Playing For Free

[Mister Acrolite]

I'd pay for the chance to play.

If you come over to my house, and give me $200, I'll let you play. Noon to four, forty minutes on, twenty off. Not too loud, and you need to take requests. And I'd prefer that you dress nicely.

I'll need a money order, cashier's check, or cash.

Oh, and don't be late - I'll charge you extra.

[Christopher]

I'll only charge you $199 for the same.

You have to bring your own kit though.

Oh, and set it up in front of mine.

I am the headliner after all...  ;) :-X ;)

[mediablamer]

That's really unfair for bands trying to make a living doing music IMO.

And it's not unfair to ask that amatuer musicians don't undersell those who are trying to make a living? Many, many people enjoy playing music, and would do it for a living if they had the chance. Most of those enjoy playing so much that they'll do it for free. Asking them to demand more money, which could cost them opportunities to play, so others can make a living is just plain selfish. These musicians want to play for a living just as much as anybody, but they realize that it's just not realistic. They work at a job- probably unenjoyable- that society values enough for them to make a living. Why do they have any obligation whatsoever to give somebody else the chance to live the dream life as a professional musician?

I can promise that when I'm working 9-5 Monday through Friday, if I want to play a show on Saturday night to relax, I will undersell the competition. If they expect to be hired for more than me, they should be able to draw enough extra revenue so that it's worth paying them the extra money. If I don't undersell, then I watch another lousy edition of SNL, while they get to play and make money. Maybe that's fair to them, but it's certainly not fair to me.

It's a simple economic reality. The supply of capable and willing musicians is far greater than the demand for them. If you want to make money playing music, good for you. Once you introduce money, whether you like it or not, the rules of economics govern the situation. You have to be able to provide a service that's sufficiently valuable to enough people so that you can pay the bills. If you have to tamper with the supply and demand of it for it to be profitable for you, it's probably not a very realistic career.  

[devtrirob]

howdy,
Well it's a given thing here in Montreal,Ca to play for free,it's actually "PAY TO PLAY" , this bar we play on a regular occasion is  $150 deposit,if the bar makes at least $1000 that night you get yr deposit back,plsu they have a soundman there but we pay him $50 for the night,we charge $5 at the door,and have someone of our own to collect the door fee.The worst thing is it's the cheapast place we can find here,although someone started booking bands at the Hard Rock Cafe,they give you the tickets that you can sell at the $$$ you want,and he takes $1 from each  tickets sold and we get the rest,some places will charges us $300 to $500 deposit to play.

It's sad to see our music scene here in Montreal being so bad,when i remember going back 10years i could play .thursday,Friday,Saturday for $350,thoose bars are either closed,not hiring bands anymore or simply have been burned by sucky bands........so one thing left to do "PAY TO PLAY"

[felix]

I'm sticking to my guns on this one.  Whoever plays for free or next to ruins it.  Get creative and make a buck.  I've made good money playing originals, better than even playing stale standards at weddings and clubs.  If you are smart, you can do it.

And as far as covers not being original- I don't buy that for a second.  A band and musician leave there "stamp" on anything they play.  I know I do when I play covers.  And when I play or compose an original; how many of those elements are already in music that's been played?  All of it!  As far as tribute bands go- I don't want to get into that yet.

So many crap bands out there.  The trick is being in a great band and making good money.

[Jon E]

The trick is being in a great band and making good money.

I think sums it up.  If you are good enough to demand the $$$, you will have no problem getting the $$$$.

[Mark Schlipper]

And as far as covers not being original- I don't buy that for a second.  A band and musician leave there "stamp" on anything they play.  I know I do when I play covers.  And when I play or compose an original; how many of those elements are already in music that's been played?  All of it!  As far as tribute bands go- I don't want to get into that yet.

If this was directed at my comments, they were taken too literally.   The cover band example was just that, an example.   The nature of the argument was popularity, not covers vs. originals.

The trick is being in a great band and making good money.

