More money = lower status?

[pklima]

To put it in pseudoscientific language:

General rule of musician rewards: The amount of money you make from music is inversely correlated to the amount of social status you gain by playing it, assuming the level of musicianship is equal.

This is just a hypothesis based on personal observation. It seems to me that as a musician you have a choice of playing for money (weddings and corporate parties, for example) or playing for the respect and admiration of people (classical, originals - especially in "artsy" genres). Maybe things are different around here but nobody looks up to wedding bands and nobody looks down on classical musicians. It seems like the less something pays the more people admire it.

From a supply and demand perspective, it makes sense that we'd get to this point - the more "other rewards" (groupies, friends who buy you drinks because you're in the band, the respect of bosses at work, being introduced as someone interesting at parties etc.) you get from music, the less money you'll take to play it.

Do you agree or disagree?

Edit: Of course sometimes you gain status mainly within a certain subculture, for example when playing in a metal band or a church choir. That complicates things somewhat, but I think doesn't invalidate the general rule in any way.

[cowsgomoo]

It seems to me that as a musician you have a choice of playing for money or playing for the respect and admiration of people

or you can avoid spending/wasting your time thinking in those terms and just play the music you enjoy the most, regardless of what you think it'll achieve

[onlyclave]

You hit it right on the head pklima. Once upon a time I devoted all of my education and free time to playing music and was essentially a gig whore. I got called for lots of stuff and I never turned down anything especially if it paid. Then one day I realized that all of my education and time spent practicing had turned into being able to play "Celebration" in 12 keys. I quit and now I have a very interesting and fun job and do a lot of playing on the side strictly for the fun of it and for little to no money. I find it hard to find interesting and talented composers/singer-songwriters/musicians to play with who feel the same way and want to push the envelope with experimental and progressive music. Just look on Craigslist and all of the postings are the same "Established metal band looking for bassist, read to hit studio/go on tour/gigs lined up, must be self motivated and 420 friendly".

I'd rather play for free and have my self respect and artistic integrity. No more business of music.

[pklima]

I have nothing against the business; I just think there's a basic choice to be made which few musicians are consciously aware of. I personally play metal and children's music. I enjoy both but I get money out of metal (most of our fans live thousands of kilometers away in richer countries) and respectability out of children's music.

[neurotictim]

I think it's a pretty valid POV. I know a guy that strictly plays weddings and good-paying gigs in general, even though he has a decently-paying day job, because, and I quote, "That's where the money is."

Oddly enough, he has a condescending attitude towards people going out to play for the h*** of it. I would rather live to play than play to live.

[73jbass]

Originally Posted by neurotictim

I think it's a pretty valid POV. I know a guy that strictly plays weddings and good-paying gigs in general, even though he has a decently-paying day job, because, and I quote, "That's where the money is."

Oddly enough, he has a condescending attitude towards people going out to play for the h*** of it. I would rather live to play than play to live.

Great points.Around here,(Atlanta),I keep running into bar owners that tell me "We can get this band for 250.00,so why should we pay you 500.00? " Club owners are more interested in paying bands as little as possible,or nothing in some cases, no matter what the quality of the music is. That's why I look for private parties or corporate functions.

[derrico1]

I see your point, but my take is a little different. I've been playing out for almost 30 years--underage in bar bands as a 16 year old, and then originals bands, party bands, and corporates from college-->last night.

What you say seems essentially to describe how one type of musician accords status to others. Then there are professionals for whom being a solid pro is the major point of respect. Being a pro's pro involves being able to get and handle money gigs, but it's more about personal and professional maturity than money.

Additionally, the audience or general public figures a musician's status differently than either group of musicians does. Obviously, musicians respect difficult listening way more than civilians do. By a landslide, more punters respect the musicians who can energize a room and turn it into a party than ones who play serious music that doesn't touch anyone.


Those are both extremes, of course. There are a lot of dull hack "party" bands and pop groups, just as there is some truly innovative and moving music requiring massive chops.

My point is just that there are multiple sources/kinds of respect, and no one source of universal status. Above all, though, if status is what drives someone, musician probably isn't the right career. Gotta do it for the love you've got for it, not the love it'll get for you.


(I say this as someone who is currently working --among other things, and always these days primarily for the fun rather than the money-- a live-band karaoke gig and an originals band with the normal selective appeal.)

