Original bands playing for free: a chronic problem

[cchorney]

Jaysus. Chill out people. It was tongue in cheek.

The fact remains though that bands who go around screwing over all the other bands ...

You're still not getting it. And that is a shame, for you.

Also, I'm not buying the "it was tongue in cheek" backpedal. Your earlier post seemed sincere and your current post still indicates you consider bands that play for free to be a lower form of life deserving of some sort of impromptu comeuppance.

 

[Floyd Eye]

You're still not getting it. And that is a shame, for you.

Also, I'm not buying the "it was tongue in cheek" backpedal. Your earlier post seemed sincere and your current post still indicates you consider bands that play for free to be a lower form of life deserving of some sort of impromptu comeuppance.

Well, let me put it this way. I would never trash ANYONE's gear, nor would I ever resort to violence without a damn good reason. I made the comment tongue in cheek, to emphasize my point and not to sound like some sort of bad ass.

As to your second point, yeah, I think bands that take work from other bands by working for free are just as bad as companies who employ illegal aliens and go around town under bidding companies who use labor that actually contributes to the economy. Even the very newest band trying to get their feet wet should be paid for providing entertainment. Bands who play for free are stealing work from bands who have worked hard and deserve to be paid for the service they provide. There aren't many bands around here who will play for free and when they do pop up they are generally shunned by all the other working bands.

 

[prd004]

First, they make a good living outside music and being in a band is a hobby, so it's for personal satisfaction, not money. If they earn a little now and again from music, that's fine, but being paid is not a deal breaker. I know several guys who do this (myself included these days), and they can smoke a lot of the goofs who think they are God's gift to music.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know a BUNCH of guys who work regular type jobs and are FAR superior mucians/bands than 95% of the working type musicians/bands I've heard.

The thing is musicians pay is crap no matter how good you are or how you slice it. Some do better than others, no doubt, but virtually every working musician I know has to teach and do lame/crappy gigs all the time because they need the money. I don't see many of these guys driving Lexus' and living in mansions either, it's a TOUGH way to earn a living.

I've been down that road and these days I choose to work a regular job that pays FAR superior to typical working musicians pay, (again, I know SOME are doing better than others, I don't need seven guys to jump on here and point out the obvious). And of course, I would much rather be touring the world playing prominent gigs and making a fortune as opposed to punching the time clock mon-fri. However, I would also much rather have a steady good paying job, a solid roof over my head, a nice dependable vehicle, no worries about food, bills, health ins. AND have money to buy nice guitars/basses/amps/mics/studio gear etc., as opposed to playing "Mustang Salley" and "Play That Funky Music" to a bunch of drunks for what that pays!

It comes down to personal choice. I Love music, I love making music. I love writing/recording and performing MY MUSIC and we all know that pays shite, even less than what you can scrape up as a bar/cover band. Not to mention I hate being in a bar/cover band, playing "867-5309 Jenny" and "Sweet Home Alabama" to me that's not what being a musician is about.

I will continue to play gigs, in original music projects because that is what I want to do. Some of these gigs will pay, some won't, but money will be little if any of a factor, and when money isn't a factor it is so much more fun and rewarding.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I try very hard NOT to make it a business. I still make a little from it, but I choose gigs for fun, then worry about the money.

Sorry to say as long as you and others have this attitude you drag the whole live music scene down with you.

You can argure or put a case for your right to do so, but in the end it is you and those like you that create a problem, that grows to become the norm.

Google made almost $30 billion dollars last year. I've never been billed for using their stuff.

Money made from revenue, not customers, FB is about business from a different model. In that model it is advertisers that foot the bill, FB cannot operate for free.

Come on, be serious. Firstly, do you need to be fulltime (and therefore earn a wage) or do you want to be fulltime? There are probably some who need this, but for most it's a choice.

Fulltime on anything means you have to earn a wage, there is no choice, you earn a wage or you cannot be fulltime so there is no choice.

Secondly when I was fulltime it was a very different thing from being a weekend warrior. We worked something like a 35-45 hour week as a band between rehearsals and gigs, plus our own practice time, songwriting time, extra casual gigs, and travel time when playing out of town. No way can I do that as a part timer, and it shows. My playing is not as tight, and the bands I play with are not as tight. The product is less original.