That is a helluva trick.  And more power to those that can pull it off.   But remember ... GREAT ... is highly subjective.  

I think we're all just going to have to agree to disagree here.    I will continue playing music I love for whatever I can get for it.   If that means your band doesnt get a gig, so be it.   Its just business.   Nothing personal.    But generally, those bands that make money, make money for the venue, which makes it more likely they'll get the gig anyway.  

Id love to be breaking even, let alone making profit, with each gig.   But asking for it won't necessarily make it so.

[Mister Acrolite]

I think sums it up.  If you are good enough to demand the $$$, you will have no problem getting the $$$$.

That's not been my experience. Instead, the sort of thinking Mediablamer has been voicing is more consistent with what I've encountered.

I'm playing better than I ever have. But other than when I'm touring with a national, I make the same or less money per "normal" gig than I did 20 years ago, due to the economic principles Mediablamer so proudly describes. And in many cases, the paying gigs simply aren't there anymore. I work MUCH less than I used to - so does everybody I know locally.

I'm not whining, just observing. It's a tough line of work, and the willingness of people to play for little or no money - and the lack of discernment on the part of the audience that enables this scenario - have made it tougher now than ever.

[Jon E]

Quote from: Jon E on Today at 06:42:14 PM
I think sums it up.  If you are good enough to demand the $$$, you will have no problem getting the $$$$.

I realize that statement was probabaly an overgeneralization, and over-simplified, but I still it's based in truth.  If someone has a product that people really want, they can demand a higher price for it.  If that product is the same as a thousand others then they need to charge what you can get, take what the market gives, or find a different way to make their living.

I understand the seriousness of this topic for many of us, but don't really see a change coming.  Musicians are hired help, but there ain't no minimum wage.

[Roger Beverage]

Only for bona fide charities and only on a limited basis. They have to provide good exposure, that we may get more gigs from. There isn't  a lot of work for a 16 piece band but we make sure to at least meet expenses.
 
We will play dance music for WWII vets for gas money.  A wedding at a posh resort is good for $2000.  Most of our gigs pay $40 -$60 per musician.

We had been invited to play a jazz festival style fund raiser for the parks and recreation dept.  of a nearby city. They had been trying to get us for two years.  We reserved the date for them and passed up other gigs for this event.  I called to confirm the engagagement and was told that they had five bands who wanted the exposure and would play for free.  

I can't imagine a fundraiser concert without some sort of headliner but I can believe that they will get exactly what they paid for. They offered us another date which we turned down, being previously engaged.  Seems that this date would have paid only $200, which was the same amount budgeted for each of the other bands and that they would have been paid if they hadn't collectively opened their big mouths and volunteered to play for nothing.

Even if one only wants to play as a hobby, it only makes sense that there should be sufficient income to support it.  




Roger

[Gregg Rivers]

I have to say I'm in with felix for the most part! It never ceases to chap my behind when a club owner retorts; "I can get "blah blah blah band" for free!" right after I tell them what we charge! What really gripes me is that same low down club owner will pay another cover band twice what we asked for the next weekend! They just try to jack you around and garage bands that come in and do it for nothing make it real hard for guys like make enough dough to cover my sticks!
I have tens of thousands of dollars invested in just my equipment (PA, mics, drums ect). We're a completely self contained band with the exception of a decent light show. We have a few cans but nothing extraordinary. All that, plus years of experience, practice and rehearsal time. I think I'm entitled to a little cabbage for the effort. We do a good show and we try our best to do the best performance every time we play. It's a JOB we take seriously!
I'm not trying to make a living at it because I'd starve! But it really ticks me that club owners get all huffy when I ask them for about $100 more for a 4 hour show than I was getting TEN YEARS AGO! Why? Because Joe Blow got some of his school buddies together, borrowed dad's credit card and bought some crap PA and they'll play for FREE! I'd like to kick their butts, but I'm afraid I'll get crap on my shoe from their full diapers!
Now as for benefit for charities! I'm IN! We've helped raise nearly 25 THOUSAND dollars over the past two years for the Army Emergency Relief Fund. It helps military members and their families serving our country! I'm proud we had the opportunity to help those folks. In May, we'll do a free show to benefit the American Cancer Society. Beings I'm a Cancer Survivor, I think it's time I give back! We're also planning another show in June to benefit the US Service men and women. So yeah, there's a time and place for a free show. But the Club Owners pocket ain't it! ;) That's all I got to say about that!

