Open letter from bar owner to musicians

[electracoyote]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

Excuse me? Where did I ever say that "the cultural attitude of my country should apply to another". I merely conceded that were differences, and that perhaps those differences have as much to do with bands as they do with the club owners.

Look man, were both pretty intelligent guys, so I'll make this as succinct as possible, and be as objective as possible:

Your take on the cover band/bar owner dynamic is perfectly legitimate, and frankly, interesting. But it is also cultural. When people in other countries read your posts about your tactics with bar owners, they may be tempted to say, "Wow, that Mark has the right idea. Bar owners can go eff themselves, we don't need to play that game." If they don't take the cultural differences into account, they could be setting themselves up for failure. I was only trying to point that out. Nothing more, nothing less. Please don't confuse this with jingoism or anti-Australian sentiment. That's not at all where I'm coming from.

As for spirited debate - I have no problem with that. You're the one who is getting both surly and defensive. This is just an interesting topic of debate for me - nothing more. I haven't taken offence at anything; I think it's you who has the thin skin here.

Sorry Mark, I should have clarified this was directed at another poster who wanted to play mod, critique my communication style, and censor our spirited exchange. Not directed at you, mate.

[Mike Sorr]

Originally Posted by pkstone

Debate is one thing, but repeating yourself and hammering on anybody who doesn't exactly toe the line you've drawn (and patronizingly pretending to be speaking to an adoring mass who know exactly what you mean, unless they happen to be from another country) displays a desperation to be justified in your behavior.

By all means, keep going. Maybe you'll convert those heathen outlanders if you keep repeating yourself.

Brilliant. I can't wait to steal this and claim it for my own.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by electracoyote

Look man, were both pretty intelligent guys, so I'll make this as succinct as possible, and be as objective as possible:

Your take on the cover band/bar owner dynamic is perfectly legitimate, and frankly, interesting. But it is also cultural. When people in other countries read your posts about your tactics with bar owners, they may be tempted to say, "Wow, that Mark has the right idea. Bar owners can go eff themselves, we don't need to play that game." If they don't take the cultural differences into account, they could be setting themselves up for failure. I was only trying to point that out. Nothing more, nothing less. Please don't confuse this with jingoism or anti-Australian sentiment. That's not at all where I'm coming from.



Sorry Mark, I should have clarified this was directed at another poster who wanted to play mod, critique my communication style, and censor our spirited exchange. Not directed at you, mate.

Fair enough, I understand your point of view. I've enjoyed the debate - no offence taken whatsoever. I'd just like to point out that I've never told a club owner to "go **** themselves". I was just asked what my response would be to an unlikely hypothetical question. Perhaps I will be asked such a question one day, and I'll have to put my money where mouth is. Hope you have a good day.

[electracoyote]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

Fair enough, I understand your point of view. I've enjoyed the debate - no offence taken whatsoever. I'd just like to point out that I've never told a club owner to "go **** themselves". I was just asked what my response would be to an unlikely hypothetical question. Perhaps I will be asked such a question one day, and I'll have to put my money where mouth is. Hope you have a good day.

Ditto Mark. Like I said, I learned something very interesting from this discussion.

And though it does come as a bit of a relief that you're not quite that rude to each other down there, I understand the point you're making. If you feel so inclined, you can say "no," the bar owner will say "fair enough," and it won't hurt your marketability or booking opportunities.

I actually share the opinion that it would be great if we didn't have to concern ourselves or get our hands dirty with the issue of alcohol sales. I'm a bit jealous that alcohol moves across the counter so well in Australia that bands don't have to worry about it. Must be nice.

I wish it was that way in my neighborhood, but it's not. I can boycott the whole concept and play music in my rehearsal space endlessly, or I can play the game and get booked in clubs for public performances. Sad perhaps, but true.

Cheers.

[bound'n'blocked]

I havent read all 23 pages of this thread, just wanted to add....

