Am I diva for not wanting to play for free?

[SactoBass]

Speaking of not getting it...


You can be as responible for yourself as possible, does that also require being blind to external factors because yes, external factors can and do exist. It's almost surprising how many either don't seem to grasp that or choose to ignore it.

Fair enough.

I'm not blind to those external factors. Some of the posts in this thread ensures that. My problem is, I just don't care about getting paid to play. People can flap their lips (or flail away at their computer keyboard) all day long until their faces (or fingers) turn blue, and it won't change the fact that I just don't care whether I get paid to play or not. Playing music is just a fun hobby for me, and that's all I'm in it for....the fun.

If someone wants to try and lay a guilt trip on me for playing for free, well, all I can say is, good luck with that.

 

[electracoyote]

So every time you play you should factor in...

So that you don't put words in my mouth, I'll finish the sentence:

Every time you play you should factor in the number of rehearsals you attended between gigs, the number of total hours spent at rehearsal, the number of hours it took you to drive to and from rehearsal between gigs, the number of hours spent learning new tunes, tightening up current tunes, or just practicing to keep your chops up at home between gigs, the travel hours to and from the new gig, the time it took you to load in and out, and the time it took you to play the gig. Now factor in gas expense for all those trips between gigs and to the current gig.

Most musicians I know do the things outlined above on a routine basis between gigs.

If your pay is $50.00 for the evening, are you making more than $5.00 per hour? (I doubt it.) Happy with that? Feel superior to Mr. Freebie? If that token chump change and two Bud Lights give you a sense of accomplishment, good for you. I still maintain that anyone investing the time outlined above and making only $50.00 for a gig is just about on par with Mr. Freebie.

 

[BananaKing]

So that you don't put words in my mouth, I'll finish the sentence:

Every time you play you should factor in the number of rehearsals you attended between gigs, the number of total hours spent at rehearsal, the number of hours it took you to drive to and from rehearsal between gigs, the number of hours spent learning new tunes, tightening up current tunes, or just practicing to keep your chops up at home between gigs, the travel hours to and from the new gig, the time it took you to load in and out, and the time it took you to play the gig. Now factor in gas expense for all those trips between gigs and to the current gig.

Most musicians I know do the things outlined above on a routine basis between gigs.

If your pay is $50.00 for the evening, are you making more than $5.00 per hour? (I doubt it.) Happy with that? Feel superior to Mr. Freebie? If that token chump change and two Bud Lights give you a sense of accomplishment, good for you. I still maintain that anyone investing the time outlined above and making only $50.00 for a gig is just about on par with Mr. Freebie.

If I factored that in, I would also have to factor in my years of School Tuition, private lessons and bus passes for school.

However, I don't generally care ATM. I generally make a small bit of money at every show, but right now, I'm just about making as many contacts and connections as possible. Eventually, it will be about money, but I'll still play music regardless.

I'll make you a deal: You can sit out and complain about not getting paid enough and you can avoid playing gigs until a paying one comes to you and I'll go out and actually use my abilities and gear and have some fun while I'm at it. Having gear is nice, but wouldn't you rather be out, using it? Good gear is only worth it if you're playing it.

 

[electracoyote]

If I factored that in, I would also have to factor in my years of School Tuition, private lessons and bus passes for school.

Yep.

However, I don't generally care ATM. I generally make a small bit of money at every show, but right now, I'm just about making as many contacts and connections as possible. Eventually, it will be about money, but I'll still play music regardless.

I'll make you a deal: You can sit out and complain about not getting paid enough and you can avoid playing gigs until a paying one comes to you and I'll go out and actually use my abilities and gear and have some fun while I'm at it. Having gear is nice, but wouldn't you rather be out, using it? Good gear is only worth it if you're playing it.

You must have missed my earlier posts, so I'll catch you up:

I'm not complaining about not getting paid enough.

I advocate playing out for whatever reason makes you happy. Play for free, or play for a token cash stipend, play for the love of it, play for the applause, play to exercise your nice gear, play out for the free beer, it doesn't matter to me.

Just don't let some "pro" try to tell you you're making it hard for him to make a living because you play for free.

That was the gist of my previous posts. I used the post you quoted to simply illustrate that sometimes "getting paid" to play isn't really much different from "not getting paid."

 

[BananaKing]

You must have missed my earlier posts, so I'll catch you up:

I'm not complaining about not getting paid enough.

