Original bands playing for free: a chronic problem

[fingerbun]

Well this is the whole point....understanding the local trend for an area and exploiting it. Each town, area, County, State, Country has its own set of problems. So if anyone can understand the problem and find a solution that all involved can afford then business and demand will take care of that.

I agree. There are some useful ideas presented in this thread but no magic bullet. I suspect none exists.

On the subject of not being paid, any band or artist that does this, if playing on my level playing field makes money from their time. if that time is recording CDs to sell or coming up with merchandise to sell, publicity for the shows or music etc, it all comes down to time, and for me i want paying for it. For me it is finding a way to market what i do so i can get paid for it. Music is a big wide open market with many complex layers.

We are out of questions of right and wrong here, and into a discussion about personal preference.

I don't think music will ever be the most lucrative option financially....contrast what you make to some of your friends in other lines of work. Sure someone like McCartney gets rich, but nothing like the wealth of someone like Bill Gates. The challenge to me is to make enough to get by while doing what you love (I think you said something similar earlier). To that end if you reach a point where you are playing stuff you don't want to play for a crap paycheck, don't you have to question the wisdom of it?

Lots of my friends who stayed in music were able to keep the art vs money dichotomy balanced. I couldn't. That's why being part time works better for me.

I am fifty now, and I would most likely only gig weekends if I were fulltime anyway. That's how it works for my friends who are still fulltime. With effective personal time management, I could hold down a gig like that and still hold my day job, if that was what I wanted to do.

At bar level, local law and trading comes into it..some bars just cannot afford to have live music, so it becomes a legislation problem ( here in the UK it was the three in a bar law). Now in the UK with the playing field being un-level towards the bars it is sliding back to music being the way to get customers in.

In the last 5 years or so big national supermarket chains started to sell alcohol aggressively in cut price ways, because they can recover any loss of profit on alcohol sales from other products that are needed. So just now a case of 24 beers is £10., buy 2 for £15 or 2 for £20, mix and match the brands and the drinks (2 beer 1 cider if you want). Sit in your house and drink with your mates,( because of the smoking ban you can smoke and drink and listen to what you want) then go out and finish off the nightwith a couple of beers somewhere and listen to a band or chat up some girls. That is your right and the law supports it.

But the bars are not getting that revenue now, but they still have to pay staff, door staff, licences, bills, rates etc. To cap it off if there is trouble in the bar, the bar owner, his staff, and dorr staff have to deal with it. because it is an incident it goes on their record and if they have to many they can be fined or closed down......but they have not supplied the alcohol, the supermark has. But what can the supermarket not supply....the atmosphere, and that is the way to market live music, the experience of live music. That means getting into schools, youth clubs etc.. and exposing the up and coming customers to it. Teach them that in life you have to pay for things, and if you offer a service you want paying for it.

We have a similar problem in Sydney. Gambling laws have been liberalised and pubs can make more money from poker machines than bands. This plus more stringent noise restrictions have diminished the live music scene enormously.

However, right now there are moves afoot to tighten up the laws on gambling, and the general expectation is that, rather than causing some pubs to switch back to live music, it will actually mean some venues that can currently fund live music from poker machine revenues will stop. You can't win!!! :-(

Like i said it is complicated and very layered, but music involves life, it revolves around life and the message of "use it or lose" will never work because if they are not using it now, then they will not miss it when it slips away.
In all it is about getting people to feel part of something and music is great for that because listening requires little effort, but live music does require effort.

My kids expect not to buy music. They think I'm foolish that I insist on paying. That change of attitude is a big threat.

Level playing fields are hard to find, especially when i pay my tax bills ontop of all the other things to budget.
But i do it and i do it well, but i just wish is was getting easier rather than harder LOL,...maybe its just old age catching up and it was always this hard.

How many of your friends tried to make a living in music and failed? How many would kill to do what you have done? We have both lived the dream...we are soooooooo lucky.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

It's all those stoopid guys whose user names begin with "f". Too confusing. Ban 'em!!!!!

In true TB style to support those that have this and to find info on how best to deal with problems, swap stories and info,
User names that begin with F club.....who wants a number????

 

[fingerbun]

I'm totally with you on any kind of dishonesty or preying on young kids' delusions about "making it big" (as in, those pay to play scams). I don't really get that vibe from this ad, but that's a matter on which reasonable people could disagree.

My point is just that, assuming the terms are clear and up front, it's up to any particular band whether they want to do the gig on those terms or not, and it's not cool for others with different motivations to accuse them of "stealing" gigs.

