General Music Chat

if we DON'T have to lug a PA, if we can play in front of a large crowd (most of whom have not heard of us before), and if we only play an hour or less (gives me more time to go fishing). Seriously, playing for charity is a great thing but it should be done sparingly, otherwise you'll be playing more and more for charity. Later...

Wegman said it all people. I didn't even need to read more than half of his first post to see that he knows what the deal is. Simple economics. Why do sanitation workers make more than musicians, even though they have less skill? Because no one wants the job..........but 'everyone' wants to be a performer.............you know......money for nothin, and your chicks for free........right? Supply and demand.

It's called a 'labor of love' because that's what you get paid........love. A wise man once said "Find a job that you love, and you'll never 'work' another day in your life". If that job is musician, you may not eat either.

The line by Bernie Taupin in Elton John's 'Goodbye Yellow Brick road' comes to mind, about one who has given up on the star fantasy:

"Maybe you'll get a replacement, there's plenty like me to be found,
mongrels who ain't got a penny, sniffing for titbits like you on the ground."

If you can live with your parents until your 40, or don't mind sleeping in your van while you tour........then you can probably do it full time. I like to play, but trying to make a living at it is the last thing I would ever do.

And, in fact, I would guess that's what most musicians do because they don't do it for a living. But I started this thread to address those of us who DO play for a living (we exist, believe it or not) and what to do about pockets of attitude that hold it's somehow ethical to ask a professional musician to play for you, for free.

Supply and demand are simple Smithian economics and no one disputes that. But it is illogical and unethical to expect professionals to play for free merely because their amateur counterparts do.

Gopher, you asked:
Why do sanitation workers make more than musicians, even though they have less skill?
.
Well, that's possibly probably part of the problem, isn't it?
There are musicians who don't know as much about music as the sanitation workers know about sanitation.
And those musicians will do anything to get in front of an audience.
They just want to act cool in front of a crowd; music is their medium.
.
I've heard people who were, basically, just practicing on stage, trying to play/learn how to play the songs right . . . and strutting & making grimaces and all, as if they were really wonderful . . .
.
Again: Not playing on stage, but practicing on stage. There's a big difference.
.
Another part of the problem might be that many listeners nowadays don't recognize badly-played or poorly sung music for what it is.
Maybe they haven't been exposed to enough real musicians . . . but, for whatever reason:
. . . if the majority of the audience can't recognize bad music, then the club owners don't care, either, as long as they're selling drinks . . .
.
. . . a poor state of affairs, indeed . . .

Ok .... lets see if I can help you figure out why your being paid so little.... its not that difficult of a concept.

Its because ... when fans go to a bar/club to listen to music ... thats exactly what they are there for .... the "music" ..... not "you". Fans don't give a rats ass what band is on the stage ..... and ... they will only hear half the GIG anyway because of their own activities at the table ... and when they leave the bar/club at the end of their evening .... they likely won't take the time to wave bye to you.... or even care to remember what the hell your name was.

You didn't bring the fans to the bar... the existance of music did. And as long as you don't totally suck.... the fans will sit, drink, and listen.

While on the same note .... the bar owner knows that even if you weren't there ..... he'd still have customers. In a 200 seating bar the owner knows that sayyyyyyy 100 of those seats will be filled up anyway .... without you.... and without music. So he is paying a band to fill up the remaining 100 seats ... not the 200 seats in total. (in this example that is)

So when you apply a little economics to the equation .... the bar owner decides what he is going to pay the band by assuming the marginal increase in fan count from the base expectation divided by the income at a medium from that marginal increase equals the incentive to hire a band ... or said another way.... what the band's paycheque will be.

Now keep in mind .... if the bar owner is earning sayyyyy $20 per hour per table .... of the tables he listed in his equation of expected customers .... he isn't going to like earning only $20 per hour on the tables listed in his marginal increase equation because its those particular tables alone that must pay the band's paycheque. $20 per hour minus band's paycheque equals a marginal decrease at a medium parity.

The tables that would have been filled up with customers without music .... won't be credited with the expense of having the band. Only the marginal gain is credited with the marginal cost..... or .... if you prefer ... each department paying for itself.

In short .... your paid so little because nobody wants "you".... they just want "music". And music .... is pretty close to FREE these days ... especially on the internet.

If the Bar owner needs "you" to play ... you'll likely get paid a fair share. If the bar owners only needs your music ..... lmao ..... your screwed.

Like I said in another post in the Canadian section of this forum... you market the artists .... not the music ...... for only the artist can earn money.... not the music. Your concentrating on the wrong comodity.

Mr. Mage, I see you beating that horse over and over again.

Now, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you, but your replies tend to be rather long. I think you would do better with shorter responses that were more to the point.

I had a college professor that you remind me of something fierce. The gentleman was very knowledgeable, but his responses were so long that he left most of us in the dust.

After the midterm he was appalled by the lack of performance in his students. He asked us in a class session where we felt he went wrong. No one answered him. I approached him after class. He was sure I was incorrect in my estimation. I suggested that he survey the class to find out what they really felt without fear of reprise.

Next session he surveyed us and found out what he had wanted to know. His lectures were so long winded, that his message was lost to all but a select few.

