Gigging, and a Message to LA Club Owners

[JazzReggie]

It's no secret that being a gigging musician isn't the most financially lucrative thing to be doing. Dave Goldberg, a pro from LA, wrote what I think is a great article on the realities of gigging, and also at the same time, a message that musicians can start giving to club owners:

LA Club Owners

On the download page, he's encouraging musicians to share it, post it, etc:

Here's Dave Goldberg's wake-up call. If you're a musician and you're playing for less than $100 a gig, this is for you. Download it. Copy it. Hand it out. Plaster it anywhere musicians are...

Approaching this from the other side, where does this leave those of us who are amateur musicians? There are many of us who would like the experience and learning opportunity of the occasional gig, yet have no intention of becoming professional musicians.

Is it inappropriate for lifetime amateur musicians to take gigs? As the article states, if you flip the situation around, it starts to sound pretty ridiculous. An applicant without professional qualifications and experience in my field wouldn't make it past the first resume screening, never mind get an interview. This is definitely not the case with smallish local gigs though.

Should the onus here be on amateur musicians to not take low paying gigs? Would it even accomplish anything? Would bars suddenly start paying more if musicians stopped working for low pay? Or would they just find other forms of entertainment?

I don't want to be insensitive to the plight of professional musicians and take away what limited opportunities there are. Should I resign myself to only ever playing at home though? What about all the advice on how getting up on stage is one of the best learning opportunities there is?

[frankiemachine]

There's a pub in my home town which for many years was the main venue for local musicians. They paid low rates for most bands, although a one or two proven crowd pullers were paid slightly more respectably. Musicians bitched about "greedy" owners and older hands grumbled about overly enthusiastic youngsters willing to play for buttons just to get a platform.

The pub came up for sale, and a friend of mine who'd made some money in another line of business was interested in buying it. I have experience in valuing businesses and he asked for my advice. We asked to see the business's accounts.

Here's what we found. The business was earning annual profits of around £20,000 (say $30,000) before any interest payments on loans and before the 2 owners (who worked full time in the business) took out a penny for themselves. Band fees was by far their biggest single expense - more than the cost of beer. If they'd paid themselves a reasonable wage they'd have been making losses. If they'd paid the rates musicians thought they "deserved" they'd have been bankrupt within six months.

Far from being "greedy" the owners were effectively subsidising an ungrateful local band scene.

I suspect if this guy gets his way the net result will be less venues willing or able to put on live music.

[Jazzaluk]

Whether you are a pro or amateur you still have to build your own audiance and rapport with venues. I would not waste time worrying about highly trained pros that can't find an audiance or gig that meets their expectations. They have more musical tools than amateurs to make a living, they might just be lacking in the promotion department or confusing art with entertainment.

Blaming the competition, amateur or pro, is a weak excuse. Nobody is guaranteed a living regardless of the profession.

Ya makes yer choices and ya have to live with them.

[mr. beaumont]

This article is probably one of the most realistic views I've seen of this problem, and his solution is one of few that might actually do anything.

There's plenty of gig possibilites for amateurs...mom and pop coffee houses, bookstores, art galleries...places that aren't raking in big dough and aren't paying pros good money to play there in the first place.

We, as musicians, cannot demand every place that offers music pay a certain amount...it'll just never happen...what we can do is look out for one another and not try to take gigs for less money just to get the gig at places that DO pay musicians a real wage.

[Patrick2]

Musicians are no different than any other people selling a product or a service. A musician's value to a venue, any venue, is obviously its product . . . . and thereby his/her/their compensation for that product or service will be based solely upon what that value represents as compared to similar products or services which might be provided by competitors. If an artist represents a high draw of customers to a venue, then that artist can negotiate a price commensurate with their draw. Club owners are not going to pay musicians a fee based upon how good they are . . . and they shouldn't. Unless that elevated level of talent or musicianship is of value to the club owner. Some owners just don't care . . . they don't need the skills or talents. They jusy need a living breathing body with an instrument so they can charge drink prices based upon "live entertainment". I was in a band that often played a club in Union City, New Jersey's Transfer Station area. (Think Patrick Swayze, Roadhouse. A real hell hole.) The first time we played there, the band were on stage tuning up for our first set. Two chicks started dancing!! Ya think Izzy (club owner) cared how good we were or weren't?

