The Value of Musicianship

[sublime0bass]

Recently, for a school project on labor unions, I discovered about the AFM, or American Federation of Musicians. This is a professional musician's union that strives for better pay for musicians, more copyright protection for music, and better life all around for those who play music for money. In an odd twist for a union, they have partnered with their employer (in this case, the RIAA) to combat the wave of electronic music theft.

The idea of a musician's union perplexes me a bit, as I see music as something one does because they can, not because they have too. I feel anyone who can play music for a living could just as soon work for minimum wage at a restaurant/grocery store/etc, and still make a reasonable living(even though one job is considerably more enjoyable than the other).The concept of standardized pay scales for musicians is even more confusing, as I feel music is only worth what a person will pay for it. For example, to see Bob Dylan in concert is something people would pay hundreds of dollars for, but I would probably not attend if it cost more than five dollars. On the other hand, I would gladly sell my left and right nuts to see Elvis sing "Love Me Tender" one time.

Questions that are raised by this thread:

1) What defines a "professional" musician? Is it anyone who makes money from playing music, or only those who use it as a primary source of income? To self-defined professionals: what makes you a "professional"?

2) What determines the monetary value of a musicians performance? Is it the actual skill of the musician/s, the number of people who want to see the performance, or a combination of both?

3) To any members of the AFM: what is your experience with the union? I am generally in favor of any action that retains artists' ownership and helps cement their freedom of expression (Even if it DOES mean I have to pay for music ). I do, however, see a problem in trying to create a musicians union, as this is not what I would consider a class of people needing protection. Musicians should only play if they feel they are being properly compensated, and I dont think that a business owner should be forced to use a set value for a given musical performance.

4) Given the above question, are "professional" musicians typically abused by business owners any more than "amateur" musicians?

[Michael Case]

The union is useful if you work Broadway and off Broadway shows, symphonies, TV, and studio work. These are areas where standardized pay, health benefits, and retirement packages are needed. If you work in any of the above mentioned areas you likely don't have the time to work other jobs and need to make playing a full time occupation. Broadway shows also tour and the union is helpful there too. Just put a little thought into it and you'll see why the AFM is needed.

[Ron Plichta]

Also, keep in mind that unions arose from the European skilled trade guilds in the Middle Ages. It's not far stretch to think of a musician's union if you look at it from a skilled craftsman point of view. The idea of unions for "unskilled" workers didn't come about until the Industrial Revolution.

[Wesley R]

Minneapolis and St. Paul Minnesota used to have two musicians unions and the leader had to jump through hoops because I was in the St. Paul Unio and therest of the band was in the Minneapolis union. So You think I could have just quit one and joined the other. No sir,. the Minneapolis union wouldn't even think of letting that fly. So it was out he door for me. Some gigs were a couple of dollars above scale, most were two times scale. About six gigs per year were four to ten times scale. For a twenty year old plow boy going to telephone school in 1975, $40 a night was good coin, $70 something was way cool and the $300-$400 per nighters were something to brag about.
They did kinda sorta save my skin on a gig that was cancled on me (by mistake) I ended up playing it as the leader was supposed to fire the other guy not me. Prior to knowing I had the gig,I had called the union rep who said stay there, you will get paid for the gig.

They are now one union.

[Marcus Willett]

Folks have tried to start some kind of musicians' union here before and it was CRUSHED by theatre owners. There's a down side to unions to be sure, but the resistance by the powers that be is based on the terrifying idea that they might have to actually pay something even remotely close to what these shows should pay if there were any sort of collective bargaining.

[Bass Boy]

When I was doing theatre/casino gigs full time the union was very useful. Unfortunately the Union is only as good/strong as the people involved/running the local. In a few cases here in Canada the unions have been invaded by dishonest folk who are only out for themselves. There has been embezzelment of $$$, hording of "the good gigs" etc.

[sublime0bass]

Is collective bargaining a good thing? While it does improve the conditions for the worker, the employer takes a hit. It seems kind of like a reverse monopoly to me.

[Huge]

Originally Posted by sublime0bass

... On the other hand, I would gladly sell my left and right nuts to see Elvis sing "Love Me Tender" one time.

Rightfully so! Zombie Elvis would rock!

Originally Posted by sublime0bass

...
Questions that are raised by this thread:

1) What defines a "professional" musician? Is it anyone who makes money from playing music, or only those who use it as a primary source of income? To self-defined professionals: what makes you a "professional"?