[orihood]

The group I'm with plays for free every Monday night at a local club. It's our band practice and we invite others who attend to contribute their talents as well.

The owner charges a very minimal cover charge to visitors re the electricity/water we use. Its a fair trade off as we see it to have heat in winter, cool in summer and a clean restroom.

We play occasional benefits for those in need in our community, but when we play any other venue we charge the owner a reasonable fee based upon his cover charge and the crowd we bring in.

Playing free has its benefits for us and we have never been abused re pay when a venue is using us to make it money.

[Chip Donaho]

If I go to an audition, and it's a band playing in bars for free I walk out. I want nothing to do with them. This is one business that you create what you're worth.... I'm worth more than nothing.  But if the band plays paying gigs and does an occational charity for good reason I have no problem with that. But bar owners are taking advantage of free bands and these musicians are letting them get by with it. Until they draw the line the bars will keep doing it. I love playing music, but not supporting bar owners who don't support our trade. There has to be a line drawn.... I wish people would see that.   :-X  If I play for free then all these years has been waisted and I've made a step backwards. I refuse to bring my standards down to that level.   ::)

[SteveR]

I guess I should re-answer this question with the qualifier of what genre your band is playing.

If you're playing in an original up and coming band looking for a record deal and you have to do free gigs to get exposure and gain a 'following', more power to you.  

In my case, I play in a band that plays the corporate party circuit.  11 band members, all but 2 have music degrees.  2 have masters degrees and 2 have doctorates.  This band was put together specifically to make money playing this circuit.  We make minimum $150 per band member per gig.  Playing free gigs is not an option for us.  We've all put in WAY too much time, effort and rehearsals (the bandleader is a slave-driver) to work for free.  

We played at a club for NYE 2 years in a row (2002 and 2003).  The first time we played there, they booked us for next NYE in January.  The club changed management, another band came in and undercut us and played NYE 2004.  We played for a different function there a few weeks ago and heard nothing but complaints about the band that played this year.  The new manager said everyone was requesting to have us play but he went with the cheaper band instead and now he regrets it.  

So in this case, the manager learned a lesson and he will be trying to book us for this NYE.  But you know what?  Now that we have this bargaining power (everyone was asking where we were) it's gonna cost him.

I guess my point is, well, I forgot what my point is.  It's late.  What I'm trying to say is that the question posed in the thread title is way too broad to have a 'right' or 'wrong' answer.  It all depends on your situation.

[Gregg Rivers]

I'm not a fan of playing for "exposer" either. In my experiences that's just another LIE club owners come up with to get you to play for free! Exposer to whom? Record reps? Dude if you suck it doesn't matter who you play in front of, you ain't getting a record deal. And if you THAT good, what the heck are you doing playing for free? You should be the highest paid band around! Playing for free is just a rip bro. It rips YOU off and rips the rest of us trying to pay for sticks and drum heads!

[Mark Schlipper]

I'm not a fan of playing for "exposer" either. In my experiences that's just another LIE club owners come up with to get you to play for free! Exposer to whom? Record reps? Dude if you suck it doesn't matter who you play in front of, you ain't getting a record deal. And if you THAT good, what the heck are you doing playing for free? You should be the highest paid band around! Playing for free is just a rip bro. It rips YOU off and rips the rest of us trying to pay for sticks and drum heads!

How can you argue the validity of exposure?  What band comes out of the gate with a substantial draw without ever playing a gig?  None!   You need exposure to create a fan base, you need a fan base to make money.  

[Roger Beverage]

but I can't imagine some collective effort by musicians to help each other make more money actually creating a utopia that allows all musicians more chances to play.

