Why Musicians Shouldn't Work for Peanuts

Bad Tempered Clavier

Silver Member
Just saw this blog about the ever-present problem of musicians being woefully underpaid and somehow putting up with it; I know this is not exactly a new topic, but it's the one that burns me the most about this whole business of music and drumming and I found the piece to be quite well written.

http://www.publicemilie.com/post/20223649899

P.S. Gotta love the comment from the smart-arse who asked the author if her blog was undercutting professional writers . . .
 
Just saw this blog about the ever-present problem of musicians being woefully underpaid and somehow putting up with it; I know this is not exactly a new topic, but it's the one that burns me the most about this whole business of music and drumming and I found the piece to be quite well written.

http://www.publicemilie.com/post/20223649899

P.S. Gotta love the comment from the smart-arse who asked the author if her blog was undercutting professional writers . . .
Read the whole piece, & the comments. Pretty good stuff, & fairly logical. Thing is, that balance isn't going to change anytime soon, but you can make things better for yourself, & in turn, improve things for other players. I make no apology for pushing up fees locally. We're in the lucky position of being a band that puts bums on seats. Also, we only want to play 2-3 times a month, so turn down more than double the offers we get. We get paid at least twice the going rate, & we get that by getting the act right. That's the whole deal, including high standards of audio & lighting.

I was thanked by a local artist last week, for pushing local prices up. He said his take had increased in two venues where we play, as the landlord had changed his policy of hiring acts to reflect the act quality, & ultimately the fees paid.

As a counter to this, I saw a band last night who were, frankly, crap. They could play, but the time & energy devoted to getting numbers tight, slick song transitions, personal appearance, PA & lighting quality, was zero. They were complaining about the fee they received, well, what did they expect.

Get good, get very good at everything to do with putting on a show, start filling venues, then the tables start to turn. Yes, it means putting the work in up front. Yes it means putting investment into gear up front, but you have to speculate to accumulate. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's not called the music business for nothing.
 
Get good, get very good at everything to do with putting on a show, start filling venues, then the tables start to turn. Yes, it means putting the work in up front. Yes it means putting investment into gear up front, but you have to speculate to accumulate. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's not called the music business for nothing.

Andy sometimes you just make me smile.
 
It seems the writer wants amateurs to charge pro rates so as not to impact on the pros ... might be hard for the students to get gigs.

Supply and demand ... noise laws, gaming machines, DJs and drink driving laws ... it's a shame but times change and musicians either adapt or perish.

The café scene seems a good source of gigs for small outfits, and then there's YouTube heroes and others monetising the web. Probably some other types of opportunities I haven't thought of.
 
This article doesn't make sense to me. Is she calling for a sort of musician's cartel to keep fees high? I would prefer a free market situation myself.
 
But isn't this why we have a Musicians' Union?

Perhaps unions behave differently in other regions, but in the UK the MU is pretty toothless when it comes to this sort of thing. As the author of the blog writes:

"There is currently no fair-wage regulator for small-medium music venues to sign up to. The Musicians Union have made some attempts but they can only be enforced if you are a member and are mostly ignored by the musicians themselves."​

This article doesn't make sense to me. Is she calling for a sort of musician's cartel to keep fees high? I would prefer a free market situation myself.

I don't think she's advocating removing a free market:

"Anyone has the right to play music to earn cash, regardless of ability and experience as we are in a free market and music is subjective. But there is a responsibility that comes with charging a fee and all musicians should be aware that by undercutting the going-rate, or working for free, they are affecting the profession of music."​

I think the problem comes because so many musicians who work for any kind of fee are self employed. If you can get a salaried job as a member of a long established orchestra or be part of one of those bigger West End/Broadway productions then you're more likely to get paid on a more equitable level according to the amount of work you're actually doing; largely because such large companies are subject to the kind of employment laws that everybody else is. If you're trying to sell your own act as a teacher/function band/original artist etc and you can survive on playing for nothing or very little, all well and good. If not, there are consequences for everybody, not just the starving artist.