I advocate playing out for whatever reason makes you happy. Play for free, or play for a token cash stipend, play for the love of it, play for the applause, play to exercise your nice gear, play out for the free beer, it doesn't matter to me.

Just don't let some "pro" try to tell you you're making it hard for him to make a living because you play for free.

That was the gist of my previous posts. I used the post you quoted to simply illustrate that sometimes "getting paid" to play isn't really much different from "not getting paid."

I must have read it wrong then; Since it seems that way, let me apologize. I jumped ahead and, while I did read many of the posts, I must have missed some. My bad.

I agree completely with "Just don't let some "pro" try to tell you you're making it hard for him to make a living because you play for free".

Again, I'm sorry for snapping at you with that post. As with many people here, I can get rather passionate and aggressive about bass playing and music and sometimes it comes out towards the wrong people in the worst way. My bad.

 

[electracoyote]

I must have read it wrong then; Since it seems that way, let me apologize. I jumped ahead and, while I did read many of the posts, I must have missed some. My bad.

I agree completely with "Just don't let some "pro" try to tell you you're making it hard for him to make a living because you play for free".

Again, I'm sorry for snapping at you with that post. As with many people here, I can get rather passionate and aggressive about bass playing and music and sometimes it comes out towards the wrong people in the worst way. My bad.

No problem.

I admire your passion and desire to play regardless of the opinions and expectations of others. You sound a lot like me.

 

[iplaymetal]

If its for your band play for free, but its not so you're not benefiting, why shouldn't u be paid?

If you have to lug amps and you aren't doing it for the fun of playing, you should be paid.

 

[Brad Johnson]

So that you don't put words in my mouth, I'll finish the sentence:

Every time you play you should factor in the number of rehearsals you attended between gigs, the number of total hours spent at rehearsal, the number of hours it took you to drive to and from rehearsal between gigs, the number of hours spent learning new tunes, tightening up current tunes, or just practicing to keep your chops up at home between gigs, the travel hours to and from the new gig, the time it took you to load in and out, and the time it took you to play the gig. Now factor in gas expense for all those trips between gigs and to the current gig.

Most musicians I know do the things outlined above on a routine basis between gigs.

If your pay is $50.00 for the evening, are you making more than $5.00 per hour? (I doubt it.) Happy with that? Feel superior to Mr. Freebie? If that token chump change and two Bud Lights give you a sense of accomplishment, good for you. I still maintain that anyone investing the time outlined above and making only $50.00 for a gig is just about on par with Mr. Freebie.

I didn't put anything in your mouth. If what I said doesn't follow the logic in your post, cool.

You can doubt whatever you need to. In the meantime it is entirely possible to take a gig that requires negligible travel expense and no extra practice or rehearsal. YMMV. You seem to need to dwell on a worst case to make your point. And by your logic, Mr. Freebie doing the identical gig under identical circumstances is into his pocket for everything. So yeah, making $5/hr with those debits covered is better than going home in the hole. If that seems to be on par, cool. I don't buy it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Fair enough.

I'm not blind to those external factors. Some of the posts in this thread ensures that. My problem is, I just don't care about getting paid to play. People can flap their lips (or flail away at their computer keyboard) all day long until their faces (or fingers) turn blue, and it won't change the fact that I just don't care whether I get paid to play or not. Playing music is just a fun hobby for me, and that's all I'm in it for....the fun.

If someone wants to try and lay a guilt trip on me for playing for free, well, all I can say is, good luck with that.

Great. Not sure if you feel that I'm trying to lay a guilt trip on you or whatever though.

 

[TRichardsbass]

Okay, chiming in again. Let me show you how careful we all have to be with the "Paid or Freebie."

Anyone ever look at the size of the newspaper lately? I am also a syndicated columnist for nearly 20 years. With all the websites and eZines that basically accept content from just about anyone, mostly for free, the journalism business is getting hit real hard. I know. Here is my example:

I write primarily about tennis. In many of the past years the publishers would pay my travel expenses to and from events, especially the big ones, along with a small fee for each article, and I would provide 1-2 pieces each day. Everyone knows Wimbledon. I used to travel to London, put in 14 hours of watching and writing for two solid weeks, and have a deadline each night. Now I didn't get rich, but I was paid fairly for a more then fair effort in return.