My reason for the vibe...a serious showcase to music fans with solid industry connections requires some sort of attempt to vet the band, not a scattergun Craiglist ad which doesn't request demos, photos, bios or promotional material, and the sort of bands who are likely to be of interest to industry are unlikely to play for free on a Saturday night without a good reason. I might be doing them an injustice, I'm not going to apply to find out.

I agree if the terms are clear it's fair enough. But if the ad claims to deliver a showcase opportunity and doesn't, were the terms clear?

Besides, somewhere out there is the other ad for this event. "Great food, live music from pro bands, only $50 per head". I wonder what sort of band the punters think they are paying for?

 

[fingerbun]

In true TB style to support those that have this and to find info on how best to deal with problems, swap stories and info,
User names that begin with F club.....who wants a number????

fu....... no I can't say that

 

[Top_Ten]

I agree if the terms are clear it's fair enough. But if the ad claims to deliver a showcase opportunity and doesn't, were the terms clear?

Fair point, Mr. Bun -- the ad does play up the showcase aspect of it a little more than is probably realistic. All I saw was free burgers and beer, and so I immediately thought, "hey, that sounds pretty good"! (kidding, sort of . . . .)

 

[Tom Howland]

If your in a band to make money.
You have to create your band worth.
It's about promotion, show clubs where you have played in the past.
And what you were paid. ( your worth)
Never play for free, once you do you have no worth in club owner eyes.
As far as original music, most clubs don't want all original.
Mix in some well known covers.
Check out why other band are getting club gigs and good pay.
See what there doing right.

 

[beggar98]

There are some pretty flawed arguments in this thread, but the fact is that, as in any other endeavor, if you work for free you greatly devalue the work you do in your market. This is a fact.

Of course bar owners are going to pay as little as they can. All they care about is making money and they know they can take advantage of people's passion for music and act as if it is some sort of privilege to play at their bar. The same can be said for any business owner who takes advantage of cheap labor. The difference with music is that there are people who just want to play, regardless of whether or not they get paid. These people should be looked at as scabs crossing a picket line- they are devaluing labor in their market and making it more difficult for professionals to make a living.

That said, it is only real professionals who have a right to complain. Most of the time (like 99% of the time) bands who are willing to play for free are not on the same level as professionals who make music their career. If a bar/club owner consistently books bad acts because they are cheap/free then they will eventually lose their audience to a place that is willing to pay a little (or a lot) to ensure their customers are happy. As a musician, its your job to make sure you're one of the professional acts that a bar deems worth paying.

And if you do have a problem with bars that don't pay bands, don't go to those bars. Ever. The most powerful vote you have is with your wallet.

 

[Top_Ten]

These people should be looked at as scabs crossing a picket line- they are devaluing labor in their market and making it more difficult for professionals to make a living.

That is just silly. As a band playing at a bar, you are (at best) an independent contractor, not a unionized employee of the bar. And, in case this wasn't already obvious, you can't cross a picket line if there is no picket line. In all my years of playing, paid or not, I've never seen a picket line of "professional" musicians outside a bar.

There are many advantages to being a professional musician, not least of which is that your job is the thing you love doing. Most people can't say that about their jobs. But there are also disadvantages, and one of them is that many other people also love doing that same thing, and are willing to do it for free.

If you don't like competition from hobbyists, either distinguish yourself from the hobbyists sufficiently to make it worthwhile to pay you, or get a job that others are not willing to do for free (which is probably about 99.9% of the available jobs in the world).

You are right that it is difficult to make a living as a professional musician. Where you go wrong is in thinking that any non-professional musician has any obligation to make it easier for you by turning down gigs.

 

[beggar98]

That is just silly. As a band playing at a bar, you are (at best) an independent contractor, not a unionized employee of the bar. And, in case this wasn't already obvious, you can't cross a picket line if there is no picket line. In all my years of playing, paid or not, I've never seen a picket line of "professional" musicians outside a bar.

There are many advantages to being a professional musician, not least of which is that your job is the thing you love doing. Most people can't say that about their jobs. But there are also disadvantages, and one of them is that many other people also love doing that same thing, and are willing to do it for free.

If you don't like competition from hobbyists, either distinguish yourself from the hobbyists sufficiently to make it worthwhile to pay you, or get a job that others are not willing to do for free (which is probably about 99.9% of the available jobs in the world).

You are right that it is difficult to make a living as a professional musician. Where you go wrong is in thinking that any non-professional musician has any obligation to make it easier for you by turning down gigs.

