Playing "Benefit gigs" (rant)

[bumperbass]

I have no idea why a good band would give away so much free time.

They were just building up a good head of steam when the BP quit. Then a few practices to get me up to speed. Like I said in another thread, this band is a 'deep cuts' type of band.
We do tunes that people like and people know, for the most part, but we might play a cut that didn't make it to radio or MTV, generally kind of like playing 'Heavy Fuel' by Dire Straits instead of 'Sultans of Swing'.
It took me a few practices to jive with them and then we had to do a practice for a fill-in drummer. Now things are on the upswing again.

 

[bumperbass]

Gonna add this, possible benefits of playing benefits ...

2 years ago I got asked to do a benefit on an early Sunday afternoon after I hurt my back badly at a Sat night gig. I belted up my back, popped a bunch of advil, and showed up not happy... but got to play with Ricky Byrd, a guy I looked up to in my younger years. I found video of it, so I'm posting it.

That day wound up totally worth it for me. I had a great time, and didn't get paid a cent. Even paid a toll.

We got to do a little cool jamming around 3:15.

You see, Joe, you get what it's like to play with a good drummer. A good drummer is something appreciated the most by us bass players. It's why I play bass. IMO, there's no way the guitar player feels the vibe in that video as much as you do.

 

[bumperbass]

When we play benefits, we get paid. Otherwise the group receiving the money has no reason to get their act together. They pay for the other costs of the fund raiser, there's no reason they shouldn't pay for music.

Didn't you mean "the group receiving the money has A reason to get their act together"?
That's another reason I hate benefits with multiple bands...it always turns into a 'battle of the bands' type thing.
And judgements..."guitar player in band A is good!" "drummer in band B sucks", etc.

 

[gard0300]

We do 2-3 charity gig per year. Which is about 10% of our total gigs. When we’ve reached that 2-3 range we regretfully decline or tell them we have to charge for the event. It sucks. But, we are a working band and we could literally play charity events 30-40 times a year easy. But, there’s a limit.

 

[Walking]

I am sure learning a lot about this business from these type of threads. I think one thing in common with all rant threads is that in general one has to either accept the state of affairs or quit. If they get rid of members that don't want to play for free, then its hard to imagine any sort of discussion changing the rest of the band members or their frequency of benefits. I was in a band that did no paid gigs--part of a social organization. Its fun at first, but after a while, driving a few hours to a gig, setting up, waiting for it to start, doing the performance, taking down, packing driving a few hours home--the whole day is shot. There was the chance to get free drinks and hit on women. I am a recovering alcoholic who is married--so the perks didn't really do much for me--I quit that band after a while and never regretted quitting, only regretted not quitting sooner.

 

[bumperbass]

I think one thing in common with all rant threads is that in general one has to either accept the state of affairs or quit.

Yeah, that's the truth, if you can't change the state of affairs, that is.

 

[trevcda]

I'm going to totally contradict/reinforce my early post here; sometimes the charity/benefit means enough to you, personally, that you are willing to put your own time/money/resources into it to make it happen. Case in point, I had a friend that managed to turn himself into a quadriplegic, through a tragic water accident. His friends managed to keep him alive until professional help arrived. My company, along with local news and several local contractors raised funds and built his families home into a home that would accommodate his needs. We did a benefit for him and my keyboard player insisted on being paid for his time, despite the numerous benefits I volunteered not only my talents as a player, but my time as a production guy to make his benefits for hurricane Katrina happen. No matter. I paid him because I valued his talents as a keyboard player and making my production happen the way I wanted it to. Pick your battles and make them work for your end result.

 

[retslock]

Tithing, a concept which has been around for 3000 years, seems like a reasonable benchmark here. Even government doesn't take 50% (well, maybe in NYC)

10% of your income or 10% of your gigs but no more.

 

[JMacBass65]

I beg to differ here; if I'm playing a charity gig with 30-50 attendees tops, I'd rather donate $25 out of my wallet than take an afternoon off or kill an entire weekend day to spend time, gas, wear and tear on me and my equipment. Marginally less fun than playing but much less of a resources hit in the end for me. If everybody in your band did that, they'd be that much more ahead. Most small "charity" gigs are pretty much keggers under the guise of a purpose and much like "Bob's Canned Food Drive" mentioned above, are more about the effort than the result. There are exceptions; highly attended, properly organized events that not only significantly advance the beneficiary and do expose the band to a potential client base can be worth while. Want to find out how above board your "charity" is? Let them know that in order to claim your work as a donation, you need to be paid your full amount by the charity and would have to donate it back to them in kind. That scares most of them off.

Love this post, spot on. And your suggestion at the end is brilliant!

 

[Wood and Wire]

Insist on a ratio of 12 paid gigs, to every 1 benefit gig.

If the band is slack, and only plays once a month, they get to do one charity gig a year.

If they're keen to play a charity gig each season, then they have to get a paying gig every week.

That will force you to cast a wider regional net, or risk over exposure locally, and becoming the butt of a joke by bored local patrons, sick of the sight of you.

It will also boost your profile / audience, and by extension boost attendance to any charity events you are playing - making your contribution have real value.