Now? Publishers take a lot of free content from "freelancers" via the web and won't even pay a small percentage of the travel, even for a known entity. They will either take AP wire stories from local AP reporters (so, no expenses and only a very small fee on top for each story) or they will take unsolicited copy from a multitude of peeps who send it, and in many cases not pay them anything but give them a by-line. This past Wimbledon was the first I didn't attend in person in over a decade, (and I missed the Queen and one of the greatest matches of all time) because I couldn't absorb the flight and hotel cost. I had a publisher who would have paid me for copy, but only about $30 per story. The economics didn't add up. This particular web publisher wound up using three other's copy. After I did some research turns out they did it for free and the publisher was happy. Was the copy as good as mine? No. Did the publisher acknowledge that? Yes. Did he care? No, because he made money without having to spend some.

So the moral here is not that you are killing the professionals, but that we have to be very, very careful. The music biz is turning that way too, as more and more "bands" are out playing two or three sets of covers a night for nothing, and the bar owners are getting used to it. Quality overall doesn't matter to them either. If I play a gig and that night 100 people come to the bar, and they each drink on average two drinks at $8 per drink, and each pays a $10 cover, that's $2600 cash in his pocket minus my $700, then he so far only grossed $1900. Now, take the same night, "freebie band" only draws 80 all other things stay the same. His cash take is $2080. Case almost perfectly closed.

I know, tons of you out there would say you should be drawing way more then a "freebie" band, but I've learned long and hard that even here on the "Jersey Shore" (please, no Situation or Snooki jokes) the reputation of the band does not always trump day of the week, weather, location and competition. I could have the greatest original show of my career at any of a number of medium sized places, and not draw nearly what I would normally because someone huge was playing at the Stone Pony the same night. Or, because it rained continuously for two days and no one wants to drive in that stuff. I did a show last winter where I didn't draw nearly as well as I would have hoped but I did out draw the headline, national act. That stuff does happen.

So, people are free to do whatever they please (God Bless the USA) but there is no harm in trying to get a little something for your efforts. Like it has been said before here, the bar owner is getting paid, the staff is getting paid. Most of these bars are taking a door cover (which, as you know, was originally meant to go directly to the band to pay their fee, so no draw, no dough.) Yet I only know of a couple of bands who get paid close to what these places take in in cover charges alone.

 

[JMacBass65]

It's not just an oversupply of musicians, but it's also an undersupply of venues, technology that lets a duo sound like a full band, readily available media, and laws regarding drinking and smoking that have affected the number of gigs out there.

Bands playing for free is a factor, as music scenes don't operate in a vacuum. But, it's not the only factor, or necessarily the strongest factor.

You know what else we can add here, if it hasn't been mentioned already?

The audience, or a lack of one.

As part of the supply/demand/free market discussion, we cannot forget about this. It just isn't as cool as it used to be to see live music. Particularly WRT "rock-n-roll" and any number of offshoots of it - who really cares anymore?

In the 50s, 60s, hell even the 70s, it was still new and fresh, it was exiting, dangerous, subversive, novel. Now everyone is a "rock star", you can see "live" music (if you care to) on TV, the internet and so on. A far smaller segment of the population gives a $hit.

The ones who “should”, the ones who used to get hooked on R&R, the pre-teens and teenagers, who couldn’t wait until they could go to their first concert (with mom, or someone else’s parent), and couldn’t wait until they were of club age to go see some up and coming band…..they are into Justin Bieber and other crap these days. And while many of these “Disney Pop” artists are out there with “bands” behind them (hey, more power to the guys who get those gigs playing that rubbish), it isn’t a “band” experience. It’s an “event”, usually a re-creation of the videos and such that get the “artist” noticed.

A kid who has grown up seeing that sort of “event” isn’t likely to going to understand or enjoy a basic club performance…….it’s too ordinary, even the good ones.

When I would see bands on Don Kirshner’s Rock Concert, Midnight Special, Saturday Night Live (the orig), or in the movie theater (The Song Remains the Same @ the age of 12), I was on the edge of my seat, ‘cuz you just didn’t see it that often. As a result, I was exited to see a teenage rock band at the town festival in the summer; it was a “concert” to me. When I saw my first big name concerts (Peter Frampton ‘77, then Aerosmith ‘78) I was blown away. When I was old enough to hit the clubs, I was thrilled, because it was much more intimate.

But in all of these cases the experiences (screen, arena, festival, clubs) were similar in terms of presentation. That’s not the case now.

Ugh – I just read through this and I sound like a rambling drunk old man. Did any of that make any sense??

I guess all I am trying to say is your basic bar/club band (cover or orig), is in low demand not only due to oversaturation of bands, but because the general public doesn’t really give a crap anymore.

