Interesting thread--and polarizing, obviously.
I would point out the diff. between a musician playing gigs (or at least attempting to) and normal employment; perhaps this will clarify the "work" element. For most employment, you need to submit an application, resume or CV, go through a screening process, interview, perhaps some testing... W/ gigs, maybe a tape or CD demo, perhaps some word-of-mouth, or maybe you know the venue manager/owner and get in that way. W/ normal employment, you typically need to agree--in writing--to certain terms specified by the employer, whereas w/ gigs, it's typically the performer who requires a written agreement--if at all. W/ normal employment, the employer typically supplies the necessities for completing work (tools, machinery, sundry supplies, etc.), whereas w/ gigs, the performer is usually required to bring his/her own. Employers often specify a level of training and education required to be considered for a position; there is typically no such requirement for musicians. I'm sure we can all come up w/ more examples, and there are all sorts of gradations between.
My point here is that perhaps it's a bit disingenuous to consider music in the same context as employment/work. Sure, there are musicians who do it as their sole means of income, and some who are able to do so quite successfully. But that isn't the norm. For every one who can make a decent living as a musician, there are at least 1000 others who do it on the side, as a hobby or second income. That is far more typical.
Let's give the venue owners/managers some credit, as well. True, there are some disreputable sorts who will try to rip off musicians whenever they can, but far more are typical business types who are looking to boost their bottom line. Like anyone else, they are looking to make the most while spending the least, and as above, there are all sorts of gradations. Every venue recognizes that folks like live music, and having it will increase the margins for food & drink. Hiring a lesser act will typically mean less of a return but a lower cost up front, while hiring a popular, known act will mean paying more up front--maybe charging a cover, which may give patrons cause for pause, depending on the amount--but will usually result in a better return. It's simple economics based on human nature. At least in this context, there is a corollary to normal employment; hiring a skilled, experienced person w/ a track record will typical cost more, but will also likely result in increased production and hence, bottom line. Still, much like most musicians themselves, music is usually secondary to a venue's primary revenue stream.
I've experienced a number of diff. situations. Back in the day, when I was in college/grad school, I played 4-5 nights a week to cover rent, utilities and food, and while it was significant, it was secondary to my primary function as a student. In other words, I knew I would be stepping into a career once I graduated, and that career wasn't music. You ask most musicians how they would feel about playing 4-5 nights a week and being able to cover all their living expenses from it, and they'd say that's a pretty good deal. (Altho as we get older, our needs change.)
These days, I'm more about the music; like some posters in this thread, if I never played another gig, it wouldn't have any affect on my standard of living. Still, like anyone else, I like to be paid; after all, the venue is boosting it's bottom line, and I feel I deserve something for my efforts. In that context, I would play a gig doing music I really love for less money than I would a gig doing music I'm not all that crazy 'bout--if I even agreed to do such a gig at all. But I also consider I'm older and have the heaviest rig to haul and set up/tear down, and as we all recognize, there are always costs involved w/ showing up and playing. If I'm asked to do a piano bar gig where's there's a baby grand at the venue, I'll take even less--esp. if they throw in a decent meal on top of it. After all, I only need to show up w/ my music, and won't need to either buy dinner or go home and cook afterwards. Regardless, I need to make something, but how much is dependent on the circumstances. The only way I'll do a free gig is if it's for a good charitable cause that I endorse. That doesn't happen very often. Everyone else needs to make it worth my while. Most of the musicians I know--and there are quite a few--see it much the same way.
I would point out the diff. between a musician playing gigs (or at least attempting to) and normal employment; perhaps this will clarify the "work" element. For most employment, you need to submit an application, resume or CV, go through a screening process, interview, perhaps some testing... W/ gigs, maybe a tape or CD demo, perhaps some word-of-mouth, or maybe you know the venue manager/owner and get in that way. W/ normal employment, you typically need to agree--in writing--to certain terms specified by the employer, whereas w/ gigs, it's typically the performer who requires a written agreement--if at all. W/ normal employment, the employer typically supplies the necessities for completing work (tools, machinery, sundry supplies, etc.), whereas w/ gigs, the performer is usually required to bring his/her own. Employers often specify a level of training and education required to be considered for a position; there is typically no such requirement for musicians. I'm sure we can all come up w/ more examples, and there are all sorts of gradations between.
My point here is that perhaps it's a bit disingenuous to consider music in the same context as employment/work. Sure, there are musicians who do it as their sole means of income, and some who are able to do so quite successfully. But that isn't the norm. For every one who can make a decent living as a musician, there are at least 1000 others who do it on the side, as a hobby or second income. That is far more typical.
Let's give the venue owners/managers some credit, as well. True, there are some disreputable sorts who will try to rip off musicians whenever they can, but far more are typical business types who are looking to boost their bottom line. Like anyone else, they are looking to make the most while spending the least, and as above, there are all sorts of gradations. Every venue recognizes that folks like live music, and having it will increase the margins for food & drink. Hiring a lesser act will typically mean less of a return but a lower cost up front, while hiring a popular, known act will mean paying more up front--maybe charging a cover, which may give patrons cause for pause, depending on the amount--but will usually result in a better return. It's simple economics based on human nature. At least in this context, there is a corollary to normal employment; hiring a skilled, experienced person w/ a track record will typical cost more, but will also likely result in increased production and hence, bottom line. Still, much like most musicians themselves, music is usually secondary to a venue's primary revenue stream.
I've experienced a number of diff. situations. Back in the day, when I was in college/grad school, I played 4-5 nights a week to cover rent, utilities and food, and while it was significant, it was secondary to my primary function as a student. In other words, I knew I would be stepping into a career once I graduated, and that career wasn't music. You ask most musicians how they would feel about playing 4-5 nights a week and being able to cover all their living expenses from it, and they'd say that's a pretty good deal. (Altho as we get older, our needs change.)
These days, I'm more about the music; like some posters in this thread, if I never played another gig, it wouldn't have any affect on my standard of living. Still, like anyone else, I like to be paid; after all, the venue is boosting it's bottom line, and I feel I deserve something for my efforts. In that context, I would play a gig doing music I really love for less money than I would a gig doing music I'm not all that crazy 'bout--if I even agreed to do such a gig at all. But I also consider I'm older and have the heaviest rig to haul and set up/tear down, and as we all recognize, there are always costs involved w/ showing up and playing. If I'm asked to do a piano bar gig where's there's a baby grand at the venue, I'll take even less--esp. if they throw in a decent meal on top of it. After all, I only need to show up w/ my music, and won't need to either buy dinner or go home and cook afterwards. Regardless, I need to make something, but how much is dependent on the circumstances. The only way I'll do a free gig is if it's for a good charitable cause that I endorse. That doesn't happen very often. Everyone else needs to make it worth my while. Most of the musicians I know--and there are quite a few--see it much the same way.
