity event, and given that there's some kind of backline (so that you don't have to spend hours setting up): Would you prefer to do a quick, short set, 30-40 minutes, or would you rather do something like play an hour?

Obviously, with shorter sets, there can be more bands, meaning more, different kinds of people will come out and the benefit could potentially raise more money.

On the other hand, would fewer bands and longer sets be more appealing to audiences? more appealing to bands?

I would prefer a longer set since once I have taken the time to get there, I want to play

I also think it is better for the audience since there are less breaks. However, if you end up with a dud band you have to sit through it. So it would also depend on how well you know the bands.

[pklima]

I think shorter sets (30-40 min) are perfect if the location is good. Even nine bands in four hours would be OK in the middle of a densely populated area or on a college campus or something.