I believe the main gist of her argument is that if, from now until Doomsday, we all want to have DJs playing recordings of gradually ageing music at our weddings/clubs/arenas/outdoor festivals with nothing new coming up behind and have our children take music lessons from Expert Village because aspiring musicians, teachers, and composers have been priced out of the market - then fair enough: that is indeed the essence of capitalism. If we would rather that weren't the case, then I guess we better do something about it; after all, our favourite pop and rock stars ain't gonna live forever - despite what the kids from Fame think.
 
"Anyone has the right to play music to earn cash, regardless of ability and experience as we are in a free market and music is subjective. But there is a responsibility that comes with charging a fee and all musicians should be aware that by undercutting the going-rate, or working for free, they are affecting the profession of music."

So what are the amateurs undercutting the pros supposed to do? Charge pro rates? Might as well quit music school and go back to the den to play covers with records.

As I said before, this is small potatoes compared with the other forces working against live music these days.
 
I'm always hearing stories reciting gig fees readily available in the 70's, 80's, etc. I know, I earned my living in those times. It's true, gig fees haven't kept pace with inflation, that's for sure, but hang on just a minute, there's a bigger picture than just venue cost cutting and/or exploitation. The author is excluding the greatly diminished value of live performance. Back in the day, people didn't have anything like the availability of instant entertainment they have today. If you wanted to listen to a song, you went out & bought the record. Either that, or you recorded it from one of your mates. Videos of live concerts were few & far between, & you were pretty much limited to watching whatever the 3 or so TV channels decided was worthy of air time. The live concert was a big deal. Live music was a big deal. It sounded so much better than recordings of the day. It was a total experience, both audibly & visually, & then there's the sense of occasion.

Of course, these days, you can get hold of pretty much anything you want. The audio & video quality is in a different league to that of a few decades ago, & most content is free, or close to it.

What I'm getting to is this. You used to be able to set up your kit, a few amps, maybe a light or two, & jam out a gig. Now, people expect more, much more. The game has moved on. We're competing with crisp audio, clear video, fully mobile music access, so setting up in a corner & delivering a budget sound just doesn't cut it anymore. People want & expect a total experience, & those who deliver that get the best piece of the pie.
 
The author is excluding the greatly diminished value of live performance.

Agree. In the 70s and 80s, a great night meant going to to a gig (or playing one), getting mellow, some flirting, pizza or hamburgers afterwards and then back to someone's place for post mortem and further loss of brain cells.

My 20yo nephew next door has tons of his friends over and I chat with them a lot (apparently I'm a "cool auntie"). The only time they go see live music is at the big festivals (how much attention they're paying to the music is another matter). One of the girls said her dream was to be a DJ ... it made me wish I had one of those old KEEP MUSIC LIVE t-shirts that were around when disco was taking over a lot of the old venues.

These young guys and gals go to bars to play gaming machines, they go to raves, they go to dance clubs, they get drunk at someone's place to watch the football or play online games all night ...

Competition for the entertainment dollar is far more intense than in the past.
 
Supply and demand ...

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.




I'm always hearing stories reciting gig fees readily available in the 70's, 80's, etc. I know, I earned my living in those times. It's true, gig fees haven't kept pace with inflation, that's for sure, but hang on just a minute, there's a bigger picture than just venue cost cutting and/or exploitation. The author is excluding the greatly diminished value of live performance. Back in the day, people didn't have anything like the availability of instant entertainment they have today. If you wanted to listen to a song, you went out & bought the record. Either that, or you recorded it from one of your mates. Videos of live concerts were few & far between, & you were pretty much limited to watching whatever the 3 or so TV channels decided was worthy of air time. The live concert was a big deal. Live music was a big deal. It sounded so much better than recordings of the day. It was a total experience, both audibly & visually, & then there's the sense of occasion.

Of course, these days, you can get hold of pretty much anything you want. The audio & video quality is in a different league to that of a few decades ago, & most content is free, or close to it.

What I'm getting to is this. You used to be able to set up your kit, a few amps, maybe a light or two, & jam out a gig. Now, people expect more, much more. The game has moved on. We're competing with crisp audio, clear video, fully mobile music access, so setting up in a corner & delivering a budget sound just doesn't cut it anymore. People want & expect a total experience, & those who deliver that get the best piece of the pie.