The opening line says it all " when i was full time", you need to be paid to be full time, it is not just the "stage time" that is what being paid for, it is the complete range of skills and time to get to that "stage time". I do not get paid for that couple of hours anyone sees on stage, that is the easy part of the job. Out of a 24 hr day stage time is just 2-3 hrs of paid time, it is the other 21 hrs of un-paid time that costs the money.

If you are fulltime and prepared to work, you can play at a higher standard than I can achieve, accept gigs that I can't do, and create a product much better than I did, if you have the commitment and the talent. And if you don't, why are you fulltime?

Trouble is if you put a truly talented band on stage that is going somewhere and a band that is not, the crowd do not really care. Talent has little to do with this situation.
Once that mix of alcohol and a funtime is mixed, anything that makes a noise and is familier will fit the bill. A crowded bar is no place to get opinions on what is good music and what is not when admission is free.
Nothing will dampen enthusiasm like a door charge.

 

[Rob Martinez]

Well, let me put it this way. I would never trash ANYONE's gear, nor would I ever resort to violence without a damn good reason. I made the comment tongue in cheek, to emphasize my point and not to sound like some sort of bad ass.

As to your second point, yeah, I think bands that take work from other bands by working for free are just as bad as companies who employ illegal aliens and go around town under bidding companies who use labor that actually contributes to the economy. Even the very newest band trying to get their feet wet should be paid for providing entertainment. Bands who play for free are stealing work from bands who have worked hard and deserve to be paid for the service they provide. There aren't many bands around here who will play for free and when they do pop up they are generally shunned by all the other working bands.

Don't worry. No one here thinks you're a bad ass.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Don't worry. No one here thinks you're a bad ass.

No one here knows me, so that's pretty effing obvious homeslice.


If your band steals work from other actual working bands by playing for free, everyone here knows what you are though.

 

[Jason P Bass]

If your band steals work from other actual working bands by playing for free, everyone here knows what you are though.

Here, in very simple terms, is why your analysis is fatally flawed.

Pretend you are a bar owner, and your only goal is to sell alcohol.

"Number One Band" is undiscovered, playing all originals, and will play for free. Hopefully they don't chase your customers away.

"Dewey and the Deuce Band" is undiscovered, playing all originals, and will play for $300. Hopefully they don't chase your customers away.

"Theo and the Threes" is undiscovered, playing all originals, has a strong local following, and will play for $500. Booking them means an automatic extra $1000 in alcohol sales.

Now for the surprise twist - WE'RE NOT PRETENDING. This is the decision that must be made every time somebody books a band for a club. This, boys and girls, is where gigs come from.

And you're in "Dewey and the Deuce Band" and you're upset that "Number One Band" STOLE all your work. This is defective logic. The "Number One Band" provides the same product at a lower price. Your gig wasn't stolen - you were outperformed in a competitive market place.

But what if the bar owner has to choose between "Number One Band" and "Theo and the Threes"? Although Theo will cost him $500 out of pocket, he'll have an extra $500 at the end of the night. A bar owner would be insane to book a band to play for free when the alternative is a band that CAN DRAW PEOPLE.

The problem is not bands that play for free. The problem is bands that cannot draw yet demand to be compensated for irritating the bar customers.

And if I'm wrong ---- well, why is it that I'm not the one who is bitter about the way the world works?

 

[Floyd Eye]

Here, in very simple terms, is why your analysis is fatally flawed.

Pretend you are a bar owner, and your only goal is to sell alcohol.

"Number One Band" is undiscovered, playing all originals, and will play for free. Hopefully they don't chase your customers away.

"Dewey and the Deuce Band" is undiscovered, playing all originals, and will play for $300. Hopefully they don't chase your customers away.

"Theo and the Threes" is undiscovered, playing all originals, has a strong local following, and will play for $500. Booking them means an automatic extra $1000 in alcohol sales.

Now for the surprise twist - WE'RE NOT PRETENDING. This is the decision that must be made every time somebody books a band for a club. This, boys and girls, is where gigs come from.