Ultimately I blame MTV.

Really.

 

[ggunn]

I didn't put anything in your mouth. If what I said doesn't follow the logic in your post, cool.

You can doubt whatever you need to. In the meantime it is entirely possible to take a gig that requires negligible travel expense and no extra practice or rehearsal. YMMV. You seem to need to dwell on a worst case to make your point. And by your logic, Mr. Freebie doing the identical gig under identical circumstances is into his pocket for everything. So yeah, making $5/hr with those debits covered is better than going home in the hole. If that seems to be on par, cool. I don't buy it.

Zero is just a number. If I make $5 or lose $5, it's still just a $10 difference, the same as the difference between $50 and $60. Or $550 and $560.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Zero is just a number. If I make $5 or lose $5, it's still just a $10 difference, the same as the difference between $50 and $60. Or $550 and $560.

pi is just a number too. Since we're pointing out the obvious.

 

[80'sRocker]

The big problem here lies with the clubs thinking that they don't have to pay AND on the other hand you have musicians willing to play for free just to play out. This will only get worse until MUSICIANS put a stop to this, it's all in the musicians hands. I'm all for playing a benefit show for a good cause - that cause NOT being the club owners pockets! Plus, no one really gives a hoot anymore like in days past when it really mattered. Too many bands = extreme saturation w/ no pay

 

[ggunn]

The big problem here lies with the clubs thinking that they don't have to pay AND on the other hand you have musicians willing to play for free just to play out. This will only get worse until MUSICIANS put a stop to this, it's all in the musicians hands. I'm all for playing a benefit show for a good cause - that cause NOT being the club owners pockets! Plus, no one really gives a hoot anymore like in days past when it really mattered. Too many bands = extreme saturation w/ no pay

MUSICIANS are never going to be able to put a stop to it; they wouldn't even if they could. The musicians who are playing for free or nearly so are by and large the same folks who would never get another gig if they took a stand to never play for less than a living wage. Why would they (we) ever do that? It's not going to happen: to be able to play out is more important than the money for a lot of us.

I don't mean to be in your face about it, but it's the reality of the situation, and you'd be better off finding a way to deal with it other than complaining about it. Find a way to distinguish yourself from your competition so that it's worth the money you ask for a venue to hire you. Club owners may be snakes, but they aren't stupid. If you can bring more money in, they will pay you to do it.

 

[ggunn]

pi is just a number too. Since we're pointing out the obvious.

Very funny, but you know what I mean. A common comment I hear among musicians is "I don't care if I only make 5 bucks, but I won't play for free." Make 5 bucks, lose 5 bucks, it's all the same to me.

 

[BananaKing]

If we're counting alcohol sales as being a big part of where the bar/club owner gets their cash from, how do you factor getting paid part of the alcohol proceeds in if two of the three members, as well as much of the crowd ATM are from A.A.?

One of my bands has this situation and we don't sell almost any drinks when we play.... However, we do try to negotiate part of the door.

I'll go see my friends play, and I'll go along with friends to a show with bands that I've never seen before. However, most of the time, there is only a slight cover charge. If there was a much larger cover charge for every show I went to, how would that generally affect walk-in and drop-by foot traffic for each show that goes on? I might not get to see that band if I don't have money for the cover charge. I would rather get a new fan of my band then drive people away over $10.

I would much have someone spend $10-15 on one of my bands CDs then $10 on the door when I will only see a small percentage of that door collection. If they don't have a door cover charge, they are more likely to buy a CD if they like your stuff.

I'm coming from the position of an originals band in this case.

 

[fdeck]

Ultimately I blame MTV.

There's some truth to this. Electronic entertainment has gotten much more widespread and sophisticated than any of us could have imagined 30 years ago. This includes televised sports, reality TV, talk radio, computer games, and everything that's available over the Web. Rock shows in clubs are pretty much the same as they were when I was a kid.

Urban sprawl has also contributed. It's harder for a lot of people to get out to a show today, for all of the driving that's involved.

Age demographics may be involved. People who are older, with a bit of money to throw around, have been driven out of the rock clubs by the volume levels. The folks who attend my jazz gigs, in their 50's and 60's, don't remember jazz from when they were kids. They grew up on rock & roll. Classical gigs in my locale are almost always sold out.

 

[ggunn]

There's some truth to this. Electronic entertainment has gotten much more widespread and sophisticated than any of us could have imagined 30 years ago. This includes televised sports, reality TV, talk radio, computer games, and everything that's available over the Web. Rock shows in clubs are pretty much the same as they were when I was a kid.