This guy, Dave Goldberg, who wrote this article sounds like a bunch of sour grapes to me. No one has a right to demand a certain wage or fee for performing unless they are part of the local musician's union. See how far that will get you. Similarly, no one has the right to expect less talented or capable musicians and bands to take coffee shop or book shop gigs just so the better musicians can get better pay for the better gigs. Competition is what has always driven a person's or a company's performances and executions to be better than their competitors. That should never change.

With necessity being the mother of invention, DJs were created due to people looking for less expensive answers to decent music at night clubs, weddings etc.. If musicians start to band together to drive up their fees, live music will become even more scarce than it is now. If Dave Goldberg wants club owners or any contractees to pay him more money for his services . . . then he needs to find a way to represent a great enough value to that contractee to justify his higher cost.

[AlsoRan]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

Musicians are no different than any other people selling a product or a service. A musician's value to a venue, any venue, is obviously its product .

Sad but true. And like you said, many establishments just want a competent live body.

Consider that fact that Jazz is Art, and like most Art is not able to command enough money to sustain it. I compare it to the Arts at museums and art shows. Most of them would not exist without donations from the public and a wealthy benefactor or two.

We have sprawling art museums here and all of them, both large and small, have some rich benefactor helping them out. In many cases, it is the same family supporting multiple facilities.

I kind of think its pretty clear that if a Jazz trio could bring in 1000 people more on the night they play in a 200 person capacity bar, it would follow that they could ask for more money.

In the end, I agree that a performer's only recourse is to show that they can bring in a bigger crowd and generate more money.

[monk]

This is a multi-faceted problem due to the fact that there is no single cause of the problem. As someone who has been a working musician for forty years, I've seen the situation go from being able to play three jobs a day (happy hour from 4-8 P.M., night from 9 P.M.-1 A.M. and after hours from 2-6 A.M.) to being lucky to find a regular Friday-Saturday job.

Most recently, the economy is a contributing factor. Another is the age demographic of the people who go to clubs more than one night a week, they tend to be in their 20s and single. For the most part, as far as music goes, these people tend to be interested in what ever the current trend in music might be.

Young marrieds with children have neither the time or budget to go out like they did when they were single. By the time their children are grown and they have the time and money to again go out regularly, they are investing every available dollar toward their onrushing retirement and spending evenings at home in front of the cable television or online. Also, at 40 or 50, the energy needed for late nights in clubs and early to rise for the job is not there like it was when they were in their 20s.

The rise of the sports bar substituted televised ballgames, hockey, racing et. al. for live music.Other technological incursions into the nightclub scene includes DJs and karaoke, both which took a large slice of the pie from live music. DJs catering, of course, to the masses who equate a night on the town with dancing and karaoke for those who want to live out their fantasies.

Non-professional players who gig regularly or semi-regularly have been around as far back as I can remember. When I first started playing most of the jobs I played were weekends with players who had families and day jobs. As I moved into nightly club work, the players were all full-time musicians, some of whom gave lessons also.

If there is an inequity about non-professional musicians competing for jobs with full-time musicians, its that doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, teachers, electicians, plumbers and other professionals have legal credentials and accreditations that protect their jobs from amateur incursion. None of us can go into business as a lawyer or doctor without completing the neccessary requirements and getting a license. On the other hand, Doctor Dan, Lawyer Larry, Nurse Naomi, Mechanic Melvin and Dentist Dave can simply buy gear, put together a band and go to work. For fun, of course. Because they love it.

At one time. the American Federation of Musicians had enough clout to require applicants to pass a test before joining the union, had working agreements with nightclubs, symphonies, radio and television stations as well as the record companies and could provide a certain amount of protection to players. When I started playing in the early 70s, all the nightclubs in my hometown used union bands and if one wanted to play full-time, they joined the union. But as time has passed, the union has become ineffectual at providing for anyone except symphony musicians and high echelon session players.

In that the musician's union has experienced dwindling membership and many people who work regular or semi-regular gigs are not members, there is a corresponding dwindling of solidarity. Where most pros used to look out for one another and help each other there is now a more cutthroat, look out for number one attitude.