This, of course, is the other aspect of it.

I know grown adults who have never seen a band live. It blows my mind how many people just have no interest in live music. Clubs with Djs or just sitting on youtube is enough for them. Personally, I get twitchy if I go too long without seeing a live act.
Yet for so many others, if you give them a choice of going to see a live band or going to a club where a DJ will play familiar music, they'll choose the DJ every time.
 
So what are the amateurs undercutting the pros supposed to do? Charge pro rates? Might as well quit music school and go back to the den to play covers with records.

As I said before, this is small potatoes compared with the other forces working against live music these days.

Please do, kiddies! Part of the reason going out to see music is so unattractive are the garbage 12 year olds playing Nirvana covers with hot rods in the local coffee shop. They should NOT be getting gigs. Theyre undercutting cost and damaging venue reputation. I did this when I was 15. We literally stole a gig from local jazz musicians who were hundreds of times better than we were at the time. I didn't know we were undercutting (the POWER of education, I let all my students know how I feel about this and what they should be asking for when it's time to start gigging), but the jazz club went out of business and I think to a large degree my garbage high school jazz band was responsible. I wish I would not have done that. I had no idea I was doing anything wrong at the time, I didnt know the going local rate, I just selfishly wanted to play. SO get the word out, tell the kids, NO free gigs. You're not good enough to work yet? No problem!!! Dont work then! Keep it in the shed with your dudes, get tight, get killin, and then you can start to worry about venues. But just because individuals choose NOT to do this for a living and thus dont really need to practice or get to a certain level, doesnt mean they have a right to undercut me and then blame ME for having some form of pride in something that Ive worked my a## off for. It would be like putting an ad in the paper that said "Toilet broken? Call me, Ill fix it for FREE!" Plumbers probably wouldnt dig my little "just for fun" operation so much.
 
Please do, kiddies! Part of the reason going out to see music is so unattractive are the garbage 12 year olds playing Nirvana covers with hot rods in the local coffee shop. They should NOT be getting gigs. Theyre undercutting cost and damaging venue reputation. I did this when I was 15. We literally stole a gig from local jazz musicians who were hundreds of times better than we were at the time. I didn't know we were undercutting (the POWER of education, I let all my students know how I feel about this and what they should be asking for when it's time to start gigging), but the jazz club went out of business and I think to a large degree my garbage high school jazz band was responsible. I wish I would not have done that. I had no idea I was doing anything wrong at the time, I didnt know the going local rate, I just selfishly wanted to play. SO get the word out, tell the kids, NO free gigs. You're not good enough to work yet? No problem!!! Dont work then! Keep it in the shed with your dudes, get tight, get killin, and then you can start to worry about venues. But just because individuals choose NOT to do this for a living and thus dont really need to practice or get to a certain level, doesnt mean they have a right to undercut me and then blame ME for having some form of pride in something that Ive worked my a## off for. It would be like putting an ad in the paper that said "Toilet broken? Call me, Ill fix it for FREE!" Plumbers probably wouldnt dig my little "just for fun" operation so much.
Absolutely right! I see both sides of the fence. Playing used to be my living. These days, I'm playing for my own enjoyment, but taking getting it right very seriously. There's no way we'll play for reduced rates in a commercial setting. Quite the reverse actually, as we're all acutely aware of the affect on others, & especially those earning their living on the circuit.
 
I try to get what I can when I play, but I'm not much of a complainer. Around here, you're lucky to find a band that needs a drummer or a guitarist or a vocalist or whatever.

Last gig I played, I filled in for their drummer, and we all went home with $30 each. That included my gas trip up to the town which was $20. But I had a blast. And the other two members were good friends of mine.

you can't put a price on a solid St. Patrick's Day memory!
 
Good point about the plumber. How many occupations are there where workers look for places to do their work free?

How I wish that I could get a lawn service to care for my yard for free. I'll give them free drinks. Heck, they can even put up a lawn sign advertising themselves while they're here.

We must be crazy for doing what we do for what we do it for.
 
I try to get what I can when I play, but I'm not much of a complainer. Around here, you're lucky to find a band that needs a drummer or a guitarist or a vocalist or whatever.

