• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

I'll Never Play for Free Again

Then explain the OS market. Linux vs Windows vs MacOS.

The OS market is a bit different. Windows is the leader more due to the fact that IBM allowed "clones" which lowered the price point by enabling competition on the free market for a product that met most business customers needs.

When computers started being more of a consumer product, people just went with what they were comfortable with. This happened to be Windows.

MacOS wasn't really a force until they captured the digital music market. As an OS they are expensive for what an average consumer needs.

And then Linux ... it wasn't until recently that it was something that an "average" consumer, and it's still not really there yet, can get to just work. Most people didn't find writing SCSI device drivers a fun activity when they just wanted to send an e-mail with their modem.

Now that I think about it ... maybe it is a good comparison. Most consumers and businesses want something low cost that is good enough, but not necessarily the best. Which would be free or low cost bands that are decent and get enough people drinking.
 
The OS market is a bit different. Windows is the leader more due to the fact that IBM allowed "clones" which lowered the price point by enabling competition on the free market for a product that met most business customers needs.

IBM didn't "allow" cloning. IBM was stuck because of a decision not to develop an in house PC, and when Apple started taking off they needed a PC fast. So they developed one using off the shelf, non-proprietary parts which were available to everyone. Once someone (Compaq) clean room reverse engineered the one proprietary component (the BIOS) - it was just a matter of buying standard components and building.

IBM hated it, and never wanted it to happen - but had no legal ability to prevent it.


Now that I think about it ... maybe it is a good comparison. Most consumers and businesses want something low cost that is good enough, but not necessarily the best. Which would be free or low cost bands that are decent and get enough people drinking.

Bingo. Bars want the greatest increase in liquor sales for the lowest outlay - whatever that may be.
 
You're worth whatever someone is willing to pay, not a penny more and not a penny less.

Agreed


The wagon wheel didn't change, and it didn't get easier to make - but it's value disappeared. Is it likely to happen with music? No - but commoditization happens in lots of place we may not like.

A tailor makes a lot nicer suit than buying one off a rack - but how many people are putting tailors out of business shopping at Target?

But you still can't get a wagon wheel or a suit for free. Even if they are not worth what they were 50 or 100 years ago. You still have to pay something for them.

IMO if a band is working at a club they are basically an employee of the club for that evening or weekend. If the waitress gets paid why shouldn't the entertainment get paid?
 
IMO if a band is working at a club they are basically an employee of the club for that evening or weekend. If the waitress gets paid why shouldn't the entertainment get paid?

That's my point, as well. I don't mind commission, but playing for free, learning 40+ songs with a rotating list, weekly practices, gas money, equipment and so on. And no compensation from the owner, that's very greedy and not nice at all. If they ask bands to play for free, just say no.
 
With that in mind, I don't see how my little original band is "stealing" shows for other professional bands?

Although I would never play in an "all original" unsigned band again (got that out of my system years ago), I can see why some of the younger guys in them might be willing, albeit rather naively, to play at a venue that specializes in that sort of band for little or no money. I don't think they are a threat to pro or semi-pro bands that generally play in different venues. What the original post was actually referring to was the idea of fake audition nights where you get taken for a ride and even the most seasoned pros could be conned there unless they have their guard up for nonsense like that.
 
yes it is nice to make some money and its always good to ask about charging.
but it happens everyone knows that that's the band life.
playing free shows occasionally? oh well. apparantly you wont have a choice.

we all play for the love of the music right?

Yep. I play a lot for free, sub-bass playing, jams and so on. Anyway, if someone thinks that these 'free' shows are good PR. This is seldom the case. Instead someone gets stereotyped as 'amateurs' so it just backfires.
 
First off I just want to say that I do not completely subscribe to the idea that bands working for free put semi-pro bands out of work. Younger working bands that are cutting their teeth have to have the opportunity to play in order to get better and the reality os that unscrupulous club owners will take advantage of that.
In my day job I work with the elderly and we have people that voulenteer to help us. It is actually illegal for these voulenteers to do anything for free that would normally pay money to have staff do. Just food for thought.
 
At a club gig recently, an obviously well-heeled woman approached the leader, showered us with praise, then asked how much we'd charge for a private event at a certain estate. She was visibly stunned when we gave her a price of $1000.00. She said, "What? I thought it would be maybe a couple of hundred bucks. I thought you did this for fun. Never mind." See?

And I guess it never occurred to her that part of the job of entertaining people is looking like you're having fun.
 