I played in a band at a local place years ago, and the bartender told me one night "You guys sell more drinks for us than any other band we have ever had!" I always thought that was really cool and that we must be the shiz, until one day I considered it like this. Maybe we sucked big time and they were buying alot of drinks to dull the pain of our suckiness!

Actually we were really good tho. Always packed the place...

BnB

[thetaxmiser]

I was in a cover band for about 10 years and we always did a brisk business at the bar. We all drank but not to excess. We always made the crowd feel like they were a part of the party. At some point during the night encouraging folks to tip the waitresses and introducing the bartenders. When we went on break it was that we will meet them at the bar. Calling up someone with a birthday and getting them a drink on the house and encouraging a toast. We always had a good following and never went wanting for work. I had fun. Everybody in the band had a good time. I think the audience can sense when the band is enjoying themselves. I think it would have been out of place for us to say things that came across as commercials.

[Bisounourse]

Originally Posted by bound'n'blocked

Iuntil one day I considered it like this. Maybe we sucked big time and they were buying alot of drinks to dull the pain of our suckiness!

I just sprayed my evening tea over my screen and keyboard... (and it is also running through my nose).

[bootsox]

They are 100% in it for money and I respect that, but I'm in it for the money too. When you pay for a band to perform in your venue, you're paying for a lot more than an hour or two of music. You're paying for the couple thousand dollars worth of equipment they brought, you're paying for the years of practice each member has put in, you're paying for the hours worth of writing it took to do each song, and you're paying for the hours it took to learn the songs.

I'm not asking for much, but if I'm not worth your money, then you're not worth my time.

[thetaxmiser]

bootsox - I disagree with you on this. Its a mistake people make in the corporate world as well. Whether I'm the one getting paid or the one who is paying, input is meaningless. How hard you worked, how difficult it was for you, doesn't matter. We get rewarded for output.

Really, if you buy expensive gear and take years to hone your skills, or you are using a borrowed rig and everything comes easy for you, should that matter to your audience or to the club owner? They only see what came from the stage. Same for the cook in a restaurant. I don't care what knives he uses or where he went to school...what comes out on the plate is what matters to me.

You are right in the conclusion. If its not worth your while, move on to something / somewhere else.

[bwardmusic]

I would also like to respond to bootsox -- I agree with thetaxmiser. The owners don't care what it is costing you ...what matters is the market conditions in your town.

If you're in a town with 10 bars and 100 music groups, then the owner is going to beat you down on the price, because he can. If there are 200 bars and only 10 bands, then you'll get the most they afford. It's the relationship between suppliers and buyers that matters, and no one seems to care about what it costs a person to be in the game. Sad, but true.

[bootsox]

Even if it was just the two hours though, I couldn't even begin to count the number of times where I've walked out after playing a packed house and only made $100 or so between the whole band. I could make a better living flipping burgers all day. I'm all for them making money but you've got to draw the line somewhere. I've got to eat too.

[thetaxmiser]

I'm amazed at the current state of live music $. A steady bar gig in 1980 paid about $45 - $60 per man per night. Weddings / casuals it was $100 - $125 per man. I see in here that guys are still playing bar gigs for $50/night. Crazy. Run it through an inflation calculator...it would equate to playing a 1980 gig for about $15. $50 in 1980 dollars is about $140 today. Of course, it will always be tough where there is an element of pleasure involved. I see folks selling very nice original paintings for low dollars and I know it has taken them many hours to produce it.

[dickfitts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV79SD_lFeM

Here's me...in my "bro uniform"....with noodly-solo, all-original rock, making $600+ per night per musician. IMHO, while I respect everybody's opinion who's posted here, those I disagree with JUST AS MUCH as those I agree with...my advice is to do what you love to do first and foremost, because people pick up on people having the time of their life and will pay to come see that again and again. BIG RESPECT to bars that have a different vision than to take the incredible risk of having different live music all the time...but my band sold north of 2,280 PBRs and six cases of wild turkey at this show, and it's because the local bars have supported and backed us 100% since day 1 that we've been privileged to bring this business to them in our turn. And I can't thank them enough. Take care, everybody...

