Opinions Needed

[WI Short Scaler]

Well it would, but I am super tired of dealing with entitled hobbyists who think they have every right to swoop in and steal the food off the tables of those who do this for a living. I'd just as soon stop caring about them, because they clearly don't give a flying fark about anyone but themselves.

Entitled hobbyists having the right to run their band as they see fit? Every band does in fact have that right.

You called me out for a grammatical error that bothered you once. My mistake that I corrected. But this just comes off as arrogance.

We are smack in the middle of pricing for gigs in our area and don't play free unless it's a charity or benefit, which happens about once per year. The situation in this thread is somewhat different being a private club of which the OP is a member. But regardless of that the OP has the freedom to do as he sees fit for his fees.

The opinion that music as a hobby is a bad thing is just wrong.

 

[ewarren88]

If you’re happiest playing for free, then do so. You are under no obligation to participate in an entertainment cartel to achieve price controls for the sake of others who may or may not (a) be interested in doing the show and (b) be able to achieve the end result for the club that you achieve. Sounds like you have a good thing going, so enjoy!

 

[ChrisB2]

may not (a) be interested in doing the show and (b) be able to achieve the end result for the club that you achieve.

...or (c) simply insist that everyone confirm to their view of how to conduct oneself as a performer.

"Entertainment cartel price controls." Lol, well put.

 

[ChrisB2]

I am super tired of dealing with entitled hobbyists who think they have every right to swoop in and steal the food off the tables of those who do this for a living.

They DO have every right. It's called freedom.

And sorry but that's a rather "entitled" attitude.

 

[WI Short Scaler]

They DO have every right. It's called freedom.

And sorry but that's a rather "entitled" attitude.

I didn't want to start anything but it just seemed "off" to read it in that phrasing.

We do this as a hobby. But....

We're on time, always have at least one new song every gig and often more depending on schedules, change out songs in the setlist often, take only 2 breaks for 4 hrs gigs, don't drink while playing, practice often to try and stay sharp and we enjoy the hang, and don't waste time at load out. Plus we have a good group of followers.

I don't know how any of that rubs people the wrong way but whatever. It works for us so I think we're entitled to enjoy our group and our time playing. You run your band as you want.

 

[LBS-bass]

The opinion that music as a hobby is a bad thing is just wrong.

And I never said that. You've put silly words in my mouth that I never said, and if you read what I've written in this thread you'll see that I also consider myself a hobbyist at this point.

What I do believe is that all of us provide a service that has value, whether we do it as a hobby or (attempt to) do it for a living, and some people exploit an advantage that they have by agreeing to paltry sums just for the opportunity to play and edge out any competitors.

If we want to protect the value of what we do, we simply can't do that to each other. It's not a difficult conversation. You either value what all of us do enough to charge a reasonable amount for it, or you take the other road.

 

[wiscoaster]

...If we want to protect the value of what we do, we simply can't do that to each other. It's not a difficult conversation. You either value what all of us do enough to charge a reasonable amount for it, or you take the other road.

I don't think that anybody's trying to "do" anything to anyone else. It's simply a different approach to what they do themselves. You can't force anyone to any one approach, and you can't force anyone to your approach. That simply is not liberty and freedom of expression. It's not the "American way". Just relax. There's enough room in America for differences of opinion and ways of doing things. What is of value to one individual is not of the same value to everyone else. Protectionism is not liberty. IMO, protectionism fosters mediocrity.

 

[LBS-bass]

I don't think that anybody's trying to "do" anything to anyone else. It's simply a different approach to what they do themselves. You can't force anyone to any one approach, and you can't force anyone to your approach. That simply is not liberty and freedom of expression. It's not the "American way". Just relax. There's enough room in America for differences of opinion and ways of doing things. What is of value to one individual is not of the same value to everyone else. Protectionism is not liberty. IMO, protectionism fosters mediocrity.

