Am I diva for not wanting to play for free?

[MatticusMania]

Matticus,

No offense but I assume you would have liked to have had more fans at your show. Now that is not choosing to play for free. At least you have the opportunity to make some money.

No offense taken, of course we would have loved to have had more fans at the show. Like I said before though, we arent a popular band and we dont play a popular genre of music. Certainly our band would like to get paid, but the reality of the situation is that our music really does have little to no value in a business sense. If a venues intent on hiring a band is to make them more money, our band is not going to be a good decision, and thusly we are lucky that they let us play. Yes, the opportunity to make money is there, it always is, but when it comes down to it, we did play for free.

If I were to run a club, I would hire a good talent buyer and have small guarantee's for every original band. Say you have 4 bands. The pay would be scaled. $25, 50, 75, 100 opener to headliner. With bonuses when numbers are met. Now the bands are happy, their fans are happy cause "the band that sold the most tickets" weren't the headliners. And suddenly people want to come to my club and support a local venue that is supporting its local bands, while making their fans happy.

I, as a musician in an unmarketable position, would appreciate such a business model. However, you'd most likely be paying out $250 probably only to make that much money back.

 

[Crazyeelboy]

Man, great post.

If you want to be a pro and get paid like one, you had better learn the "business" end of the music business.

Rule #1: Don't blame the people around you for your lack of success.

If you think you deserve a bigger slice of pie, and what you're currently doing isn't getting it, do something newer and better to distance yourselves from the plethora of other bands out there, adjust your business model, and work your butt off, because those are the only things you have control over. Blaming the scavengers is not being responsible, and not a healthy work ethic.

YES! You are correct, sir! For those who doubt, watch this:

 

[mongo2]

I've done pay to play. And I'm done with it. Had I only had the knowledge when I was younger to not let these slim balls rip me and my bands off.

Yup, I figured as much.

But hey go play for free. I'm done with that. I've payed my dues. Its time I get some back.

LOL. Nobody's "owed" or entitiled to anything, no matter what "dues" you think you've paid.

 

[Diogenes]

... Of course, I'm referring to cover bands. I think Jimmy said it best when he stated different rules apply to originals acts and they need to be lucky/hardworking/damn good to be in a paid position...

I think this is also a very important point in this discussion/argument. I'm in an originals band because it's what I want to do. It allows me to be creative and express myself musically. However I don't assume that even a small percentage of an audience would like our songs or that we are 'any good' (whatever that means). In order to hope for any type of fan base we need to play out. In order to play out in a club we need to show that we can bring in a crowd if we want to get paid. It's a catch-22 situation so we play for free or for a few drinks merely to get out in the public to get exposure. It's a part of reality for bands like mine.

We did a benefit this past Sunday eve and followed a 'cover' band. I'm not much into cover bands but these guys were good musicians, acted professionally and did a good job entertaining the audience. This is the type of band that clubs around here will pay because they generate revenue for the bar owners. People were up and dancing to songs they're familiar with which enhances the party atmosphere and generates drink sales. I'm certainly cool with that and give props to the cover band. But I still would rather play original material for free and doing so wouldn't hurt the cover band one bit.

 

[logicman69]

I never get paid to play.... But loading in, and packing up.... That's gonna cost ya!

 

[JackoBass]

That doesn't make sense.

The audience won't know if someone is donating their skills/time and they'll be just as entertained.

To clarify - if a player doesn't see the value (or doesn't care to provide the value) enough to get paid, that player has the luxury of just wanking away blissfully at the gig without a care in the world. Subconsciously, failing to entertain the crowd is OK because it's not his job that night. Maybe the crappy keyboard player can hit his sour notes and that's cool. Or the singer can have a few too many Jager bombs... again. No harm.

The professional on the other hand, has fun but has entered into a contract, a job to entertain the customers and satisfy the club's business. It's subtle, but professional musicians usually carry themselves differently. They usually have better attitudes, better performances, demand more from the other guys they work with, have better gear, interact more with the crowd, have more stamina, setup and tear down faster, etc. You multiply these subtleties across 4 or 5 other guys on stage and people at some level pick up on that. Its about quality and perceived value.

I'm not saying this is absolute - I've seen some pretty kick ass bands that I know weren't making a dime that night or actually paid to play for exposure. But in general, if the band doesn't have to worry about gas, flier money, a hotel room, new strings/heads, whatever *and* gives everyone what they paid for, then everyone leaves happier. A club that doesn't recognize this is probably not owned by a savvy business person either.

 

[ahbassman]

I'm in a Christian band that practices at a church. The only time we play for free is at that church.

 

[Brad Johnson]

It's not that I don't care, it's that I don't buy the premise.

I got that impression because you said you essentially agreed with this:
"I'm certainly not going to shed a tear when playing a free gig that some poor starving "pro" is out there".

I quit the music business as a career back in the early 80's because I couldn't make a decent living at it, and it's only gotten worse since then. I don't see musicians playing for free as being the cause, but rather the effect of there being just too many musicians wanting to get out and play for the market to bear. As a result, that skillset has diminished value on the street. Every one of us is part of the problem no matter what our economic demands are.