The one thing that is certain is that if one wishes to become a full-time player one must have a reputation for being good at what they do. A good many of the jobs I've had over the years came from other musicians recommending me for the gig. Similarly, if a band wishes to succeed on any level they must have a following. No one hires a band to play to an empty room. If a performer or band consistantly fills a room, the word gets out. That word spreads not only to new customers and increases their following but to other club owners who want to hire a band to not only bring in customers but keep them there after they arrive. The larger a following a band or performer has the more seats they will fill, regardless of whether it's Joe's Bar or Carnegie Hall.The business of music is a service business. If one fails to provide that service satisfactorily, their business fails.

This post has become more long winded than I had intended and I apologize because I can't offer any easy solutions. One thing that hasn't changed over the last forty years is that, regardless of what type of music they play, the people I know who always have plenty of work, hustle for it and draw a crowd when they play. The phone won't ring if no one knows who you are.

[AlsoRan]

Originally Posted by monk

This post has become more long winded than I had intended and I apologize because I can't offer any easy solutions. One thing that hasn't changed over the last forty years is that, regardless of what type of music they play, the people I know who always have plenty of work, hustle for it and draw a crowd when they play. The phone won't ring if no one knows who you are.

You post said everything I was trying to say and more. Well thought out and logical too.

I guess being able to play music and get compensated well is not a birthright as one gigging friend of mine likes to say.

[Space Pickle]

After reading the article, my response is "cry some more".

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by monk

If there is an inequity about non-professional musicians competing for jobs with full-time musicians, its that doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, teachers, electicians, plumbers and other professionals have legal credentials and accreditations that protect their jobs from amateur incursion. None of us can go into business as a lawyer or doctor without completing the neccessary requirements and getting a license. On the other hand, Doctor Dan, Lawyer Larry, Nurse Naomi, Mechanic Melvin and Dentist Dave can simply buy gear, put together a band and go to work. For fun, of course. Because they love it.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but comparing musicians to doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, teachers, electicians, plumbers is not a good comparison. These are professions that are regulated in the interest of the public to protect institutions and to ensure safety. Public safety has never been jeopardized from music delivered by an amateur that does not have a license. Some might argue that amateur entertainers, artists and artisans actually provide essential flavour, diversity and depth to society and its culture

Today's multi-media learning environment has enabled hobbiest and amateur musicians to developed playing skill levels that rival those of many working pros. In fact, the pros are often exploiting the media to teach the tricks of the trade to amateurs. There are no trade secrets anymore.

While the amateur may lack certain skill sets that would allow them to compete in many professional musician employment areas (such as sight reading, composition etc), they may in fact have the right stuff to to perform, entertain and legitimately compete in small venues; and they should not be inhibited in doing so. This is how music evolves.

[mr. beaumont]

I'm wondering if I read the same article as some of you guys (or if some of you read it)

I think this is one of the more realistic takes on it I've read, and I don't read any "crying" into it. He admits that he can't compete with the people who play for peanuts but can bring a crowd...he talks about talking to club owners about why hiring a professional can be a sound business decision...he's offering ideas instead of just complaining...

[JohnW400]

You hire the dishwasher to wash the dishes.
You hire the bartender to tend bar
You hire the chef to cook the food

Logically you should hire the musician to provide music

Once you make the musician responsible for bringing people his job really changed. He's now in marketing.

That's all Dave Goldberg is saying.

If your club doesn't have some kind of following already don't expect a musician to magically provide one. Sure you'll get a couple of good nights out of a band but after a while the following will drop off. Then what?

If the club is interested in supplying music to it's patrons in an effort to set itself apart from other restaurants or if it's just a way to keep patrons there after the meal spending on drinks at the bar then that is part of the clubs business model.

Then hire decent musicians , pay a fair wage and don't expect them to fill your club with their friends. That part shouldn't be part of your business model

[AlsoRan]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I'm wondering if I read the same article as some of you guys (or if some of you read it)

I think this is one of the more realistic takes on it I've read, and I don't read any "crying" into it. He admits that he can't compete with the people who play for peanuts but can bring a crowd...he talks about talking to club owners about why hiring a professional can be a sound business decision...he's offering ideas instead of just complaining...