Short and concise allows all to grasp what you are trying to make clear.

And exactly which horse am I beating over and over again?

See ... short message don't really tell you much now do they.... i'm left with questions after your short message ...lol.

I disagree with the mage:

Stating "fans don't give a rats ass what band is on the stage" is a contradiction. No one needs Webster to define what a "fan" is...if the fan didn't care what band was playing, then neither he nor she is a fan, of the artist or the music.

In my part of the world, some bar/club owners prefer live music to digital (mp3, cd, etc...), and some bar/club owners prefer certain live musicians to others, because of style, experience, talent, personalities, music choice...a lot of different reasons. And those bar/club owners bring back those musicians because people come and listen to them and spend money.

And some of those people even wave goodbye when they leave...

And if you don't totally suck, some of those people just might come back to listen again, and perhaps brings others with them.

I don't see it as a contradiction .... as a "fan" is what they are.... but ... a "fan" of what?

If they are a fan of the music ... why would they care which band actually played it ... the bar owner has the option to choose from various artists to toss out to the crowd the music they want.... and it will work as long as it sounds good .... this is where the artists gets paid little.

If they are a fan of the artist .... then the bar owner has problems. No matter what music he offers .... he will fail to satisfy the customers... and this is where the artists can earn more money.

Suggesting that a person can't be a fan of just one or the other ... is not correct. I can be a fan of the music the artist is playing .... while not liking the artist. Simply by saying ... hey... cool song .... lousy singer ... but .... cool song. I like that guy that sang just before him.... he had an awesome voice ... not my style of music though.

When I went to the bar with friends..... we wanted music and booze... thats it.... nothing more.... and as long as the band sounded good ... we didn't give a rats ass who they were.

Ok... i'm starting to see that dead horse lol.

If it is true...

Govt. Mule does it right!!!

I had a friend tell me that Govt. Mule records their live performances professionally, direct through the PA and then sells them to fans signed up with them for a nominal fee. If true, that would defeat alot of the bootleggers at their shows. Why pay a bootlegger for a sub-par recording, when you can get a professionally recorded version from the band itself?

Smart band. That's adapting.

I am with Craig, "adapt and overcome". If the USMC uses it, then how bad can it be?

OK, I see this is devolving to "Nightclubs are the only possible venue for working musicians again". Let's puuuullllll ourselves out of that one and get back on track. It is one...ONE....possible venue for working musos and a piss poor one at that, in current times. I have posted and reposted about other (better) venues so I won't repeat it here.

One of the reasons that nightclubs and bars suck such ass today as a decent venue for the average working musicians is because they are in meltdown from the RoadHouse age. I'm not sure how old everyone is here, but when I was a teen, the "Road House" was the happening venue for any decent rock band on the road. Every city had one, some had many. They were like very large bars, with a much larger than normal stage area, good lights, and two or three levels of tables in a sort of amphtheater shape. It was where any and all could go to see good touring acts in a "bar" setting. And it was a vibrant scene. It provided a bread and butter revenue machine for traveling bands. Well today the Road House has disappeared, and in the meltdown a large sucking sound is heard because its all been reversed. NOW clubs are providing less stage space, less accomodations, and in many cases less to NO pay for traveling acts. It's crazy, but its what they are doing. That is why I am so down on it if you are serious about being a professional.

On the notion that people don't go to nightclubs to hear and see personalities, but hear music. That is a half truth. There are many musicians who have a following because of their personalities, not just because they play well. Hell in some cases they don't even play well. When people pay 50 bucks a head to hear Iggy Pop at some local dirt joint, it aint because Iggy Pop is a world class singer, I can gaurantee you that. They pay because it's IGGY POP. Same went for Sid Vicious. He absolutely SUCKED at playing, but was such a personality hit that he almost never played for anything less than a packed house in his tragically short life.

The bands that suck will never make it to the bar/nightclub scene and this is the vast majoritiy of the music base, and thus why the conversation has drifted in that direction. Most are lucky just to get there. You are in different league I guess Irminsul, the minority if you will so be thankful.

Of those who play the night club scene very few will be good enough to ever make it to the corporate, special event scene.

Of the corporate, special event scene how many of these will actually be worthy of commanding large outlays? And the ones who do, are phenominally talented.

Here are the salaries of the those in the New York Philharmonic. The New York Philharmonic mind you.

http://www.icsom.org/settlement/nyphil.html

How many here have attended, let along graduated from Juliard? How about Berkely? How many here have degrees in music? How many here have an albums worth of studio quality original material?

Now what does everyone think they themselves are worth? Anybody here capable of playing for the New York Philharmonic? IF so, you see the pay, guaranteed. Go audition.

I hate to be a buzz kill but this is the deal. If you want to get "paid" these are the credentials you have to bring to the negotiating table.

I hate to be a buzz kill but this is the deal. If you want to get "paid" these are the credentials you have to bring to the negotiating table.

Again, that's a misread of the topic thread. You are talking about varying amounts a musician can get paid (from a six digit NY Philharmonic player to a guitarist making 60 bucks an hour for a wedding). This thread is about getting paid AT ALL if you are a professional.