[Big Brother]

Originally Posted by thetaxmiser

... Of course, it will always be tough where there is an element of pleasure involved. I see folks selling very nice original paintings for low dollars and I know it has taken them many hours to produce it.

Wages in San Diego tend to be a bit lower than other urban areas in California because of the sun and beaches, locals call the discrepancy 'sunshine dollars.'

The 'sunshine dollars' paid in artistic fields might exceed the real dollars.

[SquierJazz72]

You're paying for the couple thousand dollars worth of equipment they brought, you're paying for the years of practice each member has put in, you're paying for the hours worth of writing it took to do each song, and you're paying for the hours it took to learn the songs.

I, myself, don't feel that factors in as much. You are free to disagree, as this is purely my opinion, but I started playing because I love music. So I would have spent those years learning anyway. To play requires an instrument, so I would have bought those anyway. To be heard, and hear myself, I would have bought equipment anyway. So I am not sure the owner should be expected to care about or be paying for that. Those, IMO, are indirect, or incidental costs.

However, gigging bands do incur expenses directly associated with gigging, so the band needs to make sure that, in addition to giving the owner his moneys worth, they also get a fair deal from them for what they are providing. That's just good business sense.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by bwardmusic

I would also like to respond to bootsox -- I agree with thetaxmiser. The owners don't care what it is costing you ...what matters is the market conditions in your town.

If you're in a town with 10 bars and 100 music groups, then the owner is going to beat you down on the price, because he can. If there are 200 bars and only 10 bands, then you'll get the most they afford. It's the relationship between suppliers and buyers that matters, and no one seems to care about what it costs a person to be in the game. Sad, but true.

That's a very good point. The ratio of bars to bands must make huge difference in the city/town you live in. It would be interesting to know what bands get paid relative to the place they live (and the nature of the music scene there).

I agree with Thetaxmiser - the relative pay for bands is pathetic compared to what it used to be in the 80's. $400 a night is just ludicrous if work it out on a per man per hour basis, and then deduct the costs involved.

[Factor88]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

$400 a night is just ludicrous if work it out on a per man per hour basis, and then deduct the costs involved.

Well for argument's sake let's say you are in a 4 peice band playing a 4 hour gig. You own your own sound and lights (a small to modest set up), and run them yourselves from the stage. say it takes you roughly 1 hour to set up and 1 hour to tear down. I would beleive that scenario describes a substantial amount of cover bands in the US. Now, that means you work 6 hours for 100 each. that comes to basically 16 bucks an hour.


Now I hire lots of contractors where I work, and I know the price schedules for them. With the exception of heavy duty IT and engineering positions, the entry level positions, but that still require a bachelor's degree, start at..you guessed it, 16 bucks an hour. And we find no shortages of college gradutes willing to work those positions.

My point is I don't think the money is "ludicrous" for many bands. Sure if you have 6 guys, and have to pay a soundman, and have to drive all over hell's half acre to get to your gigs, yes the $ is going to shrink fast. But I would point out is that is the case, you probably are not doing $400 gigs anyway, they are probably more, sometimes much more.

Don't mistake my point. I am not saying that most musicians are lavishly rewarded on a per hour bais. But it ain't like we are working for fry cook money, either. And if someone IS working for fry-cook money, I would say the issue is not with the marketplace, the issue is with that particualr individaul or band.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by Factor88

Well for argument's sake let's say you are in a 4 peice band playing a 4 hour gig. You own your own sound and lights (a small to modest set up), and run them yourselves from the stage. say it takes you roughly 1 hour to set up and 1 hour to tear down. I would beleive that scenario describes a substantial amount of cover bands in the US. Now, that means you work 6 hours for 100 each. that comes to basically 16 bucks an hour.


Now I hire lots of contractors where I work, and I know the price schedules for them. With the exception of heavy duty IT and engineering positions, the entry level positions, but that still require a bachelor's degree, start at..you guessed it, 16 bucks an hour. And we find no shortages of college gradutes willing to work those positions.