 

[Wood and Wire]

Thanks for all the replies, people.
The band I was with prior to this band never played a charity gig. A friend of the rhythm guitar player in that band used to stop by quite often to hear us play. He was "with the band" sort of.
He always sat at the band table with us, etc.
About 3 years ago the house he was living in with his mom and his uncle caught fire and burned down while he was working out of town. His uncle died in the fire and his mom lived for about 10 days.
Someone arranged a benefit gig and I think about 6 bands were included. We did not volunteer, because the lead guitarist (BL) didn't play for charity.
We were playing an out of town gig about an hour away and Tim (the guy) showed up. He started talking about the tragedy and I guess he just couldn't control himself, but he said something along these lines "I think I found a house to buy. When it's all said and done, I should have about $450,000" (insurance, will, etc.). This was about 3 weeks before the 'event'.
I was really pissed and I said so to the BL; "Hey Frank, can you believe this? He's not cancelling that benefit for him and he's about to get a half-mil stuffed in his pocket".
I never mentioned it to anybody, but that sure put a sour taste in my mouth, which still stands today, I guess.

So all that happened was the guy lost his home, all his belongings, his family photo albums, and two lousy members of his family...

... And he not only had the audacity to collect the insurance that he's paid for, and is entitled to, but has the cheek to not cancel an ad hoc benefit gig?

Where does that guy get off?

Honestly, your old bandleader was right to have a blanket policy, refusing charity gigs ; you never know when some creep is going to try to rip you off, and take advantage of your generosity.

 

[Wood and Wire]

I will give my time and money to select charities.

• Society for lonely attractive models, who only date musicians
• Society for lonely attractive waitresses, who only date musicians
• Society for lonely attractive flight attendants, who only date musicians
• Society for lonely attractive investment bankers, who only date musicians
• Society for lonely attractive scientists, who only date musicians...

So, only the waitresses have to be female?

That sounds oddly prejudiced : what was the bad experience that put you off waiters, as opposed to models, or scientists?

 

[Medford Bassman]

We too limit our benefit gigs. We play about 2-3 a year. IF you don't limit them, around my neck of the woods, we would be asked 3-4 a month to do freebies. Fiscally speaking, it's just not feasible. While we don't mind playing every so often for a benefit of 15-25 people in attendance, we do notice a rather unpleasant attitude.

It's been the band's experience we get more demands for requests, volume change, interruption of our set material, people wanting to "sing" with the band or just simply unrealistic expectations and harsher criticism when doing the free or extremely low paying benefits. I do not know why. I suspect people think you're doing the band a favor by letting them perform, so maybe people are more comfortable with inappropriate demands/comments/requests. I say this as a member of a band that mainly plays weddings with nervous brides/grooms/parents etc. I have found the more money we're paid, the better treatment we receive in general.

 

[kartiste]

There's a band around here that does mostly charity gigs with similar attendance numbers. BL is high net worth, mediocre ability. Other players good to excellent. The few non-benefit gigs are high fee private parties. I suspect tax accounting figures in there somehow.

 

[Royal Marine]

Attendees donate. Staff get paid.

 

[Bass Viking]

It's been the band's experience we get more demands for requests, volume change, interruption of our set material, people wanting to "sing" with the band or just simply unrealistic expectations and harsher criticism when doing the free or extremely low paying benefits. I do not know why. I suspect people think you're doing the band a favor by letting them perform, so maybe people are more comfortable with inappropriate demands/comments/requests. I say this as a member of a band that mainly plays weddings with nervous brides/grooms/parents etc. I have found the more money we're paid, the better treatment we receive in general.

This makes sense. Money = respect. I`ve experienced being taken for granted when volunteering for a musical production that was for charity. I did this show for several years and watched them get greedier with less regard for the volunteers e.g. clamping down on complimentary food and beverages.

 

[marmadaddy]

I’ll say this, I’ve been to places around the world where I’ve seen people who have NOTHING.

Where the musicians are playing instruments that you wouldn’t even give someone you don’t like lol. And what I’ve learned is this playing music and having the ability to play music and the gear to do so is a blessing in itself.

For every gig whether it’s a benefit or paying gig there is a musician who is sitting playing a guitar or bass with just one or two strings...(yes I’ve seen this in Iraq and Kuwait) so I’ve learned to just be happy playing music whether it’s a benefit or paying gig. Just be happy.

Does not compute. "Other musicians play with worse equipment than you so you should be happy to play for free". aka the Invalid Link Removed. Just because others have it worse than me doesn't mean I should completely devalue my time and abilities.

 

[QORC]

Musicians that play a lot of benefits are usually suckers. it's a scam

 

[sunnyboy010101]

I'm going to throw another comment into the mix. You see, I also blow glass (i.e. make vases, bowls, drinking vessels, ornaments, etc.).

Guess what? I'm always getting asked to donate a piece to some charity event. So are all the other glassblowers I know. So are all the good painters I know.

Basically there is a general devaluation of everything "art" in this world. If you're an artist, you will be so humbly touched and honored to be chosen to donate your art for FREE to some cause that you will just break down in grateful tears of joy.

B.S.

The world is full of people who get paid a wage for doing their job. Yet somehow everyone has fallen for the nonsense that artists should be "honored" to work for free. The usual song-and-dance is mumble-mumble EXPOSURE, but I honestly do not know a SINGLE ARTIST who ever made a sale from doing or giving away free work.

If you work for free, you tell everyone exactly how much you value your own work.

 

[Walking]

...It's been the band's experience we get more demands for requests, volume change, interruption of our set material, people wanting to "sing" with the band or just simply unrealistic expectations and harsher criticism when doing the free or extremely low paying benefits. I do not know why...

I used to hang with some lawyers and they were adamant that people value their services in equal amount to what they pay for them--giving people a price break leads to the opposite from what one would expect--disdain rather than gratitude.

I recall Pete Townsend in an interview explaining he originally asked Jim Marshall for high powered amps and large speakers primarily to repel those who tried to approach him while performing.

To my thinking, if a band leader has a wife who derives status and praise from getting a free band to events, the band leader should pay the band members--to me there is nothing generous about pressuring others you have power over to work without pay.