And you're in "Dewey and the Deuce Band" and you're upset that "Number One Band" STOLE all your work. This is defective logic. The "Number One Band" provides the same product at a lower price. Your gig wasn't stolen - you were outperformed in a competitive market place.

But what if the bar owner has to choose between "Number One Band" and "Theo and the Threes"? Although Theo will cost him $500 out of pocket, he'll have an extra $500 at the end of the night. A bar owner would be insane to book a band to play for free when the alternative is a band that CAN DRAW PEOPLE.

The problem is not bands that play for free. The problem is bands that cannot draw yet demand to be compensated for irritating the bar customers.

And if I'm wrong ---- well, why is it that I'm not the one who is bitter about the way the world works?

In my experience, bands that cannot draw have a hard time getting gigs anywhere at any price. Bands that get paid really well ( mine does not fit into this category, at least not yet) have proven track records of drawing VERY well. My band draws OK. Everywhere we have played we are welcome back at.

I suppose the real flaw in my logic is that a band that can draw, is not likely to play for free. Unfortunately, some bar owners will hire mediocre bands that DO play for free because they are busy regardless of if who plays or if there's even live entertainment. In reality, there are not too many bands around that will play for free. Also in reality I suppose it doesn't matter to me personally because my band does OK. I think it is really bad for the music scene though and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking that.

 

[prd004]

If your band steals work from other actual working bands by playing for free, everyone here knows what you are though.

No one is "stealing" gigs from anyone, they are not yours and you don't own them.


You guys that are in the "buisiness" of music, have to remember that you're in a business. Lets take your EXACT argument but put in another business scenario and see what happens...........

Lets say that I own an autobody shop. I'm very good at what I do and my work is superior to many of the competing shops.
I charge $4000 to paint a car and my cars look phenominal and the paint hold up well over time.
Maaco across town charges $2000 to paint a car. Their paint jobs don't look nearly as good as mine, they fade and peel over the years, but the average joe can't really see the difference when the car rolls out of the shop, and their customers seem happy with what they got.
Are they taking my business? No, they may be hurting my business to an extent, but I don't own the cars I'm painting. The car owner has the right to choose either shop.
Chances are AT LEAST half of the Maaco customers probably wouldn't pay $4000 for a paint job to begin with.
Then there's this third guy, who has a passion for painting cars and does it on the weekends in his garage as a hobby. He does amazing work, and does it because he loves cars and loves painting. Is he taking my customers? No, again people have a right in a free market to choose where they paint their car, and how much they want to spend on the job.

ALL THREE PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO RUN THEIR AUTO BODY SHOP, it's called free market!

Now, let's take it up a notch. Let's say that your shop was the only one on your hometown when you opened it. For years and years you were sucessful and your business was growing. Then ten years into it, Maaco opened up and your business took a substantial dip. Then five years later the hobbyist started painting on the side, and maybe you take another small dip. So then what? You go on an auto body chat forum and complain because these guys are taking your paint jobs away from you?????????

All we have in a free market society is the OPPORTUNITY, nothing else is guaranteed, except the fact that you are virtually guaranteed competition. You have a right to start your business but it's a gamble. You have no guarantee to prosper, no guarantee that another company will come a long and undercut you, and no other guarantees period.

You guys that are in working cover bands, or working hired guns or whatever, guess what? YOU'RE IN A FREE MARKET BUSINESS, DEAL WITH IT OR GET OUT! No one is taking your gigs, you don't own them and there is no entitlement.

 

[Floyd Eye]

No one is "stealing" gigs from anyone, they are not yours and you don't own them.


You guys that are in the "buisiness" of music, have to remember that you're in a business. Lets take your EXACT argument but put in another business scenario and see what happens...........

Lets say that I own an autobody shop. I'm very good at what I do and my work is superior to many of the competing shops.
I charge $4000 to paint a car and my cars look phenominal and the paint hold up well over time.
Maaco across town charges $2000 to paint a car. Their paint jobs don't look nearly as good as mine, they fade and peel over the years, but the average joe can't really see the difference when the car rolls out of the shop, and their customers seem happy with what they got.
Are they taking my business? No, they may be hurting my business to an extent, but I don't own the cars I'm painting. The car owner has the right to choose either shop.
Chances are AT LEAST half of the Maaco customers probably wouldn't pay $4000 for a paint job to begin with.
Then there's this third guy, who has a passion for painting cars and does it on the weekends in his garage as a hobby. He does amazing work, and does it because he loves cars and loves painting. Is he taking my customers? No, again people have a right in a free market to choose where they paint their car, and how much they want to spend on the job.

