Original bands playing for free: a chronic problem

[beggar98]

Is the venue paying you? When they give you the tickets ( they are giving them to you, right?), what happens if you only sell 5 of them? Or if you don't sell any? Is the venue just letting you play and letting you keep all the money from the tickets, so that basically you are renting their space for free? Because that's pretty much the same thing as the venue letting you put a guy at the door and charge a cover, except it's a whole lot more work for you.

And obviously if a venue guarantees to pay you at least $500, it is not pay to play. What happens to the money from the ticket sales? Does it go on top of the $500?

Two points here:

In this situation, where a local band is opening for a national touring band, putting a man at the door isn't feasible. Also, the opening band isn't selling tickets to their show, but to the national band's show. That should make the tickets easier to sell. I was in a band that opened for Galactic once, and we were offered a $500 guarantee or 50 tickets. We took the tix, sold them all easily at $20/each and made a grand.

As to your second question, usually if you have a guarantee then the ticket sales or take at the door have no effect on your income. You're gonna make $500, whether you draw 10 people (good deal for you) or 250 (bad deal for you).

 

[DougD]

I wonder if the people that think bands should not be paid would have the same opinion if someone walked onto their job site and said "I'll work for free" and then in comes another, and another... It wouldn't take very long for the boss to look at the bottom line, and let all of the paid employees go. And why shouldn't he? If someone is willing to do the job for free? The quality of work wouldn't much matter because he's not paying anyone. it's all pure profit. And besides, theres a line of fools..er, ah.. potential free employees that stretches out the door, and around the block, just begging for a chance to get in there and show their stuff.

 

[teleharmonium]

Audiences (at shows or at home), venue owners, and record labels all agree on something; it pays to label musicians and music itself with negative stereotypes and use this to justify ongoing exploitation.

Most people like music, but they know we partly play it for the love of playing, that there are too many of us, and that we tend to be ambitious and unrealistic. We're great when they put on what they like, but if we try to explain why we should be paid, all of a sudden we are judged by the least among us (who incidentally are filling a large demand).

So, why pay us when they can screw us and still get the music ? They know we can't do anything about it, really. It's hard to police the internet and it's easy to find bands to play for cheap or free and easy to get people to come to bars. There are almost no consequences for screwing over people who create intellectual property, except in rare instances of software piracy or large scale IP theft perpetrated on those that have enough money to do something about it in court (ie not musicians).

We can stop playing on an individual level, but there's still an abundant supply, no one will notice.

We're a special class of people whose work is automatically made community property. Too bad that's not equally true for those industries like food, housing, and recording gear for which I have regular expenses.

 

[jimmyjames]

nearly 20 pages and i don't think anybody said it yet, but...

you never play for free, you may have gotten $0, but if you are good, then you may have just won over a fan or 2 who will pay to see you next time... do this often enough and you may just end up getting paid at some point.

for most of us, it is just bar gigs, but do enough bar gigs and you'll find yourself playing at actual venues... where people go to hear music... keep it up for a bit longer then promoters will actually start ASKING you to play, rather then you hunting down promoters and agents.

if you want to get paid, have a product people want to buy...

 

[Floyd Eye]

I wonder if the people that think bands should not be paid would have the same opinion if someone walked onto their job site and said "I'll work for free" and then in comes another, and another... It wouldn't take very long for the boss to look at the bottom line, and let all of the paid employees go. And why shouldn't he? If someone is willing to do the job for free? The quality of work wouldn't much matter because he's not paying anyone. it's all pure profit. And besides, theres a line of fools..er, ah.. potential free employees that stretches out the door, and around the block, just begging for a chance to get in there and show their stuff.

Where were you 10 pages ago, when I had 15 of these guys telling me I was a dumbass?

 

[bassbully]

Audiences (at shows or at home), venue owners, and record labels all agree on something; it pays to label musicians and music itself with negative stereotypes and use this to justify ongoing exploitation.

Most people like music, but they know we partly play it for the love of playing, that there are too many of us, and that we tend to be ambitious and unrealistic. We're great when they put on what they like, but if we try to explain why we should be paid, all of a sudden we are judged by the least among us (who incidentally are filling a large demand).