Mr. B,

I think the crying is that he states that the owner is being unfair, and then he gives justifications that many don't think hold up and are reaching a bit.

The bottom line is that as with any "product," most people go with the cheapest suitable substitute.

Now if that fellow has tangible evidence that he or another highly competent Jazzer could greatly impact revenue, that is another story. But he is asking the owner's to "experiment" with high caliber players, without proof it will work - most folks won't take that risk. So he should not get angry at the owners. He should be upset with the climate.

As they say, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

You hire the dishwasher to wash the dishes.
You hire the bartender to tend bar
You hire the chef to cook the food

Logically you should hire the musician to provide music

Once you make the musician responsible for bringing people his job really changed. He's now in marketing.

Hiring a good chef could certainly bring more people in ... A great dishwasher, maybe not.

I guess the question at the end of the day is, does the musician add tangible value?

[Bill C]

Another model I've seen is for musicians to run a "club night" at a pub or bar. The venue provides the room, the bar staff etc, the musicians book the acts, sell tickets and play in the house rhythm section. In other words, create your own residency.

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I'm wondering if I read the same article as some of you guys (or if some of you read it)
...

Seems to be two threads, one talking about the article a one talking about the OP's comments.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Bill C

Hiring a good chef could certainly bring more people in ... A great dishwasher, maybe not.

Let's face it. If your chef can't cook well then you would fire him or go out of business (as is often shown on that Gordon Ramsey reality show).

If you hire some famous chef out of a prestigious culinary school then he becomes the draw or appeal.

Originally Posted by Bill C

I guess the question at the end of the day is, does the musician add tangible value?

This IS the question. If you think that having music at your venue is a plus and adds value by and of itself , then have it.

But if you're relying on a musician to bring people to your club and that's how you're going to grow your business well.....

The value of the music is the music itself.

I always get a kick out of reading how many people here tend to take the businessman's side of the argument especially considering that this is a music forum.

[AlsoRan]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

Let's face it. If your chef can't cook well then you would fire him or go out of business (as is often shown on that Gordon Ramsey reality show).

If you hire some famous chef out of a prestigious culinary school then he becomes the draw or appeal.




This IS the question. If you think that having music at your venue is a plus and adds value by and of itself , then have it.

But if you're relying on a musician to bring people to your club and that's how you're going to grow your business well.....

The value of the music is the music itself.

I always get a kick out of reading how many people here tend to take the businessman's side of the argument especially considering that this is a music forum.

I had to respond to your post, JohnW400.

Like you I feel the music is of great value, and I am sure that many if not most on the forum feel the same. But like love, it does not pay the bills. I don't think it's fair to ask owners to spend more of their money just so Jazz can continue. Even if you and I feel that society is all the better off for it.

Jazz sure beats that crap I hear..... ! I had to stop myself in mid-sentence. And we wonder why society seems to be going down the drain.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I'm wondering if I read the same article as some of you guys (or if some of you read it)

I think this is one of the more realistic takes on it I've read, and I don't read any "crying" into it. He admits that he can't compete with the people who play for peanuts but can bring a crowd...he talks about talking to club owners about why hiring a professional can be a sound business decision...he's offering ideas instead of just complaining...

Mr. B . . . in consideration of your past posts being highly credible and pretty much spot on . . . I went back and re-read the article. I have the same opinion as before. Moaning and groaning sour grapes. Especially the last 2 paragraphs. Also, his anology to the wine concession at his home is just plain dumb. But, it does illustrate his lack of comprehension of the cross commitments and responsibilities between a contractor and a contractee. Also, if he's playing a venue where only a couple of people walk through the door on a Saturday night . . . then something is probably very wrong with either the band, the club . . . or both. He actually sounded put off that the owner's response would probably be to go out and hire a better band with a better draw.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by AlsoRan

I had to respond to your post, JohnW400.

Like you I feel the music is of great value, and I am sure that many if not most on the forum feel the same. But like love, it does not pay the bills. I don't think it's fair to ask owners to spend more of their money just so Jazz can continue. Even if you and I feel that society is all the better off for it.

