Originally Posted by DrumEatDrum
And this is what consistently keeps the balance of money in favor of the venues and promoters over the band.
As much as everyone claims to hate "pay to play' clubs, they all are booked with 5-6 bands a night, 6-7 nights a week, with no problems finding eager and willing musicians who will work for free, or even lose money, just for the opportunity to appear live.
Even on bigger tours, opening for name acts, the opening band might get paid to be there, or there is a chance, the band paid the headlining act for the chance to open for them. Why? Because the supply of bands willing to do anything for fame far outweighs the demand for new bands.
Yep. It's always too many musicians who want to play out as compared with venues.
Pressuring inexperienced players to forego the chance to gain experience makes as much sense as pushing DJs to cease and desist because they undercut bands. The world doesn't owe anyone a living (apart from banks).
This straw being clutched at is doomed to failure unless you can talk government into regulating minimum payments for live music, but that would kill off even more live music venues.
The plumber analogy only works if kids dream of becoming great plumbers (some hoping to become glamorous plumbing stars), who assiduously practice their plumbing, live and breathe plumbing, and who plumb every chance they get. Sometimes they carry around a plunger so they can practice when they travel.
The arts are different - people do it for love, and that results in a skewed supply/demand situation that forces payments down. Ask any designer. They need to be FAR more experienced, knowledgeable and skilled than, say, an accountant or lawyer to make the same money.
Sorry guys, expecting people to make sacrifices with no return is just naive. There are much bigger forces at play.