I've said this before: if all the musicians were to go on strike until pay scales came up, I believe that one result would be that many of us would never get another gig. That's not good for everyone, only for some.

I don't see the number of musicians being the problem here. More the fact that many who are in the game are willing to play for peanuts. That and the fact that many clubs are extremely shortsighted.

I got a call years ago from a world class jazz guitarist who only seems to work locally. The gig was four nights in Georgetown in DC. The pay? $40 for Thursday and Friday, $50 for Saturday and Sunday. 9 to either 1 or 2AM. It's not just original artists or newbs that do this.

Anyone familiar was Georgetown would know how particularly crazy that already stupid offer was.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Then we must agree to see things differently. The venue owners are providing us with the service of letting us play their bar/pub/etc. in exchange for us playing music. If the bars/pubs didnt let us play no one else would. And we'd much rather have a gig than not.

That certainly is a different way to see things. One I hadn't really considered... that the club is doing you a favor by letting you play. In that case you probably should play for free. I wonder how many others in this thread feel the same way about having the favor done for them?

In my case I know the groups I'm playing with are generating money for the venue. Those are the groups I choose to play with.

 

[JackoBass]

That doesn't make sense.

The audience won't know if someone is donating their skills/time and they'll be just as entertained.

To clarify - if a player doesn't see the value (or doesn't care to provide the value) enough to get paid, that player has the luxury of just wanking away blissfully at the gig without a care in the world. Subconsciously, failing to entertain the crowd is OK because it's not his job that night. Maybe the crappy keyboard player can it his sour notes and that's cool. Or the singer can have a few too many Jager bombs... again.

The professional on the other hand, has fun but has entered into a contract, a job to entertain the customers and satisfy the club's business. It's subtle, but professional musicians usually carry themselves differently. They usually have better attitudes, better performances, demand more from the other guys they work with, have better gear, interact more with the crowd, have more stamina, etc. You multiply these subtleties across 4 or 5 other guys on stage and people at some level pick up on that. Its about quality and perceived value.

I'm not saying this is absolute - I've seen some pretty kick ass bands that I know weren't making a dime that night or actually paid to play for exposure. But in general, if the band doesn't have to worry about gas, flyer money, a hotel room, new strings/heads, whatever *and* gives everyone what they paid for, then everyone leaves happier. A club that doesn't recognize this is probably not owned by a savvy business person either.

 

[Rico_2212]

original bands playing for free do not hurt the paid cover band business one little bit. however, cover bands who play for free do hurt everyone else a little. still, those places usually end up closing down because they have crappy music so i think the hit a paid musician takes is minimal.

Jimmy, you hit the nail on the head with this. IME the places where you play covers and the places bands showcase original material are 2 completely separate entities. Working musicians for the most part can't be as picky about what they want to play as opposed to what will pay the bills. If all you want to play is original music at an amateur or semi-pro level you are not going to have as many opprotunities for financial gain. IMHO cover bands should not play for free other than the occasional charity gig. But to get a new original band heard, sometimes they're gonna have to take an occasional hit.

 

[Simorchid]

Can't say I agree with that at all.

I play for the fun of playing. We play originals, not covers, so we don't exactly expect paying gigs. A couple free drinks is more than enough for payment.


Edit - OP, it totally depends on what you play, where you play and whatnot, there are so many variables that only you can be a fair judge of this. Having pro gear and learning songs doesn't instantly mean you deserve to be paid, I'm happy having a hobby that doesnt pay.

Keep in mind that playing for no pay means playing at a loss. Petrol/ car and travel costs, instrument maintenance and new gear cost a lot of money. Also the time spent practicing and rehearsing has a value too.

Being a good at what you do and having reliable, good sounding gear is worthy of payment.

Too many original bands believe it's their lot to play for free but they need to realize their worth and ask to get paid fairly.
While some may be content with playing for a couple of drinks there are plenty of serious, hard working, talented bands out there that do want to get payed but are made out to be ******** because the manager says "the band we had playing last Friday played for free, and they didn't complain so why should we pay you?"

We all play for fun but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get paid for it.

 

[mongo2]

To clarify - if a player doesn't see the value (or doesn't care to provide the value) enough to get paid, that player has the luxury of just wanking away blissfully at the gig without a care in the world. Subconsciously, failing to entertain the crowd is OK because it's not his job that night. Maybe the crappy keyboard player can it his sour notes and that's cool. Or the singer can have a few too many Jager bombs... again.

The professional on the other hand, has fun but has entered into a contract, a job to entertain the customers and satisfy the club's business. It's subtle, but professional musicians usually carry themselves differently. They usually have better attitudes, better performances, demand more from the other guys they work with, have better gear, interact more with the crowd, have more stamina, etc. You multiply these subtleties across 4 or 5 other guys on stage and people at some level pick up on that. Its about quality and perceived value.

I'm not saying this is absolute - I've seen some pretty kick ass bands that I know weren't making a dime that night or actually paid to play for exposure. But in general, if the band doesn't have to worry about gas, flyer money, a hotel room, new strings/heads, whatever *and* gives everyone what they paid for, then everyone leaves happier. A club that doesn't recognize this is probably not owned by a savvy business person either.

