Am I diva for not wanting to play for free?

[TheDude007]

I live in L.A...

Here's your problem.

I kid, but there's some truth to it. We went on our first tour last summer and actually turned a profit, which from what I understand, if you're an original band and can do this, then you did good. L.A. was the worst place that we played. It is extremely competitive in that town and I think there more than anywhere else, everyone + their dog has a band. If you think it sucks trying to get a gig their as a local band, try to get one if you're an out of town band. Almost everywhere we contacted wanted US to pay THEM for the privilege of playing in L.A. on Sunset Blvd or whatever. You want to talk about screwing bands?

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Because the band that costs is better and/or draws more patrons?

Bingo. If you are expecting to be paid for being "pro" when someone just as good as you will play for cheaper or free, don't expect to be undercut.

So called "Pro's" who are being out done to gigs by weekend warriors with other jobs, take a step back and think about how to change your approach. What can you bring to the table that the weekend warrior can't? If you can't think of any reason to get a club to hire you over the freebie, then you should look at a career change.

Wow, lots of broad reaches here. Flying a plane for fun and playing in a band for fun are apples and oranges - or at least a stretch.

I guess I will continue to do what I can in my location to make playing music a respected thing that is deserving of compensation, and hope there aren't too many people out to do their best to destroy that opinion.

I don't get paid for any of my hobbies and have to reach into my own pocket to do most things that I enjoy doing. Music isn't any different to me. If it is to you, then that's your problem, not mine. I'm not going to stop what I do for fun (and free) just so that someone else can make a living from it.

However, I also wouldn't be a free hired gun. If someone else in the band is making money off a project, I'd be taking a cut from that. But, I have no intention of doing that, I play music I enjoy with people I enjoy playing it with.

Well since there are usually ony so many places to play in a given area they are competition. Why would you as a club owner hire a band and pay xx amount of money to that band if you can get a band for free? I live in L.A. and unless you are a big name act you will more than likely not have a big following. Between the distances between gigs, and DUI laws many people do not drive around to see a local band. So most any band will be playing to the local crowd, and club owners know this. They hire whoever based on cost so If these "hobbyists" are playing for free they are stealing gigs.. period. Many times a bar will book these bands ONLY because they get them for free.

That is your environment, figure out a way to adapt to it. Over here bars try to hire the bands they know will have a draw. The bar I worked in has taken on some cheaper bands at times, but they never get a call back because most of the punters want a good band.

"stealing gigs" ? Get a grip ...

 

[ggunn]

The place your a playing on Friday has convinced you they have no money, but they want a band right? Its play for free or don't play? Well then don't play, and if enough people stood strong guess what THEY WILL PAY! or they will not have a band. Are you really that desperate to play that you will do it for nothing? Maybe you have another profession that you don't need the money, and I have heard this reasoning before. All I'm saying is that realize you are hurting musicians that do need the money. Why should anyone pay a band when they can get a band for free? The reason there are too few paying gigs is because there are too many selfish "musicians" that bend over and play for free because they only care about themselves.

And you are aren't being selfish because you want me to stay home in order to drive up the price of music so you can make more money? Pffft!

I started a long treatise on the situation surrounding my gig on Friday, but I deleted it. It's really none of your business.

If you've chosen a field where the market is such that you can't earn enough money to suit your lifestyle, then maybe you should consider a career change. I've done that at least three times in my life, and once it was to leave the music business. For a while I made my living in music, and it sucked, so I moved on. Later, I played in a lucrative cover band "on the side", but I hated the music. Now I play because I love to play. I do like to get paid for it, and much of the time I do, but that doesn't always happen, and not getting paid won't by itself stop me from playing. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but there it is. I do not plan to change.

If it makes you feel any better, I am playing original music.