Nobody's clutching at pearls here, except the people who don't like the implications of the things I say.

I'm long past the point of worrying about this as though it were a fixable problem. It isn't, that's a ship that has sailed long ago and it's not coming back.

While nobody is trying to "do" anything (and I agree with you there) there are many who, once it's pointed out that their actions do have consequences for others, will respond indignantly, as though nobody has a right to point out that things in the world are somewhat connected, or that causes have effects, or that decisions have impacts.

I think it's important that someone be willing to point these things out anyway, slings and arrows be damned.

 

[LBS-bass]

They DO have every right. It's called freedom.

And sorry but that's a rather "entitled" attitude.

Oh, please. Someone comes into your job and does your work for free, leaving you without work, and you're going to take that same attitude? That's mighty noble of you.

If it's entitled of me to believe that everyone should get paid for their honest work, this is a super messed up world we've created.

 

[wiscoaster]

....I think it's important that someone be willing to point these things out anyway, slings and arrows be damned.

I agree with that, but not with making personal accusations, which I think came mighty close, at least as it came across. Didn't mean to sling any stones or launch any arrows.

 

[LBS-bass]

I agree with that, but not with making accusations. Didn't mean to sling any stones or launch any arrows.

No accusations were made. Shoes sometimes fit, however.

This is so typical of what I run into on the internet lately. I'll say something and someone will take it way out of context and assume I'm doing an "us vs. them" when really what I'm doing is an "all of us," as in "all of us should be recognizing the value we bring to these places where we play, and charging a reasonable amount of money for the service we provide."

I don't care if you have a day job as an engineer or a hash slinger and I also don't care if your job is the most fun you ever had and you can't wait to get there every day. Work is still work, services are still services, and work and services should be fairly valued. I'm not telling people to get out of the way of the hardline pros - they mostly left the business years ago because you can't do this for a living any more. I'm telling people to value the service they offer, whether they need the money or not.

The problem is, this is not the first, second or fifth time I've said this and the same people come at me every single time, as though I've personally attacked them. Well, like I said, if the shoe fits, you know who you are. I'm not attacking anyone.

 

[pepj]

If a band is known for playing free gigs
around here, 2 things tend to follow.
The venue is effectively boycotted. Nobody wants to play it so that is self defeating by the venue, and also the band is not accepted by the rest.
This is all unwritten but bands dont work free...unless for a specific charity gig... and venues don't try that either. Everyone did pay to play in the big cities when they were 20.

There are mini beer festivals whereby the beer is free but the bands are unknown and pretty poor so that gets little traction too.
Bands have basically woken up to the fact that they are generally the only charity (free) element.
The bar gets their take, staff are paid etc etc.
If the gig is paying 500-600 $ then bands charge that..and the weaker ones struggle to get on that rosta.
Everyone acknowledges the charity gig..and some do it, but you'd end up doing quite a few in the summer season and lose out on paying gigs.

 

[51PRI]

I didn't want to start anything but it just seemed "off" to read it in that phrasing.

We do this as a hobby. But....

We're on time, always have at least one new song every gig and often more depending on schedules, change out songs in the setlist often, take only 2 breaks for 4 hrs gigs, don't drink while playing, practice often to try and stay sharp and we enjoy the hang, and don't waste time at load out. Plus we have a good group of followers.

I don't know how any of that rubs people the wrong way but whatever. It works for us so I think we're entitled to enjoy our group and our time playing. You run your band as you want.

What you are describing is not a hobby. You can call it, or think of it, however you want but it doesn't make it so

Someone in your band is dealing with a club owner, negotiating a deal for services. You provide those services. You get paid. That isn't a hobby.

 

[ChrisB2]

Oh, please. Someone comes into your job and does your work for free, leaving you without work, and you're going to take that same attitude? That's mighty noble of you.

I've lost plenty of work to others who had the freedom to determine for themselves how to approach what they do. And yes, I do have the attitude that they should enjoy those same freedoms and privileges that I do; namely, self-determination.