2) What determines the monetary value of a musicians performance? Is it the actual skill of the musician/s, the number of people who want to see the performance, or a combination of both?

3) To any members of the AFM: what is your experience with the union? I am generally in favor of any action that retains artists' ownership and helps cement their freedom of expression (Even if it DOES mean I have to pay for music ). I do, however, see a problem in trying to create a musicians union, as this is not what I would consider a class of people needing protection. Musicians should only play if they feel they are being properly compensated, and I dont think that a business owner should be forced to use a set value for a given musical performance.

4) Given the above question, are "professional" musicians typically abused by business owners any more than "amateur" musicians?

1) As soon as you get paid for something, you are, by definition, a professional.

2)Music (anything, really) is only worth whatever someone will pay for it. What determines the monetary value of a musician is his sales pitch. However, it also depends on the length of the show they're doing and the night of the week. Weekends should pay more than weeknights.

3)I'm not a member of the AFM or anything similar.

4)It depends on your definitions of "professional" and "amateur". For the sake of this argument I will assume that they mean "established, probably higher paid" and "trying to build a following, probably lower paid". So after all that, I say "yes and no".

Pro acts probably get treated better in terms of riders and such and may be friendlier with the club owner. However, they need to compete with other bands who are willing to work for less money and may lose gigs because of that.

For instance, Band "A" (established act, this is their main source of income) gets a gig that pays $1000. Band "B" (trying to build a following and make music their main source of income) approaches the booker of the gig and offers to do it for $750. The next time that Band "A" tries to book that show, they are offered $750, because other bands will do it for that price. (FWIW, I've seen things like this happen in stand up comedy with much lower dollar figures ) (oh yeah, I pulled the numbers out of thin air)

Does that constitute abuse? Or is it capitalism? Businessmen like to make money, if they can save on paying the entertainment, that's money in their pocket. I don't think that the AFM can stop that. There are too many acts willing to do whatever it takes to get seen, even if it means lowering the market value for all acts in that venue.

Generally, I agree with what you said.

[sublime0bass]

bump. we should start an anti music union movement

[jimb213]

Originally Posted by sublime0bass

bump. we should start an anti music union movement

Why?

[bluestarbass]

The musician union is a bit outdated from what I have read. Its basically useful if you do shows, like others mentioned, broadway things like that. To an electric bassist its less useful than an upright bassist. Its becomming a huge hinderance to studio musicians, at least where I live. For every studio musician that is in the union, there 10 others that are just as good and willing to do the session for less. The value of music is getting less and less, people arent gonna a ton of money to get bassist on their track when they can have someone else do it for less.

My mom worked for a studio in the late 70s. She said they stopped hiring the union orchestral players cuz they could get the local college students to do it just as well for way less money.

[Michael Case]

Originally Posted by bluestarbass

The musician union is a bit outdated from what I have read. Its basically useful if you do shows, like others mentioned, broadway things like that. To an electric bassist its less useful than an upright bassist. Its becomming a huge hinderance to studio musicians, at least where I live. For every studio musician that is in the union, there 10 others that are just as good and willing to do the session for less. The value of music is getting less and less, people arent gonna a ton of money to get bassist on their track when they can have someone else do it for less.

My mom worked for a studio in the late 70s. She said they stopped hiring the union orchestral players cuz they could get the local college students to do it just as well for way less money.

The problem is the musicians who are willing to undercut their fellow musicians. I'm sick and tired of hearing about musicians willing to work for little or no money just for experience or exposure. It lowers the pay standard for everyone. Musicians need some unity.

[ducatiman]

Originally Posted by Michael Case

The problem is the musicians who are willing to undercut their fellow musicians. I'm sick and tired of hearing about musicians willing to work for little or no money just for experience or exposure. It lowers the pay standard for everyone. Musicians need some unity.

thank you, michael!
i saw a recent CL ad for a band looking for clubowners openly
looking to play for free!

here's a quote:
We know it is hard out there but would love the opportunity to play your establishment. We would certainly play for the fun of it at no cost to you. If you like us we can talk further

this ad PISSED ME OFF. knowing certain clubowners, it wouldn't be long before bands would be PAYING to play there!!! gawd, guys like this are dumb.

i'm also dead against the cattle call, band every 15 minutes , sell tickets (the club gets every $$ cent) type gig.
the carrot is ya gotta play this to get the weekend gig (which never happens, just more cattle calls). these "promotions" especially prey on the young kids looking to "get out there" for exposure. in the end, NO ONE gets paid, ALL ticket sale money goes to the club. ps the people who have bought tickets (usually $10 or so) to see their bands get to see them for about 15 minutes. no one wins but the club. total abuse of the bands and their fans. DON'T PLAY THESE THINGS!!!

sorry for thread hijack and rant......