I don't think it's the responsibility of hobbyists to turn down gigs. I think its the responsibility of bar/club owners to work with professionals. This is why I think musicians need a real union, just like actors, writers, directors, camera operators, etc. That way professionals are protected.

Venues that were union venues would be required to pay union minimums, just like union theaters and production companies. Those that chose to remain non-union would be at a disadvantage as far as the quality acts they could book. If the musicians union had any real power they would also have a big say with ASCAP and BMI, so that if a venue chose to hire non-union musicians they would not be granted performance licenses for protected works, basically limiting the venue to unknown original bands.

As musicians we have more power than we realize. There is enough pressure from non-musicians trying to make a buck off of musicians' work, we should not be making it more difficult by under-cutting each other.

 

[fingerbun]

The difference with music is that there are people who just want to play, regardless of whether or not they get paid. These people should be looked at as scabs crossing a picket line- they are devaluing labor in their market and making it more difficult for professionals to make a living.

This is only true if you assume the professional has a right to insist that music be treated like a business. The underlying problem here is a clash between musicians who want to have fun or be creative and who find the "professional" thing actually detracts from their enjoyment, vs musicians who just want to play music and want a market that will deliver them money.

I like veggie gardening and run half a dozen chooks in my back yard. Am I a scab because I grow some of my food for fun, rather than buying it all?

That said, it is only real professionals who have a right to complain.

What is a real professional? Is there a minimum number of gigs you have to do, or a minimum income you have to earn, to qualify? Membership of the local union maybe? If I make more money from music than some of my fulltime mates, but at the same time also hold down a lucrative day job, who is the professional?

Most of the time (like 99% of the time) bands who are willing to play for free are not on the same level as professionals who make music their career....as a musician, its your job to make sure you're one of the professional acts that a bar deems worth paying.

The principle holds for sure. There are some guys in music who are striving for excellence, and some who are cruising, enjoying the party and avoiding real work. A disciplined part timer will outplay a lazy full-timer of similar ability.

And if you do have a problem with bars that don't pay bands, don't go to those bars. Ever. The most powerful vote you have is with your wallet.

+1000

 

[fingerbun]

I don't think it's the responsibility of hobbyists to turn down gigs. I think its the responsibility of bar/club owners to work with professionals. This is why I think musicians need a real union, just like actors, writers, directors, camera operators, etc. That way professionals are protected.

Venues that were union venues would be required to pay union minimums, just like union theaters and production companies. Those that chose to remain non-union would be at a disadvantage as far as the quality acts they could book. If the musicians union had any real power they would also have a big say with ASCAP and BMI, so that if a venue chose to hire non-union musicians they would not be granted performance licenses for protected works, basically limiting the venue to unknown original bands.

As musicians we have more power than we realize. There is enough pressure from non-musicians trying to make a buck off of musicians' work, we should not be making it more difficult by under-cutting each other.

OK, violent disagreement here.

First, if I charge for a gig I am a professional for that 4 hours. What I do in the context of my other 164 hours is noone's business but mine. A fulltimer can use that time to practice and be better than me, therefore offer a better deal to the bar. If they lack the discipline or business nous to do that, it's their problem not mine.

You want to split hairs. The part-timer shouldn't have to turn down gigs, but the bar shouldn't offer the gig in the first place. You are trying to set up a structure that excludes the part-timer. The rest is semantics.

But the union stuff is just CRAP. I used to belong to the Australian union in the 1980s. It was a waste of space, only interested in taking my money, with no ability or interest in helping me. (And this is when I was fulltime). Maybe you have it better where you are, but I would stop playing before I would join the Australian musicians union again.

 

[brother21]

If the dump you want to play won't pay anything your band better work on tips.
No tip bucket no money, If people aren't tipping have the bar babe strut around with it.
You will get tips...we have got three hundred in tips that way in a 60 person bar.
You got to work your own system, the first time you play there pack the place with your friends. If the place has no people in it then its reheasal time work on new stuff.

 

[prd004]

There are some pretty flawed arguments in this thread, but the fact is that, as in any other endeavor, if you work for free you greatly devalue the work you do in your market.

You either fail to reconize, or fail to aknowlege that some of us dont consider this "work"

I don't think it's the responsibility of hobbyists to turn down gigs. I think its the responsibility of bar/club owners to work with professionals. This is why I think musicians need a real union, just like actors, writers, directors, camera operators, etc. That way professionals are protected.

Venues that were union venues would be required to pay union minimums, just like union theaters and production companies. Those that chose to remain non-union would be at a disadvantage as far as the quality acts they could book. If the musicians union had any real power they would also have a big say with ASCAP and BMI, so that if a venue chose to hire non-union musicians they would not be granted performance licenses for protected works, basically limiting the venue to unknown original bands.