So, why pay us when they can screw us and still get the music ? They know we can't do anything about it, really. It's hard to police the internet and it's easy to find bands to play for cheap or free and easy to get people to come to bars. There are almost no consequences for screwing over people who create intellectual property, except in rare instances of software piracy or large scale IP theft perpetrated on those that have enough money to do something about it in court (ie not musicians).

We can stop playing on an individual level, but there's still an abundant supply, no one will notice.

We're a special class of people whose work is automatically made community property. Too bad that's not equally true for those industries like food, housing, and recording gear for which I have regular expenses.

Agree 110%...very good post.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Agree 110%...very good post.

+1, though it's a pretty short post for Tele.

 

[oniman7]

Here's my stance: Yes it's a problem, yes it hurts the music business, etc.

HOWEVER... these people have their choice. Many of them will choose to play for free. And nobody here is anyone to tell them they can't.
I like to take this stance on it: Nobody but you is responsible for your own happiness; everything else is a gift. In this case, you're responsible for trying to make money in your chosen field. I'm sure many of us knew that music is already a poor-paying business and home to fraud and deception left and right. It's fine if you want to complain about it. But in the end, the burden is on you to succeed in what you want to do and be happy doing it. It's nobody else's burden or problem if they make it harder on you. At some point I'm also going to complain about how hard it is to get paid or whatever. But humans are built to adapt and move forward. Take everything to your advantage. Plug Merchandise like crazy. Find ways to increase your tips (seed the tip jar, have attractive people collect, request tips if people do requests). Organize your own events and promotions. Perhaps a raffle where the winner gets to donate half of the money to a charity of their choice? Will that work? I have no clue, But that was off the top of my head. You keep 50% of your profits, you involve your fans, AND you make a name for your band donating to whatever charity the fan picks. Or maybe you just give more merchandise away.

My point is, rise above. Venite, videte, vinco. Carpe Diem. Or Transcend or whatever works for you.

 

[DougD]

nearly 20 pages and i don't think anybody said it yet, but...

you never play for free, you may have gotten $0, but if you are good, then you may have just won over a fan or 2 who will pay to see you next time... do this often enough and you may just end up getting paid at some point.

for most of us, it is just bar gigs, but do enough bar gigs and you'll find yourself playing at actual venues... where people go to hear music... keep it up for a bit longer then promoters will actually start ASKING you to play, rather then you hunting down promoters and agents.

if you want to get paid, have a product people want to buy...

People tend to forget one thing. Time is money.
If you spend 1 o 2 nights a week (or more) rehearsing with your band, plus the time you spend learning the songs on your own (or practicing) plus travel expenses, instruments and upkeep, etc, etc. Then you actually are in the HOLE if you play for free. You may say, so what? I play for the love of music. Well, do you work your job for the love of working? Could you perform the same steps that you advocate if you were trying to feed your family and pay your bills? How will you have a product that people want to buy, when the next guy offers the same product for free? The point I'm trying to make is that people involved in the making of music put in a LOT of work just to get prepared to play out. Most non- musicians have little or no idea about the amount of work we put into our craft. And to be honest, most don't care. Just like they don care how much effort you put into your 9 to 5. But NOBODY expects you to work your 9 to 5 or free. Thats called slavery. And it's illegal ( for good reason). So think for a minute. All he time, blood sweat and tears, gear maintenance, and other things we obsess over to put out good music is basically wasted. Now I have no problem with people that want to play for fun and not money. But there are places for them to do that. And if there aren't, then a venue can be created very easy. The problem I have is when those people think that EVERYBODY needs to have their attitude. Would you pay for a product that is being given away for free? Thats a no brainer. Yea, volunteer your time at your 9 to 5 for free, and after a bit, employers will magically start wanting to actually pay you. I wonder how many people are willing to let their families starve and live on the streets while they work their 9 to 5 for nothing but high hopes.

 

[Jason P Bass]

Audiences (at shows or at home), venue owners, and record labels all agree on something; it pays to label musicians and music itself with negative stereotypes and use this to justify ongoing exploitation.

Most people like music, but they know we partly play it for the love of playing, that there are too many of us, and that we tend to be ambitious and unrealistic. We're great when they put on what they like, but if we try to explain why we should be paid, all of a sudden we are judged by the least among us (who incidentally are filling a large demand).