That's quite a load of......assumptions.

 

[totallyfrozen]

There seems to be no end to the comments about "if you play for free, you ruin opportunities for those who want to get paid to play." Get a clue, folks! It's supply and demand! The reason that no one wants to pay most of you to play is because there is simply too many of you wannabes out there begging for the same gig and 80% of the other guys are better than you. Unfortunately, the music biz is FULL of egos so no one wants to hear that most other players are better than you. "Speak for yourself! I have alot of respect in my area." Yeah, OK...keep telling yourself that. Bottom line is that there are still just way too many people trying to make more than a hobby out of this. The competition is plentiful and stiff. The reason that you're having a hard time getting paid isn't because other musicans play free...it's because there are just way too many musicians! Musicians are a dime a dozen these days. Everyone wants to be a rockstar. You can't drive up the price of an over-abundant resource simply by charging more money for it. What you will end up doing is killing your music scene. People will just hire Disc Jockeys instead. That's what's been happening for years. People have been hiring DJs around my town since the late 90's. I've worked as both a DJ (live and radio) and as a musician. The live music scene around here has nearly dried up. It's that way many other places too. Just saying, don't forget your competition...the DJ. DJs are cheaper, have fewer needs, make a smaller footprint, and since they play CDs they generally sound much better. So refuse the free gigs if you want. It won't make any difference in the end. There still won't be alot of paying gigs around. The only guys getting alot of gigs will be the guys who are willing play for free. That's why it's better to just play for a hobby and don't depend on the money from it. Get a good day job.

 

[Brad Johnson]

While that may reflect some markets it's not a universal truth. And there's more music out here than rock and the other fields aren't necessarily as crowded.

 

[ggunn]

Being a good at what you do and having reliable, good sounding gear is worthy of payment.

No. What's worthy of payment is that which someone is willing to pay for. It doesn't matter how much you spend on gear, how hard you practice, and how good you look and sound if your product doesn't sell.

 

[ggunn]

I don't see the number of musicians being the problem here. More the fact that many who are in the game are willing to play for peanuts. That and the fact that many clubs are extremely shortsighted.

Every market is different. Here in Austin it seems that everyone is a musician. I don't know how many hundreds of bands there are here, but it's a lot; I play in three of them (or is it four?) myself and I am a very minor player in the grand scheme of things.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on which is the cause and which is the effect, but one fact remains undisputed about the situation: It is what it is and it's not likely to change. Musicians are better served by dealing with the reality of the situation rather than whining about how they wish things were different.

 

[NKUSigEp]

Me...

Teens: I'd play anywhere, money was just a nice bonus if it happened to find its way into my pocket.

Early 20's: wouldn't play anywhere if I didn't go home with $100, which ultimately led to me not playing much at all.

Late 20's: back to playing pretty much just for the enjoyment again. The economy pretty much has killed any chance at making a living off it, but I'm in a band now that just hearing us play is a treat since I enjoy it that much.

 

[ggunn]

In another somewhat related story...

A cover band I was in a few years ago was playing a showcase gig at a very well known club here in Austin which I won't name but let's call it the 311 Club.

We agreed to play for $150, which isn't much, but the house had PA, drums, and bass rig on site, and it was a short (2 45 min sets) early show opening for a pretty big draw, so we took the gig.

So anyway, while we were playing, the club had their terminally cute little waitress circulate the tip jar, which she gave to me at the end of our closing set. I dumped it into my gig bag and gave it back to her.

When it came time to settle up with the manager, he asked me how much we collected in tips. (Can you see where this is going?) I told him I didn't count it but what difference did it make? He informed me that we contracted to play for $150, so what the bar owed us was $150 minus the contents of the tip jar.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Well, I guess if I take direction from some of the folks here on TB, I need to stop enjoying all of my hobbies unless I get paid to do those hobbies. My hobbies are:

Flying Cessna 172 airplanes
Playing bass guitar
Taking my boat out
Riding off-road and on-street motorcycles

I guess I have to stop letting friends fly with me unless they pay me (even though I would go flying anyway because I love doing it). And I guess I have to stop playing bass in a band unless I get paid to play (even though I love playing music). And I guess I have to stop taking friends out on the boat unless they cough up some money (even though I love being out on the boat). And of course I had better not go motorcycle riding unless someone pays me to do it.

Yeah, I need to stop engaging in these hobbies for the sheer joy of it, and only do them if someone gives me some money. I mean, what the he!! is the matter with me anyway?? Life isn't supposed to be filled with fun, it's supposed to be all business and work related. Yeah, that's it.

All of the strawman arguments in this thread are cracking me up. Nobody is saying that you're in the wrong if you want to play for free for the enjoyment of it. There are a lot ways that you can play music simply for the enjoyment of it.

People are saying quit letting yourself being shystered by club owners and promoters who will take advantage of the fact that you'll play music simply for the enjoyment of it. It's making it hard for other musicians to get paid. In my experience, club owners and promoters get what they pay for. That still doesn't mean it's easy for top-level bands to get paid.