then it looks like your band, as much as it may suck, knows how to entertain people. you can botch as many songs as you want, but you nailed it, if you can draw a crowd it doesn't matter how bad you play.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
On the Topic of Paying Gigs
- Thread starter bgressman82
- Start date
then it looks like your band, as much as it may suck, knows how to entertain people. you can botch as many songs as you want, but you nailed it, if you can draw a crowd it doesn't matter how bad you play.
Geez, of course a cover band provides a service -- entertainment. Doesn't matter if the crowd likes it. Do you blame the television set for the crappy programming? But if it's a crappy picture, you replace it with something better. And like any other service/product, you get what you pay for.
I've played in cover bands my whole life and never played for free doing so, not even my first gig in 1972. I even made a living at it for a few years, playing songs people knew and could dance to, bantering with the crowd and building a good, fun atmosphere. However, when I got back into it a few years ago, I got into an "originals" band. What a change of mindset! We rarely get paid for any gig, because the band only knows a dozen songs and only plays one set. Just as with practically every other "originals" band we share the bill with. And one thing I've noticed -- the main purpose of an "originals" band isn't to entertain the crowd, but to show off artistic prowess. They're often playing for the oher bands, not the patrons
Ask yourself -- is this "entertainment" worth paying for? You have to understand what "entertainment" is before you can sell it.
I've played in cover bands my whole life and never played for free doing so, not even my first gig in 1972. I even made a living at it for a few years, playing songs people knew and could dance to, bantering with the crowd and building a good, fun atmosphere. However, when I got back into it a few years ago, I got into an "originals" band. What a change of mindset! We rarely get paid for any gig, because the band only knows a dozen songs and only plays one set. Just as with practically every other "originals" band we share the bill with. And one thing I've noticed -- the main purpose of an "originals" band isn't to entertain the crowd, but to show off artistic prowess. They're often playing for the oher bands, not the patrons
Ask yourself -- is this "entertainment" worth paying for? You have to understand what "entertainment" is before you can sell it.
well, in order to be called "entertainment" it has to be "entertaining". sure, "entertainment" is worth paying for, but if the crowd isn't "entertained" how have you held up your end of the deal?
doesn't matter if the crowd likes it? to go back to the old mechanic crap that doesn't make sense:
mechanic: hey, i was paid to fix your car.
customer: yeah, but you painted it.
mechanic: yup. i fixed the color.
customer: i want my money back.
i'd like to personally thank you for making it harder on the rest of us.
Five out six of members of Mr. Hand's Revenge has some sort of jazz, symphonic, or gospel background. Four out six can play more than one instrument. Two of us can play as many as three or more instruments. We are consistently making improvements to our shows and increasing our turnout and club profits with the goal of making more money. It's a business with clear goals and gameplan.
Sorry, what?
Ah, sorry -- that was inartfully phrased. It was tendered in the context of a Beatles tribute show/band appearing at a hard-core biker bar. Of course it matters that they can entertain, rather than gaze at their shoes all night. However, you gotta wonder about a bar owner who books a band he knows his regular crowd won't like. (He knew enough not to pass out glass containers, right?) Does the band pay for the owner's bad judgment by forfeiting their pay? They did what they were hired to do -- played Beatles tunes in an entertaining manner. I probably would have liked it, but not in that environment. The band didn't paint a car that was brought in for a brake job -- the owner brought the wrong car in.
What? You mean harder to feel justified in giving it away? Geez, just get up off that bar stool on a Saturday night and go gig somewhere . . .
sorry, i caught you in the wrong context.
the bar owner didn't bring them in. as i said in my rant in the humor section, he's a musician and doesn't turn any band down. he also doesn't go looking for them. they showed up for that gig because one of them walked in and asked the guy. that's literally all it takes to play there. that's also well known by everyone who frequents the place, so we kinda know what to expect. but still, no band has ever been that out of place there.
no, i don't mean make it harder to feel justified in giving it away, i meant by causing more bars to resort to djs and dismiss bands without thought.
IMO, if the venue is not helped profit-wise by live music, then they shouldn't have live music (free or otherwise). And, if a given band does not draw a crowd or increase profits for clubs, they should probably not be playing, or stay in the basement.
Playing for free is NEVER justified at a 'for profit' venue.
Well, I suppose the blues market is much like the jazz market. We are certainly in a "niche" market with limited appeal. Most of us have built a reputation and are well known to the clubs and audiences to whom we cater. In the rock genre, it looks like there are too many bands (who aren't good enough to play in front of audiences) competing for too few gigs. It seems to me that the law of natural selection in the marketplace will weed out the incompetents as it always has. As musicians, we are competing against all kinds of entertainment options that were not available in the past as well as competing against other musicians playing the clubs. It is becoming increasingly difficult to make a buck for both musicians and club owners. I'm not sure that it is necessarily right to base musicians pay on what amounts to a "commission" system since there are numerous variables that complicate matters; here in Minnesota the winter weather can be a problem, for example. I think it is up to club owners to determine what they can pay and it is up to bands to determine what they need to get paid and they negotiate from there. If the band doesn't cut it, they don't get booked again.
so, bands should still be paid for all gigs, even the ones where the venue loses money due to people leaving or avoiding the crappy band? after all, the owner had let them play without an audition, and he'd never heard of them, so it's just his fault for not having heard of the crappy band to begin with? am i getting the right mindset now?