All you guys who keep saying that all that has to happen is for everyone to stop playing for free to make things all hunky in the music business are, in my not so humble opinion, deluding yourselves. But even if it were true, it's not going to happen. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as it would be if we could change it to our benefit.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Sorry to hear you got stiffed. Did you offer to play the gig for free beforehand? I am amazed at the crap people try to get away with. Last week I played at S.I.R. studios here in Hollywood. Now this studio is known for equipment rental so most musicians would not think they needed to bring a rig. I was told by our band leader that this was a "jam" situation, and we were going to play maybe 3-5 tunes the most. I figured hey why not its a great stage, I don't have to bring any gear, and it will be fun. We get up to play 3 songs as this is what they told us what we could expect, and the only gear available belongs to the band that did a showcase earlier. My singer starts bitching at me because I won't plug into the bass players amp without his consent. The sound man is acting like we should have brought our own gear, and all this without getting paid..lol I told the sound guy I was not about to bring any gear to a studio know for equipment rentals to play 15 minutes for free, especially when it was suppose to be a jam. I further told my singer she was crazy if she thought I would just use someones gear without their permission especially since she knows how I am. Trust me when I say I would not be happy if you didn't ask me! It wound up that I found and asked the bass player if I could play,and he was cool about it. My buddy works at S.I.R. and he told me the guy putting on the "shows" is really cheap, and he didn't want to pay for the gear. Hmmm, makes way more sense to me, lets have 7 bands play in 3 hours and get them to bring the gear! It amazes me that the more you give these clowns the more they act like you owe them.

No, I was to be paid $200. I made the mistake of not making thie guy pay me prior to performing... he's developed a reputation. My fault for giving him enough rope.

Your singer sounds pretty clueless on gear etiquette. I'd have done the same thing you did.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

If you've chosen a field where the market is such that you can't earn enough money to suit your lifestyle, then maybe you should consider a career change. I've done that at least three times in my life, and once it was to leave the music business. For a while I made my living in music, and it sucked, so I moved on. Later, I played in a lucrative cover band "on the side", but I hated the music. Now I play because I love to play. I do like to get paid for it, and much of the time I do, but that doesn't always happen, and not getting paid won't by itself stop me from playing. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but there it is. I do not plan to change.

Bingo!

 

[Brad Johnson]

Wow, way to lay on the guilt. I guess all the Catholic Girls* who are giving it away should feel guilty, too, for driving down the price of sex on the street, huh?

I am going to play a gig for free on Friday. It's not that I have an aversion to getting paid to play, it's just that the venue is operating on a shoestring and cannot afford to pay the bands who play there. It's a cool little place, though, and we want the gig. It's play for free or don't play; we choose to play.

(BTW, none of us are rich, but none of us depend on music for a living. Money was not the reason we started playing music and it's not the reason we play now.)

It's a supply and demand thing, and there is a glut of musicians on the market. Musicians who are willing to play for free aren't the problem, it's just that there are too many musicians chasing too few paying gigs. It's the way the Free Market works, for better or worse.

*Invalid Link Removed

It's not about laying on a guilt trip IMO... it's reality for working musicians. Around here there are run of the mill at best bands/musicians who are willing to take $40/man gigs in a packed club that's selling $10+ drinks. Or less. Those are typically the happy to be out of the house bands. It pushes the scale down much like DJs did.

 

[Brad Johnson]

True, more musicians than gigs.
But you could say the same thing about other types of workers, particularly in the current economy. There are more people wanting jobs as nightclub workers than there are jobs.
So how many of those nightclub workers do what they do for free, for the love of it?

The free market also works like this: If all bands stopped playing for free, then all clubs wanting live music would have to pay bands. And when people stopped going to the clubs that were too cheap to pay bands - because those clubs didn't offer music, while other clubs did offer music - then some of the cheapskate clubs would reconsider whether they should start paying bands, in order to stay competitive.

This.

 

[butchblack]

You're certainly not a diva for refusing to do a free show with nothing in it for you. I hit local blues jams all the time, technically I'm playing for free, but I've played with some very good players and have made good contacts and friends, so I'm happy. I'll occasionally get a call from a friend who plays a bar for drinks and tips. If I'm not doing anything I'll do it, but there is no rehearsal etc and it's 3 miles from my house, so no big deal. I'll play most any benefit for free as long as the cause seems legit and I don't have a philosophical problem with the cause. In your case I'm hearing a lot of demands for nothing. so unless it's your main band it's your call.