Jazz sure beats that crap I hear..... ! I had to stop myself in mid-sentence. And we wonder why society seems to be going down the drain.

The flip side to this is where is the audience? I go out to see jazz quite frequently and unless the artist is a legendary player (Rollins, Benson, etc) the turn out is usually quite small.

When I can go and see anyone from Scofield to Burrell to Kreisberg in a room full of 30-50 people, I am just thankful that clubs continue to host jazz music at all!

If the fans of the music turned out at the shows, there would be a bigger scene and a bigger pay out for the musicians.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

Also, if he's playing a venue where only a couple of people walk through the door on a Saturday night . . . then something is probably very wrong with either the band, the club . . . or both. He actually sounded put off that the owner's response would probably be to go out and hire a better band with a better draw.

The question is ...is the wine bar selling wine as it's main business or is music their main business and the wine is just to add ambiance and add a couple of bucks to the bottom line?

If they want a guaranteed draw then sell tickets and market yourself as such.

As far as 'better' and 'draw', let's not confuse the two.

I used to play at a jazz restaurant in Clifton , NJ. Vic Juris played there once and did not draw at all. Some other local guy, nowhere near as good as Vic, drew a much larger crowd. Why ? who knows. Could have been the weather.

I did a duo gig at a restaurant/bar right after 9/11. It was on the Saturday night that all the TV stations had that huge televised fundraiser . The place had 10 customers all night. 6 of the customers came to see us. The other 4 walked in off the street. I got a call a week later cancelling my December show. No explanation. I can go on for hours about gigs like this. I'll bet you could too.

One more thing about 'draw' . I'll bet you that if I went to that Wine bar and said that I could bring 25 people to their bar but that they would have to pay me $5 a head that the owner would have accepted my proposition. To me it looks like the wine bar was all about having the band supply the customers, and at a discount

As far as gigging at that wine bar, once Dave heard their offer he should have known what the score was and moved on. Let the wine bar hire whatever they can get for that $75 and eventually their business would suffer for it. A bad band will eventually chase away your business.

This is an argument that has been going on here at least as long as I've been posting.

RandallJazz summed it up nicely once by posting a Pogo cartoon with the byline of "we have seen the enemy and he is us" (or similar)

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

The flip side to this is where is the audience? I go out to see jazz quite frequently and unless the artist is a legendary player (Rollins, Benson, etc) the turn out is usually quite small.

When I can go and see anyone from Scofield to Burrell to Kreisberg in a room full of 30-50 people, I am just thankful that clubs continue to host jazz music at all!

If the fans of the music turned out at the shows, there would be a bigger scene and a bigger pay out for the musicians.

True. People don't go out like they used to. But by the same token venues that have the names you mention aren't in the same league as the local Italian restaurant. They get a cover and a minimum at a place that has advertised itself as a music venue.

Near me is Trumpets Restaurant which has been an established jazz club for more years than I can remember. Nobody talks about the food. It's not what they're really known for. You go there to hear music and maybe catch a bite.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

True. People don't go out like they used to. But by the same token venues that have the names you mention aren't in the same league as the local Italian restaurant. They get a cover and a minimum at a place that has advertised itself as a music venue.

Near me is Trumpets Restaurant which has been an established jazz club for more years than I can remember. Nobody talks about the food. It's not what they're really known for. You go there to hear music and maybe catch a bite.

John Pisano plays down the street from me at an Italian restaurant called Vitello's every week. He gets a lot of great players coming through there and the turn out ranges from small to medium sized audiences.

They usually play in a back room and there is a small cover. It's always interesting to walk through the main dining area on the way to the back and see how many people prefer to eat and not listen to the music. They have the option to pay a few bucks more and hear these fine musicians, they simply choose not to.

I slugged it out in the L.A. club scene for 15 years and it was exactly how the author of the article above describes it. Low to no pay and lots of hustling to get better gigs and better time slots.

The bottom line was always that if you could bring in additional revenue for the bar or club your bargaining power increased as did your chances of making some money. Either the author of the article just started gigging or professional jazz musicians have been shielded from this reality up until now.