You're free to charge whatever you like for your "work" ... and also to complain when others don't conform to your ideals. Isn't freedom great?

If it's entitled of me to believe that everyone should get paid for their honest work, this is a super messed up world we've created.

You brought in the concept of "entitled" by describing low-ballers as entitled hobbyists. I simply pointed out that yes, THAT attitude is actually one of entitlement, as if you're entitled to some objective pay structure, when in fact the market will determine compensation based on what the seller is willing to accept and what the buyer is willing to pay. At least, that's how it works in free societies. IMO freedom is not "super messed up." If you believe you should get paid to "work," don't play for free. I do not.

 

[WI Short Scaler]

What you are describing is not a hobby. You can call it, or think of it, however you want but it doesn't make it so

Your opinion is yours, incorrect to our situation and your thinking doesn't make it so.

Calling others "entitled hobbyists" out of your perceived greatness is no way to support a community/forum. Just run your own band as you see fit and be happy someone else has their own thing.

We're all lucky to be able to do this live music thing.

 

[51PRI]

Your opinion is yours, incorrect to our situation and your thinking doesn't make it so.

Calling others "entitled hobbyists" out of your perceived greatness is no way to support a community/forum. Just run your own band as you see fit and be happy someone else has their own thing.

We're all lucky to be able to do this live music thing.

We ARE lucky but most all of us have spend a lot of time and money to get good enough to do it.

However, I don't think I ever used the word "entitled."

Bur...what do you call it when a group of folks/musicians get together and learn to play music together, then contact a club owner, make an agreement to perform there, perform there, and then get then paid. Is that a hobby or is it a job? YOUR definition...

 

[WI Short Scaler]

Bur...what do you call it when a group of folks/musicians get together and learn to play music together, then contact a club owner, make an agreement to perform there, perform there, and then get then paid. Is that a hobby or is it a job? YOUR definition...

It's a hobby for me. If not for you that's your definition.

It's not a source of income for me, it's a self supporting hobby that I enjoy.

I have many friends around here that hunt or fish and it costs them far more $$ than any equipment we've each paid for. Hint, those are hobbies too.

 

[51PRI]

It's a hobby for me. If not for you that's your definition.

It's not a source of income for me, it's a self supporting hobby that I enjoy.

I have many friends around here that hunt or fish and it costs them far more $$ than any equipment we've each paid for. Hint, those are hobbies too.

Yes, those ARE hobbies, but if they were hunting and fishing in competitive events for money they would no longer be hobbies. IMO. If you sit in your parlor or your front porch and play and sing with a bunch of friends, then, yes, that's a hobby. If you book a gig at a bar, club, venue, event, and get paid for it then it is no longer a hobby. IMO.

 

[gln1955]

Yes, those ARE hobbies, but if they were hunting and fishing in competitive events for money they would no longer be hobbies. IMO. If you sit in your parlor or your front porch and play and sing with a bunch of friends, then, yes, that's a hobby. If you book a gig at a bar, club, venue, event, and get paid for it then it is no longer a hobby. IMO.

Uh, no. Short scaler's analogy is a good one. In this example, a bass fisherman who spent $20,000 on his boat and equipment entering a tournament (below the pro fishing tours) is an amateur, i,e., a hobbyist. These guys do it for fun and if they end up winning a few bucks to offset the cost of their hobby, its a win, and nothing more.

 

[51PRI]

Uh, no. Short scaler's analogy is a good one. In this example, a bass fisherman who spent $20,000 on his boat and equipment entering a tournament (below the pro fishing tours) is an amateur, i,e., a hobbyist. These guys do it for fun and if they end up winning a few bucks to offset the cost of their hobby, its a win, and nothing more.

In this imaginary scenario do these fisherman report their winnings to the IRS? Do they count their $20,000 equipment as deductions?