[pklima]

That's very true. I was thinking mostly in terms of civilian respect - nobody looks down on classical violinists!

[Phalex]

I would agree to a certain point. I think this is very true for bar bands and less so for a national act. The cover band I'm in presently used to do a bit more technical hippy trippy sort of stuff when we first got together. We could get gigs, but didn't draw big crowds, so second and third gigs at the same place were problematic. We had a great following of local musicians, (They must have admired our musical integrity) but we added a bunch of 80's and 90's pop about 2 years ago and now we get so many offers we turn gigs down. I'm booked into early 2009 and I owe it all to playing poison and Def Leppard.

[Bruce Lindfield]

I think there's a lot of truth in it :

Playing bass for the Spice Girls = big money/little respect

Playing bass for obscure Jazz/World Music fusion - little money/big respect

[QORC]

Originally Posted by pklima

To put it in pseudoscientific language:

General rule of musician rewards: The amount of money you make from music is inversely correlated to the amount of social status you gain by playing it, assuming the level of musicianship is equal.

This is just a hypothesis based on personal observation. It seems to me that as a musician you have a choice of playing for money (weddings and corporate parties, for example) or playing for the respect and admiration of people (classical, originals - especially in "artsy" genres). Maybe things are different around here but nobody looks up to wedding bands and nobody looks down on classical musicians. It seems like the less something pays the more people admire it.

From a supply and demand perspective, it makes sense that we'd get to this point - the more "other rewards" (groupies, friends who buy you drinks because you're in the band, the respect of bosses at work, being introduced as someone interesting at parties etc.) you get from music, the less money you'll take to play it.

Do you agree or disagree?

Edit: Of course sometimes you gain status mainly within a certain subculture, for example when playing in a metal band or a church choir. That complicates things somewhat, but I think doesn't invalidate the general rule in any way.

absurd. so by this measure, these bands that are out there playing for free have the highest status and are the most accomplished?

what crap. In fact, if you have higher status, you get the better and bigger gigs and yeah, more money. I went from playing in bands where I walked away nightly from crappy bars with $65-$80 in my pocket to a band where i never walk away with less than $150 and frequently more. So now that I'm playing at bigger places in front of more people for more money, my status is actually lower??? huh?

And we don't do weddings.

We are accomplished at what we do. We don't do originals, but there's no trick to originals. Anyone can write and perform their own music, but it's hard to come off credibly doing popular songs.

There's something other than emo/original bands and corporate/wedding bands.

Yes, we have fans/groupies/regulars.


so I have no idea what you mean? So the less popular the band and the less money they are making, the higher status they are? Because a bunch of rednecks and artsy groupies like them, that makes them higher status?

lol

as if

[pklima]

Originally Posted by QORC

absurd. so by this measure, these bands that are out there playing for free have the highest status and are the most accomplished?

Assuming equal levels of musicianship, yes. Edit: it would be even better to say "assuming everything except the style is equal" - you're equally skilled, organized, motivated etc. Of course really bad bands will get neither money nor status.

A pop covers band will make more money than an equally skilled jazz band in most places, but civilians are more impressed when they find out you play jazz. A wedding band will make even more money, but no matter how the people at the wedding enjoy it they think of the band as having status no higher than, say, the waiters.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by pklima

A pop covers band will make more money than an equally skilled jazz band in most places, but civilians are more impressed when they find out you play jazz. A wedding band will make even more money, but no matter how the people at the wedding enjoy it they think of the band as having status no higher than, say, the waiters.

I remember some of my highest-paid gigs as weddings, where we were treated worse than the people who cleaned the toilets IMO!!

Now I'd rather pay a free or low-paid Jazz gig, for people who want to listen, than a well paying function, where they can't wait to get rid of you and start up the disco!!

[202dy]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

I remember some of my highest-paid gigs as weddings, where we were treated worse than the people who cleaned the toilets IMO!!

Now I'd rather pay a free or low-paid Jazz gig, for people who want to listen, than a well paying function, where they can't wait to get rid of you and start up the disco!!

You meet a better class of people eating in the kitchen.

We give up the money to be a star. We give up stardom to get the money. That is the way it is in the "playing music for money" business. Any comparisons to national recording and touring acts do not apply because that is a different business.