I wish jazz musicians made a lot more money (hell I wish I made a lot more money in my profession lol) but considering where jazz is at in the marketplace and how many people actually go out to hear live jazz, I don't see things changing anytime soon.

I go out to hear live jazz all the time so I'm doing my part!

[Flat]

It seems to me that the crackdown in recent years by the performance rights organizations (BMI, ASCAP) has affected some of the fundamentals.

Fifteen years ago, in my neighborhood there were at least five "gig-able" places (coffeeshop, bar, medium-sized restaurant) within a few blocks that I could walk to. Jazz, blues, alt. folk.

Now there are none, or maybe one restaurant that still hires live players on special occasions.

With so few places to play, it seems natural that wages are driven down and competition up.

I don't know what the answer is, or whether to blame the "greedy" PROs, the "cheap" club and pub owners, digital audio technology, or the generally vacuous state of American popular culture.

In any case, here's an interesting article from the Boston Globe about the situation as seen by some club/pub/restaurant owners. The $1000 per year for a small coffeeshop doesn't seem too terribly bad, if I read that number right. Though it does seem that the situation underestimates the marketing value of having someone "promote" a song by performing it.

Pay to play - The Boston Globe

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

Let's face it. If your chef can't cook well then you would fire him or go out of business (as is often shown on that Gordon Ramsey reality show).

If you hire some famous chef out of a prestigious culinary school then he becomes the draw or appeal.

But if you're relying on a musician to bring people to your club and that's how you're going to grow your business well.....

I was trying to say that if the chef exceeds the customers' expectations there's a likelihood of more and repeat customers - "you should try Joe's the food is great". Likewise, if the musicians exceed the customers expectations there's a likelihood of more and repeat customers - "you should try Joe's, they have some great jazz acts" (...or...) "you should try Joe's, they have really nice live background music". This is assuming that the menu or the music is "right" for the venue. My $0.02 ...

[cosmic gumbo]

Bars, restaurants, etc, are in the business to sell food and drink, that's how they make money. Those types of gigs never did, or never will pay much. The only way they can make more money, is to sell more drinks. A musician only has value if they can increase bar trade. Music is overhead, they don't make money from the music until they become a venue that charges for a seat. Then a musician is only worth how many seats they can fill. It's simple business 101.

If you are a musician that has fans that will come and fill seats, then you have a product that can make money. Anything short of that, just isn't a business and you take what you can get, which ain't much. This is how it is with public performing.

The other, different side of live music is the private function where you perform a service for hire in a totally different environment where perhaps the goal of the function is not to make money, like a wedding, or corporate party, etc. Working in the trenches, this is the most lucrative gig.

[Patrick2]

Well in general, music at a restaurant, wine bar, night club etc., has always been considered and unilized as a draw. Often, you'll see a marquis stating "Live entertainment every Friday". In some instances it is THE draw. Example; my wife and I love to go out to dinner and we usually find ourselves going to Italian restaurants. There are quite a few really good ones near to where we live. One in particular is named Bocelli's. The owner is a rabid fan of Andrea Bocelli. He has a gifted singer there on weekends, with a set up of a PA system and recorded Arias and most specifically Bocelli songs. The guy is great. We often choose Bocelli's because of the singer, not the food. The food is very good . . but so too is the food at other restaurants close by without this singer. Now, this restaurant owner could probably find a different singer to do some Sinatra or Neil Diamond. But, they wouldn't be worth near what this Italian singer is to a reataurant named Bocelli's. The singer "strategically positioned" himself and his product towards a specifically targeted market. That's worth something.

With jazz being marketed to jazz clubs, most artists are offering the same tunes at different levels of talent and proficiency. There's a huge difference in the draw that a marquis stating . . ."Recording artist so and so to perform live this saturday" . . . and one that generically states "live entertainmnet".

To JohnW400; . . . man, I've still never made it up to Trumpets. Vinnie Corrao played there more than once and invited me up. Just never made it. From what I understand, Joe Cinderella did that gig years back also. I would have loved to have seen him in his day. Same with Harry Leahey and Chuck Wayne. Man .. . we had quite a few great jazz guitar players come out of our state!!

