Slightly different........

[Ox Boris]

When we put our band back together, I strolled into a live music bar in town, told the manager we had a band of experienced guys looking to play once a month and we'd do the first two for free to make sure we're not crap. This we did and the first thing the bar owner did when we turned up was to ask us what beers we wanted in the on-stage esky. Now we're booked on the first Saturday of each month, forever, for 3hrs (2-5pm in the garden) @ $860. Did the same with another venue, we play there once a month on a Friday night, 4hrs for $1250.

The point is:
1. Playing for free isn't the Anti-christ in and of itself.
2. "You get what you pay for" is a meaningless generalisation. Just because you play for free, doesn't mean you're rubbish and have no plan.
3. Live rehearsals are extremely beneficial for a new band. We treat them like a paid gig, with perhaps slightly reduced responsibility for the minutiae. The poster who constructed the massive straw man about stopping mid-song and re-going over it again and again, needs to learn to argue.
4. Bar owners are not exclusively of the wanker variety.

 

[Volunteerk9]

You get what you pay for.

Im with ya but you have to get your foot in the door somehow. Its probably easier for me to say because I'm not relying on music as my source of income.

 

[hrodbert696]

When you're in a startup band, there is a value in getting out live a couple of times just to work the kinks out and get used to playing with each other outside the rehearsal room. You can do it at an open mic, but that means sitting around for an hour waiting for your chance to play three songs through someone else's PA and backline. So I can understand the willingness to do a couple of freebies. I'm doing some with my new cover band. However, we are NOT doing them for full Saturday night gigs in venues that regularly offer live music. We did one 8-10 on a Thursday night in a small place, and we're going to do another on a Saturday, also 8-10, at a place that doesn't normally have bands. I'm regarding them as live rehearsals and not pushing a lot of marketing apart from a facebook event. I think it's worth it for the sake of pulling the band together. But venues that do have a regular business featuring live bands, we expect to be paid.

 

[Joe Nerve]

When people started getting and giving their music away for free there were lots of people saying that didn't effect them also.

When artists at any level start devaluing the work they do, it effects us all.

Am I worried about the OPs band? Hardly. Am I concerned about everyone else's attitude about music and its value? You bet.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Actually the opposite...I played 3-4 night a week 50 weeks a year for well over a decade
I just don't really play for money anymore...I have a "Corporate" day job and now play music on the side to have fun and grow as a musician, if I get paid great, if not so what.....

I have a well paid corporate job as well. I played full time professionally for many years. Been gigging full or part time for about 50 years. I also do it for fun, but I get $100 - $200 a night for it. I do benefits for fee, probably about 6 a year.
I respect your position. My only objection is every time you play a free gig, some guy trying to make it in music

Why church? They make money off the crowd you are playing to. I understand they have expenses, so does every other venue featuring live music.

Please know i'm not trying to take pot shots at religion, i'm not churched but i've got faith, i just don't see how any enterprise that makes money expects musicians to perform for free, or why musicians who refuse to play in other venues that make money off their patrons will make an exception for church.

Worthy causes, i'm there no questions asked, as far as that goes i play about as much for nothing as i do for money, but i don't play for money making venues for nothing. My giving back is music with my family and friends, rehearsals, and such, but if you want me to saddle up, arrive at the appointed time and be a part if a staged production in a venue collecting money from the audience, it only seems fair the band should share in that revenue.

I certainly understand your position. There are churches I consider for profit operations and I would either get paid there or not play - probably not play, but I don't want to go there.
When I play at the churches I do play for free, I consider it my contribution to the success of the church. I didn't put anything in the plate other than my talent.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Why church? They make money off the crowd you are playing to. I understand they have expenses, so does every other venue featuring live music.

Please know i'm not trying to take pot shots at religion, i'm not churched but i've got faith, i just don't see how any enterprise that makes money expects musicians to perform for free, or why musicians who refuse to play in other venues that make money off their patrons will make an exception for church.

Worthy causes, i'm there no questions asked, as far as that goes i play about as much for nothing as i do for money, but i don't play for money making venues for nothing. My giving back is music with my family and friends, rehearsals, and such, but if you want me to saddle up, arrive at the appointed time and be a part if a staged production in a venue collecting money from the audience, it only seems fair the band should share in that revenue.

Because churches (for the most part - there are scams everywhere) are not earning a profit. A bar/music venue is there to make as much profit as possible, like any other business owner.

 

[fhm555]

Because churches (for the most part - there are scams everywhere) are not earning a profit. A bar/music venue is there to make as much profit as possible, like any other business owner.

I have a cousin married to a preacher and in addition to his 100K per year salary he has housing and car provided, and receives a clothing allowance. Granted, he's been at his occupation for a long time and has moved to take different assignments so he's played the game as required to move into the majors after starting in the farm system. He now ministers to a big church in a decent sized city but it is not a mega church, although it is very well attended as churches of it's denomination are in this region.

That said he's very sincere in his beliefs and deeply committed to his work and his flock. I doubt seriously he would abide by, or be a part of any kind of scam related to his faith.

 

[JimmyM]

When people started getting and giving their music away for free there were lots of people saying that didn't effect them also.

When artists at any level start devaluing the work they do, it effects us all.

Am I worried about the OPs band? Hardly. Am I concerned about everyone else's attitude about music and its value? You bet.

If I paint a painting, it doesn't affect what a painting by a real artist gets because I suck.

 

[Bass Viking]

3. Live rehearsals are extremely beneficial for a new band. We treat them like a paid gig, with perhaps slightly reduced responsibility for the minutiae. The poster who constructed the massive straw man about stopping mid-song and re-going over it again and again, needs to learn to argue.