Last gig I played, I filled in for their drummer, and we all went home with $30 each. That included my gas trip up to the town which was $20. But I had a blast. And the other two members were good friends of mine.

you can't put a price on a solid St. Patrick's Day memory!

A wise, wise man once told me of the gig acceptance tripod and Ive used it as a personal philosophy for years. The three legs are the music, the money, and the hang. And it breaks down like this, two of the three legs need to be there in order to take a gig. The music is great, the people are great (the hang), but the money is not so hot; take the gig. The music is great, the money is great, the hang is not your favorite; take the gig. The music is not your favorite, the money is great, the hang is great; take the gig (however, this particular combo has caused me stress in the past, I try to avoid playing bad music in general... Money and folks have to be EXCELLENT). I'm not a complete capitalist pig of a mercenary, I'm also an artist and a person :)
 
So what are the amateurs undercutting the pros supposed to do? Charge pro rates?

In a word: yes. If a gig takes place on licensed premises and people are being charged for walking through the door, then the band should be paid: and paid well. If the venue doesn't make a profit on the night - that's their problem. If the venue considers itself a professional enterprise then I don't see why any act performing there should not consider itself similarly. I don't walk into a pub and expect to get free beer in exchange for telling a room full of people how great it is.

tell the kids, NO free gigs. You're not good enough to work yet? No problem!!! Dont work then! Keep it in the shed with your dudes, get tight, get killin, and then you can start to worry about venues.

This sums up very well what I feel the author of the article was driving at: I think the lines have been blurred for too long. Ain't nothing wrong with a bunch of beginners (or even experienced players) stepping onto a stage in front of their mates and rocking out for no fee - but if you just want to play for the fun of it then it's perfectly easy to do in a setting where there is no money involved whatsoever. House parties, church halls, community centres etc . . . great places to put on a free concert where it's all about fun and nothing else.

Once you bring money into the equation it's a different story. Premises that pay a license for supplying entertainment should properly cover the cost of that entertainment or not expect to be able to provide it at all. How many people on this forum have played or at least been offered one of those "it's-£5.00-per-person-on-the-door-but-each-band-doesn't-get-anything-unless-they-bring-at-least-20-people" gigs? If all bands in a given area agree to that then logically one could have a gig where 4 bands each bring 19 fans through the door: the venue pockets £380 plus whatever they take at the bar from those 76 people and the bands get sod all. They pay the alcohol license, the entertainment license, the bar staff, the bouncers, even the idiot sound man gets paid - but the band? Nah, bollocks - they'll do the gig for the sheer love of music . . .

the gig acceptance tripod [. . .] The three legs are the music, the money, and the hang [. . .] two of the three legs need to be there in order to take a gig

Great little motto - must remember that.
 
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.
 
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.
.

I agree it only works if said person dreams of one day being on the cover of "Modern Plumbing" magazine, unclogging toilet's in front of a sold out crowd, and hoping one day adoring fans will one day ask for their autograph, and perhaps get an endorsement with a really good plunger or copper pipe company.

At same time, people who do go into plumbing/trades, usually start off as an apprentice, getting paid little to start with. People take non-paid internships in a variety of fields. So the analogy of the beginner working for peanuts is not without comparisons.
 
The arts are different - people do it for love, and that results in a skewed supply/demand situation that forces payments down.

I totally agree, the very reason why I play drums, draw, paint, create as an artist and as a musician, is first and foremost for the love of doing it, if by any chances, there's a financial rewards for anything I play or/and create is just an added bonus :)

From my own experiences, being a wanderer and moving across a few countries as certainely jeopardise my dedication to any arts making, and thus, any prospect at making out money, including music, being a family man, other priorities are "more" important when establishing yourselves in a new environment, so everything "arty" is somehow put in the background, and when you're finally ready, it's like a new start altogether, the not so good gigs, the tiny venues, building a reputation (again), and when you start to get where you could be in a position, where you could assume a decent rewards as a musician (or a band), you move away again, and you start all over again, no big drama, I choose this way of life incidentaly and for the love for my family, but it is my love for music and drumming that keeping me doing it all these years, I couldn't be without it :)
 
Back
Top