Urban sprawl has also contributed. It's harder for a lot of people to get out to a show today, for all of the driving that's involved.

Age demographics may be involved. People who are older, with a bit of money to throw around, have been driven out of the rock clubs by the volume levels. The folks who attend my jazz gigs, in their 50's and 60's, don't remember jazz from when they were kids. They grew up on rock & roll. Classical gigs in my locale are almost always sold out.

Like I said earlier, it's a complicated situation and not at all likely to be mitigated by something as simplistic as "all you guys quit playing for free".

 

[TRichardsbass]

You know what else we can add here, if it hasn't been mentioned already?

The audience, or a lack of one.

As part of the supply/demand/free market discussion, we cannot forget about this. It just isn't as cool as it used to be to see live music. Particularly WRT "rock-n-roll" and any number of offshoots of it - who really cares anymore?

In the 50s, 60s, hell even the 70s, it was still new and fresh, it was exiting, dangerous, subversive, novel. Now everyone is a "rock star", you can see "live" music (if you care to) on TV, the internet and so on. A far smaller segment of the population gives a $hit.

The ones who “should”, the ones who used to get hooked on R&R, the pre-teens and teenagers, who couldn’t wait until they could go to their first concert (with mom, or someone else’s parent), and couldn’t wait until they were of club age to go see some up and coming band…..they are into Justin Bieber and other crap these days. And while many of these “Disney Pop” artists are out there with “bands” behind them (hey, more power to the guys who get those gigs playing that rubbish), it isn’t a “band” experience. It’s an “event”, usually a re-creation of the videos and such that get the “artist” noticed.

A kid who has grown up seeing that sort of “event” isn’t likely to going to understand or enjoy a basic club performance…….it’s too ordinary, even the good ones.

When I would see bands on Don Kirshner’s Rock Concert, Midnight Special, Saturday Night Live (the orig), or in the movie theater (The Song Remains the Same @ the age of 12), I was on the edge of my seat, ‘cuz you just didn’t see it that often. As a result, I was exited to see a teenage rock band at the town festival in the summer; it was a “concert” to me. When I saw my first big name concerts (Peter Frampton ‘77, then Aerosmith ‘78) I was blown away. When I was old enough to hit the clubs, I was thrilled, because it was much more intimate.

But in all of these cases the experiences (screen, arena, festival, clubs) were similar in terms of presentation. That’s not the case now.

Ugh – I just read through this and I sound like a rambling drunk old man. Did any of that make any sense??

I guess all I am trying to say is your basic bar/club band (cover or orig), is in low demand not only due to oversaturation of bands, but because the general public doesn’t really give a crap anymore.

Ultimately I blame MTV.

Really.

In general you are right, the influx of readily available video and "live" concert footage has dulled the senses of the masses. The changes in the drinking age (I'm lucky it was 18) definitely effect some of the economics as well. Justin Bieber? Nothing a good swift kick won't fix...hehehehe

But the digirati have also helped, due to Rock Band and Guitar Hero. I was in a club the other day subbing and when the band played "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" by CD I was amazed at how just about ALL the kids knew all the words. Hell, southern rock has been basically dead for almost 20 years, and especially CD doesn't get played at all on radio. How did they know it? Yep Guitar Hero!

It has also spurred a huge revival in interest of the Beatles and their catalogue. I went Parasailing on Sunday with some 15 year olds, two of which were wearing Beatles T-Shirts. I was surprised at how much they knew when I quizzed them.

I live in a summer resort area. There are more clubs then bands, and there are still a gazillion cover bands. So lack of work is not a problem. But at a few I know, payment is. One of my local pubs pays bands well and gets the best bands and when they play (every Sunday night) the places are packed, and no cover. The bands are making around $800 for the night.

There is another club that pays the bands little or nothing, but is right on the beach so they draw decently all summer. I went to book a gig there and he asked for a "free tryout" and then maybe he would book again. I did not sign up then looked at the last 6 weeks band schedule. Not one band had been rebooked. I had been in that club one night and the band was great and the club was packed. I went back to ask the owner about that band and when they were coming next and he told me, "they weren't that good and didn't draw." Its a crock, and I immediately figured it out. Nothing but "free" bands all summer, and as long as the cash register is ringing he don't care. And as long as there is a supply of bands...

Funny thing I've found is a club owner will pay a good DJ everytime, but not a good band. Go figure...