Directors don't audition actors by having them perform in their revenue generating productions for free. The audition takes place in private and once the decision is made to put the actor in the production, pay is provided. Even extras get a per diem and they just serve as props most of the time.
I think that this is where there is a disconnect in your line of reasoning versus that held by most here. It seems as though some of your posts rail against crappy bands demanding more money, of which there doesn't seem to be any argument, but you then have other posts that seem to advocate that bands sometimes need to provide entertainment for club patrons for free, which you keep referring to as an "audition."
While I certainly wouldn't expect a club owner to provide a higher premium to a band that didn't deliver as they expected, just as I don't expect my own employer to promote me if I don't bring results, neither do i believe that any band should play for a commercial establishment without compensation, regardless of their skill. That compensation may be lower for the beginning band with no rep than for the proven talent that draws crowds, but the fact of the matter is that the service is still being provided in either case.
This is just like any other field; my employer pays me a pretty decent wage as a systems engineer because they desire my expertise and long experience, but if they are willing to settle for a greatly reduced skillset then there's nothing wrong with them paying someone with an A+ certification a lot less to provide a small bit of what I do. The dude is still going to get paid a fair wage, even if it is far less than what they pay me.
actually i went out of my way to compare music/entertainment to the teaching profession. on the other hand business is business.
in your analogy the director is the band leader, the actors are the other musicians, and the audience is, uh, the audience. so yeah the actor/player should have to audition (if he's unknown to the band or maybe he's well known in a particular genre and now wants to work in a different one). eventually after (after some time in rehearsal) the movie/band is playing in theaters/bars/concert halls (for a fee) and the audience pays their $10 to find out how they like it.
Well, you are dealing with two different issues. First, why would a club or venue hire a band they aren't familiar with at all? Shame on them if they don't do their homework.
And secondly, yes, if a club or venue is dumb enough to do this, they should pay the band and then never hire them again. If the band is that bad, this will happen once or twice, and then that band will mercifully cease to exist.
One of the main problems with musicians is that they (in general) seem to be clueless about the business world. Being a professional player involves the same EXACT requirements as being an accountant, a carpenter, whatever:
1) Master your trade
2) Put out a good product at a fair price.
3) Continue to improve throughout your career
4) Focus on satisfying your customers (hiring agents and listeners)
And, since musician's are mostly 'self employed', they also need to have a good business model (i.e., coming up with a good cash flow plan for the slow playing seasons, dealing with health insurance, etc.).
Just like any 'consultant' or person running any small business, if you don't deal with the above, you aren't going to make it. I don't know ANY other profession that would even be having this discussion IMO
And, finally, if you or your band really does suck that bad, please, for the good of the rest of us, stay in your garage or basement
Yes, welcome to the wonderful world of business. If every investment was a sure thing, every small business owner would be Bill Gates. Whether it's a band, a jukebox, radio or TV ads, pinball machines, goofy neon signs, or cute girls in bikinis, club and bar owners often spend money trying to find an "X" factor that kicks up their business. Most of the time, they don't work out nearly as well as the owner would have liked. Hell, bands are some of the safer bets for them simply because live bands are long established as a positive draw for patrons and are much cheaper than many other options. But there are no guarantees in business and if a club owner, or any other business owner can't handle that cold, hard fact, then they need to stay the hell out of owning a business altogether.
all the more reason for them to turn to djs instead. once again, i'd like to thank all of you with this mindset for making it harder for the rest of us.
I don't understand why this makes anything 'harder for the rest of us'.
Maybe I'm not understanding here and missing the point. Are you saying it would be good for bad bands to play for free? That is a disaster for the rest of us.
And, things are changing fast. The DJ's of today have NOTHING to do with the cheezy DJ's of yesterday. In my freelance world, high end DJ's are our main competition. Some of these guys are amazing (doing both audio and video mixes onlarge screen flat panels with amazing sound systems), and demand thousands of dollars a night.
Like any other business, you need to compete in the marketplace. Those thinking that applying good business practices to music is somehow a negative or takes away from creativity or gigging opportunities is similar to those saying learning theory and how to read somehow limits creativity. That's total garbage IMO.
Every time a customer/listener sees and hears a 'bad' band (i.e., bands that either have not done their homework regarding fitting a venue, or those that are just bad), it hurts the reputation of musicians and live music.
IMO of course.