My point is I don't think the money is "ludicrous" for many bands. Sure if you have 6 guys, and have to pay a soundman, and have to drive all over hell's half acre to get to your gigs, yes the $ is going to shrink fast. But I would point out is that is the case, you probably are not doing $400 gigs anyway, they are probably more, sometimes much more.

Don't mistake my point. I am not saying that most musicians are lavishly rewarded on a per hour bais. But it ain't like we are working for fry cook money, either. And if someone IS working for fry-cook money, I would say the issue is not with the marketplace, the issue is with that particualr individaul or band.

That's one way of looking at it, but the point was that bands were being paid the same amount of money 30 years ago for doing the exact same thing. It wasn't bad money back then, especially for part-timers.

I suppose it depends on how you define musicians - are we just labourers, semi-skilled workers, or are we highly skilled? I guess it depends on the band, but I think $16 p/hour is pitiful for a good band. No offence to fry cooks, but anyone can learn that job very quickly. The same can't be said for musicians.

[Factor88]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

I guess it depends on the band, but I think $16 p/hour is pitiful for a good band. No offence to fry cooks, but anyone can learn that job very quickly. The same can't be said for musicians.

Nor can it be said for the $16/hr college graduate contractor jobs I was referring too, which was the point of my post.

In fact, this got me interested. I am not in what I think of as a particularly "good" band (in fact it is the least talented one I've been in since my very first pro band), but I went and took our average per man nightly pay, divided it by our average walk into club to walk out of club time, and we make an average of $21 per hour.

In the end, I agree with the generalization that most musicians are underpaid. I guess we'll have to just disagree on the "magnitude" of the underpayment, that's all.

[hrodbert696]

Originally Posted by thetaxmiser

bootsox - I disagree with you on this. Its a mistake people make in the corporate world as well. Whether I'm the one getting paid or the one who is paying, input is meaningless. How hard you worked, how difficult it was for you, doesn't matter. We get rewarded for output.

Really, if you buy expensive gear and take years to hone your skills, or you are using a borrowed rig and everything comes easy for you, should that matter to your audience or to the club owner? They only see what came from the stage. Same for the cook in a restaurant. I don't care what knives he uses or where he went to school...what comes out on the plate is what matters to me.

You are right in the conclusion. If its not worth your while, move on to something / somewhere else.

I agree here. It may matter to YOU whether you're playing through a $3000 full stack or a $500 combo. The client - the bar - doesn't know the difference, as long as they can hear it. I don't see that they're under any obligation to pay the guy with the $3K stack more, I'd say it's up to that guy to market his band smarter and more aggressively to get back his investment. Likewise, they don't know if the guys in the band have been playing their instruments for two years or twenty, they just know if they can play or not. If the guys who have only been playing for two years have a better audience rapport and make a better night for the cash register, they're a better investment for the client.

Originally Posted by Factor88

Nor can it be said for the $16/hr college graduate contractor jobs I was referring too, which was the point of my post.

In fact, this got me interested. I am not in what I think of as a particularly "good" band (in fact it is the least talented one I've been in since my very first pro band), but I went and took our average per man nightly pay, divided it by our average walk into club to walk out of club time, and we make an average of $21 per hour.

In the end, I agree with the generalization that most musicians are underpaid. I guess we'll have to just disagree on the "magnitude" of the underpayment, that's all.

It's the nature of the things that doing a job you're passionate about is going to pay less than doing something that's drudgery. I'm a history professor. I have as much education, or more, as any doctor or lawyer, and theoretically should be "worth" as much. But nobody's life or property or jail time is in my hands, and I get to spend my days doing work I love. So it's no surprise that I get paid a fraction of what they do. Musicians get paid for the value they bring to the person paying them, and for lots of reasons that have been discussed in TB (more entertainment options, stricter drunk driving laws, etc.) bars make less money than they used to by hiring bands, so they're going to pay the bands less (after counting inflation). Too bad. Only way to change that is to be entertaining and deliver value.