Actually, straw man makes a good point. This idea of live/dress rehearsals in a bar being beneficial to the band is just rationalization for being taken advantage of by a club owner.

 

[Joe Nerve]

If I paint a painting, it doesn't affect what a painting by a real artist gets because I suck.

Art is subjective. Do you want to compare The Stones with Dream Theater?

Why are you assuming the OP sucks, or that anyone looking to give their talents away isn't as gifted, fortunate, or talented as you?

 

[Zebra]

I agree w/this in part but a contractor isn't expected to bring in business per se, but help create an ambience that, yes attracts, but more so keeps patrons there (especially considering how DUI laws have effected the business) which translates into sales. A plumber isn't expected to bring people in, but if the the toilets don't work they ain't stickin around.

In theory that's true, but in reality fewer and fewer venues are working this way. Bars and such realize that hiring a DJ, having a jukebox, etc, is cheaper and often times more alluring than a live band. It relieves the stress of the venue owner having to wonder if they really would have made more money but just not having a band to begin with.

I know we don't want to admit it, but if you survey most people about how much interest local live music holds, the answer is generally very little. There have been threads here where the vast majority of posters admit they have virtually no interest in going out to see a cover band. If the people here won't, who will?

When people started getting and giving their music away for free there were lots of people saying that didn't effect them also.

When artists at any level start devaluing the work they do, it effects us all.

Am I worried about the OPs band? Hardly. Am I concerned about everyone else's attitude about music and its value? You bet.

I have a hard time believing artists' behavior is a significant factor in changes in the music scene when there are huge bullet points like:

1) changing economy
2) changing regulation of nightlife
3) changing technology

I would say those items changed the scene and artists are following suit. People's attitude towards music's value isn't just changing, it's actual economic value as changed as well.

 

[JimmyM]

Art is subjective. Do you want to compare The Stones with Dream Theater?

Why are you assuming the OP sucks, or that anyone looking to give their talents away isn't as gifted, fortunate, or talented as you?

First off, I'm assuming that people coming into that bar to see that band are paying what they'd normally pay to have a little food, a couple drinks and listen to a band, so the process isn't quite as devalued as you're making it sound, at least not to them. Second, it's a fair point you make. But all in all, the vast majority of bands that I've seen that play for free deserved it.

 

[hrodbert696]

Why church? They make money off the crowd you are playing to. I understand they have expenses, so does every other venue featuring live music.

Please know i'm not trying to take pot shots at religion, i'm not churched but i've got faith, i just don't see how any enterprise that makes money expects musicians to perform for free, or why musicians who refuse to play in other venues that make money off their patrons will make an exception for church.

Worthy causes, i'm there no questions asked, as far as that goes i play about as much for nothing as i do for money, but i don't play for money making venues for nothing. My giving back is music with my family and friends, rehearsals, and such, but if you want me to saddle up, arrive at the appointed time and be part of a staged production in a venue collecting money from the audience, it only seems fair the band should share in that revenue.

There are churches that do hire professional musicians to play. But for a lot of church musicians, it's just a form of volunteering that's our way of donating to the life of the community. I don't go play in someone else's church for free, I do it in my own, where I'm a member of the community. If a church that wasn't my worshiping body were to call me up and ask me to play I suppose I would expect to be paid. My cousin did that as a church pianist for years - at a place she otherwise had nothing to do with. The church could hire professional child care workers, building cleaners, teachers, etc. too, but in practice the nature of the community is that everyone chips in to help with the areas where they have opportunity and ability to help.

 

[Sixpack324]

Because churches (for the most part - there are scams everywhere) are not earning a profit.......

That's the funniest thing I've read in quite a while.

Did you do any research before you posted that comment or are you too busy drinking their Koolaid?

 

[buldog5151bass]

That's the funniest thing I've read in quite a while.

Did you do any research before you posted that comment or are you too busy drinking their Koolaid?

Maybe because I've seen the books... at least where I go.

 

[Bassdirty]

Prostitutes cost a LOT less time, money and emotional capital than relationships or even most single dates.
.......

So,..if this is true, than your original point about "wives/gfs not putting prostitutes out of business. ." Doesn't really make the point...

Just sayin.

 

[hrodbert696]

That's the funniest thing I've read in quite a while.

Did you do any research before you posted that comment or are you too busy drinking their Koolaid?

Pfft. Do your own research. Any organization that is supported exclusively by voluntary donations rather than the sale of goods or services is, by definition, not for profit. Whether it gets lots of donations or not many is irrelevant. It is, objectively and factually, not a for-profit organization. The fact that you personally resent people's willingness to donate does not turn it into one.

It would be a disservice to the OP to get her thread closed for no better reason than derailing her thread into one about religion. If you want to make "drinking koolaid" comments, do it in the lobby.

 

[modulusman]

I can respect this point but then we have another issue. If I'm taking someone elses opportunities by having a job and playing, what am I supposed to do? Stop playing live?

Yes, or get in a band that is good enough to get paid.

 

[Bass Viking]

Prostitutes cost a LOT less time, money and emotional capital than relationships or even most single dates.

By that reasoning, it's the prostitutes who are undercutting the wives and girlfriends, not the other way around. No wonder they're still in business!

 

[Ox Boris]

Actually, straw man makes a good point. This idea of live/dress rehearsals in a bar being beneficial to the band is just rationalization for being taken advantage of by a club owner.

Only if they're being taken advantage of by a club owner. In our case, it was beneficial for our new band.