So, why pay us when they can screw us and still get the music ? They know we can't do anything about it, really. It's hard to police the internet and it's easy to find bands to play for cheap or free and easy to get people to come to bars. There are almost no consequences for screwing over people who create intellectual property, except in rare instances of software piracy or large scale IP theft perpetrated on those that have enough money to do something about it in court (ie not musicians).

We can stop playing on an individual level, but there's still an abundant supply, no one will notice.

We're a special class of people whose work is automatically made community property. Too bad that's not equally true for those industries like food, housing, and recording gear for which I have regular expenses.

The point has been completely missed.

If your band can draw people then your band is more desirable to a bar owner than a free band.

The ENTIRE PROBLEM being discussed in this thread boils down to:

"My band is less desirable to a bar owner than a free band, because we draw the same number of people (nobody in particular) and demand to be paid for it. Now I'm mad that the free band "stole" my gig."

If you want to get mad about bands playing for free, you might as well get mad at rain for falling from the sky, mad at fish for swimming in the river, and mad at the sun for rising. It's going to happen.

If you want to STOP free bands from "stealing" your gigs, then you need to improve yourself so that your band will DRAW PEOPLE to your shows, and then you will be BETTER than a free band.

You will no longer be in competition with free bands, they will no longer "steal" your shows, and you'll be a little less angry about the world around you.

 

[Jason P Bass]

To look at this problem from another perspective:

Q: Why would a band play for free?
A: They cannot draw anybody, or they are fools.

Q: Why would a bar owner hire a free band?
A: They draw the same number of people as an overpriced, low quality band for hire.

Q: Why would a bar owner pay for a decent band?
A: They draw many more people than a free band.

This is the natural order of things - simple market forces - the desire for profit is the only motivator for the bar owner.

People can rant about it on the internet, call me dumb or whatever, but it isn't going to change how many people your band draws, therefore it will never solve your problem.

This thread, IMO, is nothing but a pity party for people who cannot draw fans to their shows.

 

[bassbully]

The point has been completely missed.

If your band can draw people then your band is more desirable to a bar owner than a free band.

The ENTIRE PROBLEM being discussed in this thread boils down to:

"My band is less desirable to a bar owner than a free band, because we draw the same number of people (nobody in particular) and demand to be paid for it. Now I'm mad that the free band "stole" my gig."

If you want to get mad about bands playing for free, you might as well get mad at rain for falling from the sky, mad at fish for swimming in the river, and mad at the sun for rising. It's going to happen.

If you want to STOP free bands from "stealing" your gigs, then you need to improve yourself so that your band will DRAW PEOPLE to your shows, and then you will be BETTER than a free band.

You will no longer be in competition with free bands, they will no longer "steal" your shows, and you'll be a little less angry about the world around you.

Yeah all this in a perfect world. Nobody owes you anything and if you draw or not its still up to the venue or owner to pay. Some will and some wont, the ones that won't or pay poorly still will get bands that bring people and I have seen this myself. Look at the pay to play places..you all knock them on TB but we have a few in my area and they are booked solid. Same with the no pay and crap paying clubs. Everyone just wants to play, some for free, cheap, or sell themslves out..whatever. The bars owners,mangers know this all too well. I'm good and know how to work around the issue and do the best I can for my band in my market...thats all anyone can do.

 

[Top_Ten]

The "don't play for free crowd" is suffering under the delusion that working hard at music should inevitably lead to getting paid for playing music.

People put a lot of time into, and work hard at, all kinds of things that they don't get paid for -- stamp collecting, bird watching, coaching a little league team, sailing, restoring vintage cars, etc. You know what those things are called? Hobbies. People do them because they get satisfaction and enjoyment out of doing them. For many of us, being in a band falls into the same category.

Now if somebody wants to get paid to do what I do as a hobby, that's fine -- go for it. But it's not my obligation to stand aside or curtail my hobby in order to make it easier for you. Rather, it's your job to be enough better as a "pro" than I am as a hobbyist to make it worthwhile to pay you to do what I am willing to do for free.