Form a union and force venues to pay union wages and the only ones getting any gigs will be DJ's and Karaoke.

 

[Top_Ten]

One other small point: I only know about my little scene, if you can even call it that, but around here (SF Bay Area), no bar owners are getting rich by exploiting originals bands. Most of the places we play could probably bring in more people and make more money from DJs or tribute bands, but for whatever reason they keep booking original music. In many cases, it is as much a labor of love for the venues and booking folks as it is for the bands. Generally we get paid some nominal amount -- often a percentage of the door -- but nobody in their right mind would do it just for the money. It would be pretty ridiculous to form a union to make sure that every band got their $50 and two free drink tickets!

 

[fingerbun]

Form a union and force venues to pay union wages and the only ones getting any gigs will be DJ's and Karaoke.

Actually its worse than that for the union crowd.

If I am a customer of the pub, not an employee, the union has no say. If I am a customer who is given permission to set up my gear in a corner and play a few tunes, what is the union going to do? Maybe they could ban all music in a pub that is not done by a professional. Pity the poor union rep who has to approach a bunch of drunk bikers who are singing along with the jukebox and make them stop unless they can produce a union card and a contract at award rates.

I can and would gig for free if I have to because I enjoy it. I prefer to keep being paid but I don't have to be. A full-timer can't. Go this route and you are forcing me to undercut you.

 

[beggar98]

You either fail to reconize, or fail to aknowlege that some of us dont consider this "work"

No, I understand that. Some bars/clubs would choose to remain non-union, just like community theaters do. They put on plays with actors and crews who do it just for the love of the art. No professional stage company worth a fart is threatened by community theaters. Some of the community theater companies actually put on top quality productions, but very few can compare to professional theater. What separates the two are the unions. The same delineation could exist for music venues, and in some ways already does when talking about an IATSE venue.

 

[Top_Ten]

Not all that relevant to the discussion, but kind of funny: My only experience playing in a union venue was at Roseland in NY. I'm not sure if it is union for musicians (I was not union, so perhaps not), but it is union for crew.

Anyway, my amp was set up on stage and I wanted to move it a little. So I went back and started to do that, and immediately this big teamster looking dude rushed over and just about physically pushed me out of the way. Apparently only the union guys are allowed to do any moving of gear!

I'm generally a supporter of organized labor, but that was kind of nuts!

 

[modulusman]

One other small point: I only know about my little scene, if you can even call it that, but around here (SF Bay Area), no bar owners are getting rich by exploiting originals bands. Most of the places we play could probably bring in more people and make more money from DJs or tribute bands, but for whatever reason they keep booking original music. In many cases, it is as much a labor of love for the venues and booking folks as it is for the bands. Generally we get paid some nominal amount -- often a percentage of the door -- but nobody in their right mind would do it just for the money. It would be pretty ridiculous to form a union to make sure that every band got their $50 and two free drink tickets!

Or maybe they keep booking original bands because they are dumb enough to play for free. DJs and tribute bands expect to get paid for their time and effort.

 

[beggar98]

One other small point: I only know about my little scene, if you can even call it that, but around here (SF Bay Area), no bar owners are getting rich by exploiting originals bands. Most of the places we play could probably bring in more people and make more money from DJs or tribute bands, but for whatever reason they keep booking original music. In many cases, it is as much a labor of love for the venues and booking folks as it is for the bands. Generally we get paid some nominal amount -- often a percentage of the door -- but nobody in their right mind would do it just for the money. It would be pretty ridiculous to form a union to make sure that every band got their $50 and two free drink tickets!

Generally any situation where you're given a percentage of the door would be exempt from minimums, especially if the band is allowed to set the door (aka ticket) price.

I wonder how the people who have no problem with hobbyists playing for free would feel about hobbyists paying bars to be able to play? Maybe a bar owner can supplement his income from drinks/food by charging the musicians for the right to play in his venue. Now not only does the market not support professional musicians, it excludes hobbyists who can't afford to play.

 

[prd004]

No, I understand that. Some bars/clubs would choose to remain non-union, just like community theaters do. They put on plays with actors and crews who do it just for the love of the art. No professional stage company worth a fart is threatened by community theaters. Some of the community theater companies actually put on top quality productions, but very few can compare to professional theater. What separates the two are the unions. The same delineation could exist for music venues, and in some ways already does when talking about an IATSE venue.

My "Community Theater" Rock Band can hang with any "Professional Theater Group"!!!!!!!