ALL THREE PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO RUN THEIR AUTO BODY SHOP, it's called free market!

Now, let's take it up a notch. Let's say that your shop was the only one on your hometown when you opened it. For years and years you were sucessful and your business was growing. Then ten years into it, Maaco opened up and your business took a substantial dip. Then five years later the hobbyist started painting on the side, and maybe you take another small dip. So then what? You go on an auto body chat forum and complain because these guys are taking your paint jobs away from you?????????

All we have in a free market society is the OPPORTUNITY, nothing else is guaranteed, except the fact that you are virtually guaranteed competition. You have a right to start your business but it's a gamble. You have no guarantee to prosper, no guarantee that another company will come a long and undercut you, and no other guarantees period.

You guys that are in working cover bands, or working hired guns or whatever, guess what? YOU'RE IN A FREE MARKET BUSINESS, DEAL WITH IT OR GET OUT! No one is taking your gigs, you don't own them and there is no entitlement.

Tell that to all the laid off carpenters who can't find work because the companies they work for can't compete with illegal labor.

I am an ardent capitalist and I have no issues with competition. Fair competition.

 

[prd004]

Tell that to all the laid off carpenters who can't find work because the companies they work for can't compete with illegal labor.

I am an ardent capitalist and I have no issues with competition. Fair competition.

My story had nothing to do with "Illegal Labor" it was about fair market competition and nothing else.

I understand the issues involving Illegal workers, my line of work is littered with them. I had to move out of California to earn a halfway decent wage and still, my income goes down every year as a result of illegal workers.

That's not what I'm talking about

 

[steve_rolfeca]

Sorry to say as long as you and others have this attitude you drag the whole live music scene down with you. ...You can argure or put a case for your right to do so, but in the end it is you and those like you that create a problem, that grows to become the norm.

I understand your point, but I think you over-simplify the problem. I date back to the glory days before pay-for-play, and I can list lots of other factors that have devalued live music, especially on the bar scene. Just for starters:
- declining standards amongst professional musicians (just read other threads on TB for countless examples of outlandish, un-businesslike, customer-unfriendly behaviour on the job)
- the failure of the AF of M to act aggressively to protect our market, and their historic bias towards symphony and session players
- savvy marketing by cut-rate clubs offering second-rate entertainment without cover charges, at the expense of venues that were serious about promoting a viable environment for local and regional artists
- the advent of DJ's, rappers, karaoke and a host of other sources of "live" entertainment
- changing consumer tastes, and the explosion of electronic and other entertainment media, further eroding the market for live music
- the influx of cheap, relatively high-quality offshore instruments and gear, lowering the bar for amateurs (musicians and club owners alike) looking to get into the business

 

[steve_rolfeca]

All we have in a free market society is the OPPORTUNITY, nothing else is guaranteed, except the fact that you are virtually guaranteed competition. You have a right to start your business but it's a gamble. You have no guarantee to prosper, no guarantee that another company will come a long and undercut you, and no other guarantees period.

...No one is taking your gigs, you don't own them and there is no entitlement.

+1

Everyone loves a free market economy...

...until their business starts to fail.

 

[sandmangeck]

This is becoming redundant. The people that understand how the music industry works are ok with bands that get paid, and alright with bands that are not. The people that are upset with the bands that are fine w/ out getting paid seem to be taking out there frustrations with their own bands shortcomings/inability to secure payment.
I've been on both sides of the fence. Made great money doing what I love, and made little doing what I love. Some don't get the fact that to earn a living with music, even prof. bands have side gigs. It is almost impossible to raise a family in todays world just off of gigging.
The fact remains that I have to work 40+ hours a week to support my family. I play in a band and gig out because it's what I love to do. And trust, with the gigs we play w/o monetary compensation, we are not taking any money from greater bands out there. Those bands have contracts with the bars, and great draws.