Good point. I do consider music fun. I also had fun in Iraq (no, not kidding, it was fun). I have fun at my current job. Heck, 'fun' is an attitude. I am pretty darn sure my dentist is having fun too. Point is if you're providing a service you should be compensated or it devalues that service as perceived by the benefactor.

+1. I once had a teacher who liked his job so much that he said he hadn't worked in years. He also added that he wasn't about to tell his employer, since they might decide to stop paying him. :D
 
Wow, this thread has grown.

For what it's worth, for those of you (us? lol) suggesting that we should encourage bands not to play for free, I might point out that price fixing simply doesn't work. In some situations, like on Broadway, the unions can get away with it, but for the most part, in a free market (such as the employment market for musicians), you can't stop people from playing for free, if that's what they really want to and are willing to do.

If the natural settling price between supply and demand, when it's all added up, is zero (or below zero for pay-to-play), that's what the price will be, and any attempt to intervene and and upset this natural equilibrium by price-fixing will only result in making everyone worse off.

The only way to circumvent a price equilibrium like that is with government regulation (e.g. minimum wage laws) or pseudo-government regulation (e.g. unions), which come with their own problems.

Minimum wage laws don't work for the same reason they don't work for other types of employment: They directly cause unemployment. Think about it... If clubs were forced to start paying musicians a minimum of $100/man/night, the clubs that currently pay less than that and aren't willing to eat into their current profit margin (that's all of them, presuming clubs are in business to make money) would simply stop hiring bands in favor of other forms of entertainment, or close (either way, reducing the supply of gigs).

At the same time, the knowledge of higher pay available from the remaining clubs would attract more competition (increase the demand by bands for gigs).

It would be even harder to get paying gigs than it is now. This would be bad for smaller venues, who are okay with bands that only draw 100 people (because that's their capacity anyway), and bad for all bands (because they would have a much harder time getting gigs).

It would also be bad for the public because they would be forced to only see shows at bigger venues, which can afford to pay the minimums (or higher), and that means the public would only be able to see bands that can get booked at bigger venues in the first place (bigger-name bands who charge more and have a bigger draw). These bands currently get paid more than the that minimum wage anyway, and so wouldn't be affected by the new law... other than by the fact that they now have more competition for gigs.

My point is, the only thing a minimum wage for musicians would accomplish, even if informally enforced by people just trying to convince musos not to work for free, would be to make things worse for musicians, clubs, AND the public at large. Nobody wins when you try to mess with supply & demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

My guess is that the guys who play for free don't really want to play for free. Someone said it well earlier in this thread: If a club offered these bands money and free beer instead of just beer, would they turn it down? Of course not.

So it's not really that they play for fun only; it's that they don't understand that they could be charging, or don't care about the consequences of not charging. However, if formerly free bands really started charging across the board for performing, two things would happen: New bands would come in and undercut them, and you'd get into an inverse bidding war until the price goes back to equilibrium (that is, zero or pay-to-play, just like it is now), and also, clubs would find alternatives to entertaining their patrons. Profit margins at most clubs is slim enough that they won't just suck up the difference. They will find other ways to attract customers.

Like I said before, the only solutions are either to be one of those bands that isn't affected by the minimum because you have a good draw and play the bigger clubs for good money already, or to give up and get a day job, and just play for beer yourself (if you can't beat 'em, join 'em).

As far as playing charities for free, one could make a "living" playing only free charity gigs if he wanted to... There are certainly enough of them out there. There is no reason to play a charity gig for free unless you personally would otherwise donate your normal fee to support that charity. If you really don't want the money, and want to support the charity, at least get a receipt for the amount of your fee in the form of a donation, so you can deduct it on your taxes.

In my experience, some of the best-paying gigs are charity gigs. Professional charities understand that a good band is worth the money and are willing to pay for quality. Good bands who don't play too loudly and play music that people like go a long way toward getting people in the mood to donate serious money. Of course, charities would prefer a donated performance, and if they can get a great band for free they'll take it, but IME, real charities are not willing to compromise on quality for their big fundraisers, and if it comes down to choosing between free or quality, they will choose quality.

Think of it this way... If you are providing a service, there is no such thing as "playing for free." If you're not charging a fee (or charging a reduced fee), it's another way of saying that you are donating your services (or the difference).

So, whenever you play for free, consider that what you're really doing is donating to that club.