My 2¢

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

It's not about laying on a giuilt trip IMO... it's reality for working musicians. Around here there are run of the mill at best bands/musicians There are people willing to take $40/man gigs in a packed club that's selling $10+ drinks. Or less. Thoise are the happy to be out of the house bands. It pushes the scale down much like DJs did..

While I agree with you, I don't think anyone here is arguing that its good to play for free doing fours sets at a bar... We're usually talking about original music in small venues (coffee houses / art bars) to get your music out there, sell some CDs, have some fun.

There's no way in hell that I'd do a bar gig like that for free - - That's *work*. Playing original music in a cool venue is *joy*, and I refuse to accept being condemned or being called "a prick" for doing what I love.

 

[Rocky]

Why does Band A get any gigs then? Isn't Band B screwing Band A by not also charging $1000?

Band A doesn't get the gigs because Band B will out bid them, and yes band B "screwed" them being cheaper. Thats the point the club owners go with the cheapest here in L.A UNLESS you are a big name act in which case you are not playing smaller clubs as a norm.

 

[MatticusMania]

While I believe that any band has the right to persue profit for themselves if they choose so, I just get sick of the attitude that bands working for free our 'stealing jobs from pros' or 'are not good enough to be paid'.

Music is art, and art is a hard commodity to put a price on. You can go to a gallery and find a beautiful painting that moves you selling for $300. You can then turn 180 degrees to the opposite wall and find an almost completely blank canvas spare a smudge of paint selling for $5,000. Ive seen it. Now is the painter selling his work for $300 undercutting the pretentious guy selling his for $5k? Or is it simply that the artist selling his stuff for $300 knows that at that price he is both a)more likely to sell his work and b)still recuperate his losses? Does it matter to that the piece, though less costly, still moves you?

I think music falls into one of two categories for most people, with a bit of overlap.

Art vs. Business. Some look upon their music as an outlet to express themselves and getting to do so is their bottom line. And there are others who see music as a way to make some cash while doing something they love to do. Neither are wrong in their intentions.

The way I see it: yes, I have paid for my instruments/gear, my time learning to use them, the rehearsal time growing as a band, and gas to get to the venue. The payoff for me is that I have an audience to express myself in front of. All the time & money I have put into my craft comes back to me the second the first note of the set begins. So far, my venture has been worth it. YMMV.

 

[Passinwind]

Band A doesn't get the gigs because Band B will out bid them, and yes band B "screwed" them being cheaper.

Nope, I'd say it's simply supply and demand then. Nothing to do with screwing anyone in my book, but clearly we disagree.

 

[Brad Johnson]

This is an interesting point.

If you think you are "getting paid" to play music when you walk out of the bar with an extra $50.00 in your hand, you need to think in real terms of the economics involved.

Total the hours you have spent practicing the material at home, driving to and from rehearsal, rehearsing with the band, driving to and from the gig, playing the gig. Factor in gasoline.

Now, divide that $50.00 in your mitt by the number of total hours above. What are you worth per hour? Are you getting it?

I would hazard a guess that most of us here on TB are PAYING to play music, even when we think we're "getting paid."

If you come out with $50 vs. zip... you got paid. I don't do $50 gigs either... IME those are also in the aforementioned chump gigs zone. If a business is making good money and you don't mind contribuiting to their bottom line while you can't do anything but net a loss, go for it. They'll likely keep you until something better comes along.


The people who are playing for free are definitely paying to play.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

While I believe that any band has the right to persue profit for themselves if they choose so, I just get sick of the attitude that bands working for free our 'stealing jobs from pros' or 'are not good enough to be paid'.

Music is art, and art is a hard commodity to put a price on. You can go to a gallery and find a beautiful painting that moves you selling for $300. You can then turn 180 degrees to the opposite wall and find an almost completely blank canvas spare a smudge of paint selling for $5,000. Ive seen it. Now is the painter selling his work for $300 undercutting the pretentious guy selling his for $5k? Or is it simply that the artist selling his stuff for $300 knows that at that price he is both a)more likely to sell his work and b)still recuperate his losses? Does it matter to that the piece, though less costly, still moves you?

I think music falls into one of two categories for most people, with a bit of overlap.