It also does not make sense to argue that nobody expects people in other professions to work for free, so therefore musicians should never work for free either. The reason you don't have a bunch of free plumbers, mechanics, civil engineers, lawyers, receptionists, etc. is because those jobs are generally not a whole lot of fun. Sure people may like their jobs and get satisfaction out of them, but the activities involved are not generally things anyone would do without pay.

Playing music is different -- for many people, it is an inherently enjoyable thing to do. Now, if you choose playing music as your job, you get to do that enjoyable activity rather than spend your days in some less fun job. That's great, but you can't then complain about others who are willing to do that activity for free. You can't have your cake and eat it too, as the saying goes.

 

[cnltb]

unfortunately, too many club owners want something for nothing, and too many bands are complicit in devaluing their own work, and creating those expectations.

+1

 

[aborgman]

How will you have a product that people want to buy, when the next guy offers the same product for free?

You won't.

That is exactly why you have to have a DIFFERENT (and more in demand) product than the guy offers for free.

It's up to YOU to differentiate your product, not up to the guy giving it away to remove his product from the market to differentiate yours.

He has ZERO responsibility towards you.

 

[Floyd Eye]

OK, let's run on the assumption that working bands have nothing to lose by other bands playing free, because if you draw well, clubs will hire you.

That said, don't you think that the proliferation of bands willing to play for free at a minimum lowers the average price a band is able to charge for a gig? Can't we at least all agree that it has a negative impact on live music in general?

 

[aborgman]

OK, let's run on the assumption that working bands have nothing to lose by other bands playing free, because if you draw well, clubs will hire you.

Working bands have nothing to lose - because the gigs aren't theirs to lose.

That said, don't you think that the proliferation of bands willing to play for free at a minimum lowers the average price a band is able to charge for a gig?

I think a proliferation of bands willing to play for free at a minimum lowers the average price an average band is able to charge for a gig.

Can't we at least all agree that it has a negative impact on live music in general?

I think that is completely indeterminate - and it's going to depend on your metrics for measuring "good".

 

[beggar98]

People put a lot of time into, and work hard at, all kinds of things that they don't get paid for -- stamp collecting, bird watching, coaching a little league team, sailing, restoring vintage cars, etc. You know what those things are called? Hobbies. People do them because they get satisfaction and enjoyment out of doing them. For many of us, being in a band falls into the same category.

No one says you should get paid to play as a hobby, but as soon as you play in a venue that is a for profit venture it's no longer a hobby. You've entered the professional world and done so at a cost to other musicians.

 

[aborgman]

No one says you should get paid to play as a hobby, but as soon as you play in a venue that is a for profit venture it's no longer a hobby. You've entered the professional world and done so at a cost to other musicians.

Yep... and semi-pro football players are doing so at a cost to professional football players, and housewives are doing it to hookers, and shadetree mechanics are doing it to real mechanics, and...

What I find hilarious is this idea that somehow the hobby musician has a moral/ethical duty to help out the professional musician.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Working bands have nothing to lose - because the gigs aren't theirs to lose.



I think a proliferation of bands willing to play for free at a minimum lowers the average price an average band is able to charge for a gig.



I think that is completely indeterminate - and it's going to depend on your metrics for measuring "good".

We are friendly with most of the working bands around here. We all try to stick up for each other and help each other out. We all have tons of time and buttloads of money invested in gear, merchandise, etc. I wouldn't say it is my job ( I have a day job), but it is far from a hobby. Since the musicians union ( if it even still exists) is useless, it's really up to all the working bands in any given area to look out for each other. Anything that lowers the standard pay wise or lowers the threshold for what constitutes a good band, is bad for the live music scene, in my opinion. We got enough problems with these young auto tune addicted, DJ, sampling, electronica nerds without shooting our own feet off. Live music and guitar music in general is becoming less and less popular in clubs. I would even try to talk some of these young bands coming up to take a small split on a multi-band ticket and bring them along to open. I try to dissuade them from offering their services publicly for free or falling victim to unscrupulous club owners via Battle of the Bands and ticket selling. I don't look at other bands as my competition, I look at them as my coworkers and homeboys. Every band is different and there is generally room for us all and the music we play. Everyone who works hard to put together an entertaining show deserves to be fairly compensated for it.

That's my opinion for what it's worth.