So the question for you is, why on Earth would you do that? :eyebrow:

I suspect that the answer is, you just love to play so much that you don't care if you have to pay directly into someone else's profits in order to do it (in this case, the value of your time, effort, and expenses).

My advice to bands who don't have a big enough draw to play the bigger clubs is to promote your own shows. It's easier than it sounds. Rent out the club for the night, hire an opening band, have your own band headline, advertise the show, charge a cover, and keep the profits for yourself. Then, everybody wins.

Hope this helps!
 
Just keep the movie theater porn vs. video porn paradigm in mind.

Movie theater porn offered QUALITY - better story lines, better camera work, better film quality, better sound... and how did that work for them?

Higher quality is great - if the customer cares... but they don't. Can you sell beer? That is all they care about - not how talented you are, not how good you sound, not about the quality of your performance - but about how much beer you can sell.

Video porn offered the opportunity to put your hands down your pants in private. Can you say Paul Rubens?

A quality performance by highly talented and skilled musicians will put butts in the seats and sell all the drinks a venue could hope for. Think about the bands/musicians YOU'D shell out good money for. We all need to asses our dedication to what we do, our skill level, and what we can reasonably do. There is a venue for every musician in this world, when I was in NYC I never expected to play the Blue Note or the Vanguard, those were top tier clubs and the guys who played there were top level. What those players brought to a gig was of the highest quality and certainly worth the $40.00 + cover.

Thanks for playing, try again.
 
Because you seem to think your skill level entitles you to something, that there is some inherent value in what you do.

What we do is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, not a dime more or less. If someone feels they're getting a better deal hiring a less professional but cheaper musician, they are.

I bet buggy whip and wagon wheel makers worked hard at what they did, were experts of their craft, and it was their living... but when no one was willing to exchange something of value for their product, their product ceased to have any value.

Buggy whip making turned into a dead business because of THE AUTOMOBILE, thanks for playing try again. Secondly I was responding to someone who misread a post I made earlier.

Let me tell you one more thing, when you've worked as hard as I have to acquire those skills then you can talk to me about the value of those skills.

Nothing has value NOTHING! I know that. I don't think my skills entitle me to ANYTHING. You don't even know the context of my post read my ORIGINAL POST. Read what I said and you'll knoe exactly where I stand.
 
Rule #1: Respect your fellow members

All registered users must address fellow members with the utmost respect at all times. If you do not agree with a fellow member, be courteous in your response. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine".

Because of the limitations of text based communication, the expression of intent can be tricky. One of the most common triggers of rule violations is the misinterpretation of intent behind a post. Use smilies often, and remember, it never hurts to begin a response with "In my opinion"...

If you do not address everyone on the board with respect, be prepared to lose your membership.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/faq.php?faq=forum_rules#faq_new_faq_item

This is a useful thread with good stuff, guys... Let's make sure it stays unlocked... Thanks in advance!
 
Bars have a lot of expenses, too, though. It's not like they're making 80% returns just because they charge $5 for $1 (wholesale) of liquor. Real estate taxes, rent/mortgage, utilities, training, insurance, licensing fees, sound equipment, glasses, advertising, lawyers/accountants, office supplies, computers, telephones, Internet, and the big ones—labor, training, and turnover—cost a lot of money.

There's a rule in economics called zero economic profit. This pretty much means that no one type of business can make significantly more than any other type of business in the long-term, presuming perfect competition. The reason for this is that if one type of business (for example, clubs) was really raking it in, other people would be attracted to the high returns and get into the business as well. All else being equal, with increased competition comes smaller market share and therefore lower profits, until they reach equilibrium again. If one type of business is making significantly less than another, that type of business will disappear because people will decide it's not worth their time, preferring to work at a job or invest their money into something else that pays better.

Don't make the assumption that bars have tons of money floating around... Generally speaking, they don't make any more than any other type of business.
 
There have been several comments in this thread stating that people/bands who want to play for free should do so in backyards, at friend's birthday parties etc. and stay out of the clubs. Well to those people taking that stance I have a suggestion. It's my opinion that (gotta follow rules... oh yea... :)) if you don't like what unscrupulous bar owners are doing then start your own club/bar/music-venue where you can play what you want for whatever price you think you deserve. You'll make a mint selling booze and you get to show just how valuable your years of hard work and dedication to your craft is.

But then I guess it's easier to point fingers and try having others shoulder the blame when you're not getting paid the amount of money you think you deserve.

:smug::)