Art vs. Business. Some look upon their music as an outlet to express themselves and getting to do so is their bottom line. And there are others who see music as a way to make some cash while doing something they love to do. Neither are wrong in their intentions.

The way I see it: yes, I have paid for my instruments/gear, my time learning to use them, the rehearsal time growing as a band, and gas to get to the venue. The payoff for me is that I have an audience to express myself in front of. All the time & money I have put into my craft comes back to me the second the first note of the set begins. So far, my venture has been worth it. YMMV.

Too true, reminds me of this:

The most expensive painting ever sold, $140 million. Yeah, the artist clearly had talent

 

[Brad Johnson]

Too true, reminds me of this:

The most expensive painting ever sold, $140 million. Yeah, the artist clearly had talent

Did Pollock donate his work?

 

[Rocky]

Rocky - It is all about competition. If your competitors are a bunch of hobbyists playing for nothing, as a genuine pro, you ought to be able to blow these clowns away and bring some real value to the clubs by bringing in some fans or building the club's reputation for quality entertainment. If you cannot distinguish yourself from even this lowest level of competition, then your band has some work to do (either in its show, the music or the promotion).

By the way, I'd bet that if these club owners who don't want to pay bands found that no bands would play for free, they'd just stop having bands and bring in free DJs or just run the radio. At this level, the competition isn't really bands who will play for free, but whether the club will have a band at all. Club owners gain nothing from having empty houses even if the band plays for free.

You cannot compare L.A. to many other places here in the states, and your missing the point of my previous posts. They don't care how good you are all they want is warm bodies going through the motions for as cheap as possible. This is why they get away with pay to play. Tourists come to L.A thinking they are going to see rock stars, and so they go to the Whiskey or the Roxy etc. Once they are at the club they drink, and watch some crappy ass band (usually, but not always) playing way to load. Anyone could be onstage, and there will be a certain crowd almost guaranteed so the clubs force the bands to pay to play the club with the promise of "exposure". The bands are expected to sell tickets to make their money which is how it works for all major acts except people know who the major acts are and then the band will make money, but when your unknown GOOD LUCK.. As far as playing the local clubs on the outskirts of Hollywood it almost as bad. Here the club owners know they are in a position of having many many bands to choose from. Again there is no following for bands here as people just go to a club knowing some band will be there, and its better to see whoever than drive a hundred miles to see a band you may like. There are lots of great bands here in L.A., and the jobs go to the lowest bidder. I guess until you have experienced L.A. you just dont understand.

 

[Rocky]

All the time & money I have put into my craft comes back to me the second the first note of the set begins. So far, my venture has been worth it. YMMV.

Try paying your phone bill with that.

 

[ggunn]

The free market also works like this: If all bands stopped playing for free, then all clubs wanting live music would have to pay bands. And when people stopped going to the clubs that were too cheap to pay bands - because those clubs didn't offer music, while other clubs did offer music - then some of the cheapskate clubs would reconsider whether they should start paying bands, in order to stay competitive.

And if all the women in the world would withhold sex until the fighting stopped, there'd be no more war. As my dad always used to tell me when I came out with an "if only" contrary to fact comment, "If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumps."

 

[MatticusMania]

Too true, reminds me of this:

The most expensive painting ever sold, $140 million. Yeah, the artist clearly had talent

Actually I really like Pollock's work. He had a very unique style (keep in mind I can't see the pic you posted). Did that painting sell for $140 million while he was alive? Most famous painters don't make too much during their lifetimes, their work is often not so valued until after they've passed away.

 

[Dapper_Bandit]

If all bands stopped playing for free, venues would have to pay for bands to play there. This is very true. However, club owners still like to make money, so they would up the cost of drinks whilst bands are playing, for example. Or perhaps up the entry fee. Or just water down your adult beverages a tad more. I've seen this happen in several venues. I've seen people walk away from clubs when they're informed it's a £10 entry to see a Ramones covers band. That club went under within 6 months. So musicians getting paid isn't a winner for everyone.

There seem to be a lot of gigging musicians who feel they are owed a living by the world at large. Imagine you work in a hardware store and your competitor starts selling the same products as you but 10% cheaper. Do you accuse them of stealing your customers?