There is a lot of good information in this thread. But the attitude is not restricted to the music industry. It's the same all over. The doctor who goes to a war torn country to treat refugee orphans is a hero. The orthopedic surgeon who adds a basketball court to his home so his children's team can get more practice time is vilified. The public defender is a champion of the people but the lawyer who defends you in the automobile accident is a no-good-money-grubbing-SOB who cares only for his own bank account. Pick a profession. You can finish the analogies.

It's great to play jazz in a smoke filled club until two in the morning for a hundred bucks a night. It's also great to triple out on the weekend doing casuals for three times the rate. It comes down to this. The only respect that is really important is self respect.

[QORC]

Originally Posted by pklima

Assuming equal levels of musicianship, yes. Edit: it would be even better to say "assuming everything except the style is equal" - you're equally skilled, organized, motivated etc. Of course really bad bands will get neither money nor status.

A pop covers band will make more money than an equally skilled jazz band in most places, but civilians are more impressed when they find out you play jazz. A wedding band will make even more money, but no matter how the people at the wedding enjoy it they think of the band as having status no higher than, say, the waiters.

except for the fact that lousy bands also play for nothing or next to nothing in small places.

That's the problem with your equation.

Generally, if you're playing good rooms for good money and you have a fan base, you're in higher status than anyone who has none of the above.

Sounds like the lament of bands who are sure they have "integrity", but in reality are playing stuff that few people care about, but make themselves feel better by believing that they are "higher status."

it's counter-intuitive. I don't respect bands because they play in front of 10 hippies for $20. Nor disrespect them either. Cream rises to the top. If they're not rising, they're usually not the cream.


But money as you said, isn't the only measure. Wedding bands don't gain status because they have a captive audience -- people didn't attend the wedding to hear THEM.

Not to say one should look down their nose at wedding/corporate bands either - I know some incredibly accomplished musicians that do that stuff. They have fun, the hours are good and they can make a killing. In fact, the kind of money they can get IS a sign of their abilities - the really good wedding/corporate bands snare the bigger gigs. That's life. In fact, most of them would sneer at people that play in crappy bars for the door until 2 am.

but again, I don't hold unknown, original bands who play in dives in high esteem because that's where they play. I'm sorta neutral about it. I firmly believe that no matter the type of music played (covers, originals, wedding, etc), the cream usually rises to the top within a given market.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by QORC

Cream rises to the top. If they're not rising, they're usually not the cream.
.

So... Milli Vanilli, Britney Spears etc. are the "Cream" ...eh? That's not what I would call it!!

I think it's more a case of : throw enough manure at a wall and eventually some of it will stick!

[punkbassistfc]

This thread is demeaning

[QORC]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

So... Milli Vanilli, Britney Spears etc. are the "Cream" ...eh? That's not what I would call it!!

I think it's more a case of : throw enough manure at a wall and eventually some of it will stick!

So I guess than Bruce Springsteen, Led Zepplin and the Beatles are a lower status than your usual, run-of-the-mill emo band playing in some hellhole in Des Moines???

I'm not equating commercial success with "respect" - God knows there have been bands and artists that are not very good and have made a lot of money -- but in general, the best musicians and bands end up successes.

Equal musicianship?? In the eye of the beholder. Besides, if you're a GREAT musician playing crap that no one wants to hear, how does this make you in a "higher status."??

You're trying to make it sound like the fewer fans you have, the better off you are?

Yeah, right. Keep telling yourself that.

Successful musicians play stuff that people want to hear. Lots of them. To pretend otherwise is delusional. Even Timothy Leary could draw 200 people by playing the bongos and chanting slogans about Viet Nam and drugs. So now he's "great"? LOL

[QORC]

Originally Posted by punkbassistfc

This thread is demeaning

No, it's just an act of self-delusion

[Phalex]

Originally Posted by QORC

Equal musicianship?? In the eye of the beholder. Besides, if you're a GREAT musician playing crap that no one wants to hear, how does this make you in a "higher status."??

I was in that band!! You tend to draw 20 guys from other bands that wish they could get away with playing challenging crap that nobody else wants to hear.

People really seem to like cheese. Not Gouda or Brie either. People love that spray cheese in a can! You gotta give it to them. That is truly the secret to my success.