If musicians would band together and stop doing that, then bar owners would have to anty up. Kind of a sore spot with me....    :-X   ::)

It's called a union.

Roger

[mediablamer]

If you want to make money doing something, people have to want it done, and either they don't want to do it themselves, they're incapable, or both. Fortunately, I am blessed with an aptitude and passion that is in high demand and short supply. Few people have my aptitude for math, and even fewer enjoy it as much as me. (I say this not to brag, but simply out of appreciation for my situation). Math is the one thing that comes before music for me, which is why I'm going to major in math with a minor in music.

Despite my enjoyment for math, I will expect fair compensation for whatever job I take.  There is a price at which it is more profitable to hire me than to hire a less qualified applicant, and that's my expectation of compensation. The same logic applies to SteveR's situation, for example.  His band was worth a certain amount to the event, and the other band was worth a different amount. The owner overpaid the other band, and it cost him.

Realistically, the "professional" musicans won't be competing for too many gigs with me. I play primarily for the satisfaction of knowing people enjoy my music. Watching barflies drunkenly slur through Freebird certainly does not qualify for that standard. I'd have to be paid more than my market value before I'd be willing to play in most clubs or bars. I simply won't have the time to have the level of mastery of my instrument necessary for situations that SteveR's band plays. However, there are probably similar situations that just cannot afford to pay for that quality of musicianship, and they will probably hire musicians like me instead. I would still try to get a fair wage for it, but if it's my recreation I'm not going to price myself out of the gig.

Most of the playing I do with be for charitable events anyway. It might just be charitable in the sense that I'm not playing at a bar that underpays the band, but charges customers for the chance to see them. If I play simply to give people a chance to hear music for free, I'm underselling the bar, in which case, I'm indirectly helping the "starving musicians." This could draw people away from the bars and clubs, thus forcing them to pay for acts that people are willing to pay to see.

I consider myself an amateur musicians, and I will always be an amateur musician. My mission as a musician is to have a fun time making music with others, while providing others the chance to hear us if they wish.

[Gregg Rivers]

How can you argue the validity of exposure?  What band comes out of the gate with a substantial draw without ever playing a gig?  None!   You need exposure to create a fan base, you need a fan base to make money.  

That's a farse in my opinion! If you're good enough to play in a club, you're good enough to get paid something for the effort. If your musicianship is worth nothing to you, how can you expect it to be worth anything to anyone else? Mark! You're better than that! ;)

[mediablamer]

I know what a union is, and that's exactly my point. A "musicians' union" is nothing more than an attempt to bully the market to get more money for musicians. In the short term, it would protect musicians from being underpaid. It might even allow for more people to have the chance to play professionally. In the long term, it would unnaturally inflate the price until the demand can no longer support it. At this point, consumers seek alternative means of acquiring the service. The bars and clubs can't afford to pay the musicians what they demand because there aren't enough people who can afford to pay enough to see them. They can make more money by hiring a DJ or some other form of entertainment. Eventually, all of the musicians who play for enjoyment will get sick of not playing, and they'll decide to play for whatever money they can get.

Of course, this is assuming that those who play for enjoyment would join it in the first place. I know I would never join because I can see right through it. I'm not naive enough to expect that it's actually going to stop at demanding fair compensation for playing. If somebody else's value drops because I'm willing to play for less, then they never actually were that valuable in the first place. If they were, they would get paid like it because it would be profitable to pay them that much. I certainly don't think there's anything unfair about taking something away from somebody who never actually had it in the first place. That's the simple reality of wanting to make money doing something that's so widely enjoyable. The only way around this, is basically to try to ask musicians to ask for money when they don't care about it. At which point, the argument returns to the top of this post.

I'd like to think a musicians' union would ensure that all musicians recieved fair wages, but based on my observations of people in my nineteen and a half years, I strongly doubt their ability to avoid letting greed corrupt it.  Again, that is assuming it would ever form in the first place.