 

[Floyd Eye]

My story had nothing to do with "Illegal Labor" it was about fair market competition and nothing else.

I understand the issues involving Illegal workers, my line of work is littered with them. I had to move out of California to earn a halfway decent wage and still, my income goes down every year as a result of illegal workers.

That's not what I'm talking about

It's the exact same thing. I have watched my profession go from a skilled profession to almost becoming merely labor. When people will come in and do a job for a third of what anyone else can do it for it ISN'T competition. When a band is willing to entertain bar patrons for free it is not competition either.

 

[Floyd Eye]

This is becoming redundant. The people that understand how the music industry works are ok with bands that get paid, and alright with bands that are not. The people that are upset with the bands that are fine w/ out getting paid seem to be taking out there frustrations with their own bands shortcomings/inability to secure payment.
I've been on both sides of the fence. Made great money doing what I love, and made little doing what I love. Some don't get the fact that to earn a living with music, even prof. bands have side gigs. It is almost impossible to raise a family in todays world just off of gigging.
The fact remains that I have to work 40+ hours a week to support my family. I play in a band and gig out because it's what I love to do. And trust, with the gigs we play w/o monetary compensation, we are not taking any money from greater bands out there. Those bands have contracts with the bars, and great draws.

Certainly not true in my case. My band works as often as we want to and we get paid.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

The upside (in my area, anyway), is that music lovers have become increasingly disenchanted with the bar scene, creating a larger market for small concert venues.

I live in a smallish (350,000 people) university town, and we have a number of small halls that do a steady business promoting live bands, playing original music. The atmosphere is varied, the listening environment is consistently better than any bar (even though many of them are licensed), ticket prices are substantially lower than the stadium circuit, and the music is often better, to boot.

The result is a live music scene that probably isn't as vibrant as it was in the sixties, but is certainly light years ahead of the dark days of the late seventies and eighties...

 

[sandmangeck]

Then you shouldn't be worried about the other bands. What is your bands website?

 

[Floyd Eye]

Then you shouldn't be worried about the other bands. What is your bands website?

I assume you are talking to me. If you scroll up to one of my previous posts, I already basically said the same thing. It really doesn't affect my band. It does however affect the whole music scene and devalues it. Bands are basically getting paid the same as they did in the 70s. Can you name another industry where this is true? Certainly the fault for that doesn't lie only with bands playing for free, but if you add to that the younger generation's lack of enthusiasm for guitar music and their fascination with DJs and electronica, then I think we're getting closer to the real problem.

I have a buddy who has a very successful cover band in SoCal. They usually do over 250 shows a year. It's gotten so bad he joined a freakin' Bon Jovi cover band. Some of us forget that there are guys who's only profession is live music. This type of stuff doesn't hurt bands like mine nearly as much as it hurts bands like that.


My band doesn't have a website. I'm the only member who even has a computer. When we had a different drummer awhile back we had a MS page with a few tunes on it, but MS is pretty useless nowadays.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

I have watched my profession go from a skilled profession to almost becoming merely labor. When people will come in and do a job for a third of what anyone else can do it for it ISN'T competition.

???

I was fortunate enough to be in telecommunications during the boom years, when networked computers started to eliminate millions of clerical jobs. The value of those people's work didn't just drop by 2/3rds- it disappeared overnight.

Sadly, I was still in telecom when newfangled plug-and-play electronics wiped out the labour market for data technicians. Over the course of just a few years, I went from being a highly paid 'phone company "rocket scientist", to hanging on by my fingernails.

Ditto for manufacturing workers laid off because of lower CAD/CAM equipment costs, the legions of monks who were sidelined by Wittenburg's printing press, small farmers done in by cheap refrigerated interstate transportation, and hosts of other examples.

Sometimes your competition is a new technology, that eliminates employment altogether. Sometimes it's someone else willing to work harder than you for a lower wage. Sometimes it's someone in another country, who can live like a king on half of what you make.

Is it comfortable? No. Is it fair? I'm on the fence about that. But it's sure as hell free-market competition, no doubt about it...