[OtterOnBass]

Hmm, I'm no club owner, but I'd never book a band that wants to play for free. Desperate? Certainly not responsible for their quality like professionals would be.

Why is it that non-union musicians can live on less? I can understand students being willing to play in their 'free time' but how can working musicians earn half of what union musicians make and survive? Why would they want to?

[driver800]

Originally Posted by ducatiman

thank you, michael!
i saw a recent CL ad for a band looking for clubowners openly
looking to play for free!

here's a quote:
We know it is hard out there but would love the opportunity to play your establishment. We would certainly play for the fun of it at no cost to you. If you like us we can talk further

this ad PISSED ME OFF. knowing certain clubowners, it wouldn't be long before bands would be PAYING to play there!!! gawd, guys like this are dumb.

One thing I'd bet on...that band probably sucks and does not bring or hold a crowd. In a way, it takes care of itself eventually and in most cases they get what they pay for.

We turn down a lot of gigs because the pay is so poor. The venues still find plenty of bands to play for low money, but they are not good and are the club will never break out of just having a few regulars and the band wives/girlfriends. Let them have each other.

[salcott]

Why do the gigs that paid $50 in 1980 pay $50 in 2007?

[KrisH]

Originally Posted by ducatiman

knowing certain clubowners, it wouldn't be long before bands would be PAYING to play there!!!

It happens already -- bands book into a club but agree to sell a certain number of tickets. If the crowd doesn't show, the band coughs up the difference. And I thought "open mic" shows were a boon to club owners.

I joined the AFofM while in high school in the early 70s. There were a few steady local venues for playing, and the club owners and union worked well together. I soon got a gig playing bass in the house band at the local golf resort. Piano/drums/bass combo, Girl from Ipanema, Watch What Happens, etc., etc. $175/wk. union scale was pretty good for for a kid in 11th grade! Scale for one-nighters was $28, I think, and bands charged a minimum price by the number of musicians. The whole rock & roll scene was unionized back then, and union meetings were conducted complete with free beer and sandwiches. But membership dropped later in the decade, particularly after an especially large college-town venue was blacklisted for unfair practices.

One interesting incident happened: one of the local bands who gained quite a nice following and put out a 45 record that made it onto jukeboxes regionally was asked to open for Alice Cooper. Shortly before the concert date, they were asked for their union cards -- which they no longer had. They ended up having to reinstate their memberships and pay all their back dues (a couple years' worth) before they were allowed to play the gig.

Music got me through my youth, put me through undergrad and helped me start raising my family. But one of the reasons I got out of the business full-time in 1986 was because the working wages weren't keeping up with the cost of living -- not to mention the lack of benefits. Too many kids with stars in their eyes willing to whore themselves for their "big break." Too many established club owners dispensing with live music and hiring DJs with record players and flashing lights. Too many drunks paying too much for drinks who didn't care one way or the other. And after a few more years, it wasn't really worth doing it part-time, either. And it all ended playing at drinking parties with basement bands for free beer.

But boy, I miss it.

[Michael Case]

Originally Posted by ducatiman

this ad PISSED ME OFF. knowing certain clubowners, it wouldn't be long before bands would be PAYING to play there!!! gawd, guys like this are dumb.

People have already tried this. Back in the late 80's/early 90's some clubs in the area wanted bands to buy something like $200.00 worth of tickets from the club in advance, then try to sell them at a profit. Needless to say not enough bands were desperate enough fall for it. I don't think people understand that these clubs need the bands as much as the bands need them, these places are known for having live music and without it they are just another bar. I've also seen clubs rip off bands, the band will bust it's hump to draw people, and draw well, but at the end of the night the club's count is significantly lower. I've also seen bands not even ask about their draw at the club and just leave empty handed.

[ducatiman]

michael -

AFAIK, one place on long island (amityville, to be exact) is STILL pulling this scam, with no shortage of clients.
abuse, total abuse. i rant, rave, tell every musician i meet about this (if and when the subject arises)

ITS A SCAM!!!!

----------duc

[jady]

I joined the local in central CA mainly forcheap insurance (on my gear) and lawyers on call if needed. That in my book was complately worth it.