Originally Posted by Pocket-full-of-gold
How else are these kids supposed to improve if you're all moving to deny them the opportunity to do it in the first place?
I ain't trying to stop anybody doing anything: what I'm saying is that all musicians, whether beginner or experienced, are guilty of allowing their trade to be devalued if they are accepting gigs from venues who charge an entry fee but don't pay the band. The upshot of this is not only impoverished musicians but also a small-venue scene that is stuffed to bursting point with crap bands
. I don't mean "that's not my cup of tea" crap - I mean they can't tune their instruments, they show up late, they can only manage about 25 minutes worth of material, and they have all the charisma of a bucket of wallpaper paste.
I'm advocating that all
gigs that involve money should include adequate payment for the performers: if the promoter/whoever decides that any given band isn't good enough - whether they're greasy teenagers or wrinkly old farts - then I guess they don't get the gig. As I've already said, there's plenty of opportunities for bands to polish their acts that don't involve any money for the band or venue; But it astonishes me how many venues are run by people who simply put no value in music at all. If that's the case, fine: DON'T HAVE BANDS.
I cannot accept that it's part of paying dues to allow venues to rip off performers. Surely it's simply not good for one's self esteem? It's no coincidence that as popular music has lost a lot of its monetary value via various routes it has become more and more boring. I believe if you don't have a sense of worth about your music then you'll never excite an audience enough to provoke any kind of reaction - let alone a positive one.