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

To JohnW400; . . . man, I've still never made it up to Trumpets. Vinnie Corrao played there more than once and invited me up. Just never made it. From what I understand, Joe Cinderella did that gig years back also. I would have loved to have seen him in his day. Same with Harry Leahey and Chuck Wayne. Man .. . we had quite a few great jazz guitar players come out of our state!!

I played there a few times as a sideman years ago. The Montclair scene ain't what it was. I used to enjoy Cafe D'Angelico up the street from Trumpets but that closed down. They had the 'Two Vic's" playing as the house guitarist. (Vic Juris and Vic Cenicola).

Now I hear that the Glen Rock in is the it place for guitar but on Sundays. I never get out on Sunday. That's the day I spend really playing (12 pm to 6). It's the only day I get to really dig in.

NJ has more players than you can shake a pick at.

[ah.clem]

Interesting thread. I agree with Mr. B. on this, and I don't think there is anything wrong with the "wine party" analogy - it's exactly the same in my town. I'm guessing the folks that are claiming "sour grapes" do, or are willing to, play for a few bucks a night at a venue.

When I was starting to "make a living" playing music my group worked a small local bar and made $25 a night a man for a quintet ($125 a night). That worked out pretty well as we were really just learning the trade. After about a year the owner stiffed us and that was the end of that. I was also running a trio (occasionally with a singer) and a quartet as well as a wedding band. I was doing all the booking and advertising. I ended up with an agent that got us pretty regular bookings but it continued to be a struggle. I eventually ended up as a sideman at a jazz club in another city *that was already established* as a jazz and supper club and was making out OK but eventually got tired of living like a graduate student so I went back to university and decided not to worry about making money playing.

Now I live in a town that "hires" bands on spec (work for a few week-ends and if you bring in a crowd we might pay you), has "battle of the bands" (again, free live music for the venue for the "prize" of getting a paying 4 night gig for the month), pays bands the "gate" after $100 is taken in that goes to the owner, and places that just say on Craigslist "if you're good enough we'll let you play in our restaurant and you can put out a tip jar". Plenty of kids sign up for this abuse because they think it's their "big break"; owners in a good sized college town know they'll never run out of dreamers. I prefer to get together once a week or so and play with friends, have a few beers and enjoy the music. Just my opinion.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by ah.clem

Interesting thread. I agree with Mr. B. on this, and I don't think there is anything wrong with the "wine party" analogy - it's exactly the same in my town. I'm guessing the folks that are claiming "sour grapes" do, or are willing to, play for a few bucks a night at a venue.

When I was starting to "make a living" playing music my group worked a small local bar and made $25 a night a man for a quintet ($125 a night). That worked out pretty well as we were really just learning the trade. After about a year the owner stiffed us and that was the end of that. I was also running a trio (occasionally with a singer) and a quartet as well as a wedding band. I was doing all the booking and advertising. I ended up with an agent that got us pretty regular bookings but it continued to be a struggle. I eventually ended up as a sideman at a jazz club in another city *that was already established* as a jazz and supper club and was making out OK but eventually got tired of living like a graduate student so I went back to university and decided not to worry about making money playing.

Now I live in a town that "hires" bands on spec (work for a few week-ends and if you bring in a crowd we might pay you), has "battle of the bands" (again, free live music for the venue for the "prize" of getting a paying 4 night gig for the month), pays bands the "gate" after $100 is taken in that goes to the owner, and places that just say on Craigslist "if you're good enough we'll let you play in our restaurant and you can put out a tip jar". Plenty of kids sign up for this abuse because they think it's their "big break"; owners in a good sized college town know they'll never run out of dreamers. I prefer to get together once a week or so and play with friends, have a few beers and enjoy the music. Just my opinion.

So, for those of us who are claiming "sour grapes" . . . (which as you know was me,) being willing to play for just a few bucks a night, as you put it . . . would that be any different than when you worked for only $25 per night because you were just starting to learn the trade? Was there a concern that you were keeping "real musicians" from earning a higher income by taking a job that they might have been able to book for a hight rate?

I still think the guy's letter reflected sour grapes. This is the business! "This is the life we've chosen" . . . (Hyman Roth . . Godfather II).

You can not force people to pay you what you think is fair, or what you need to live. You can only make yourself desireable at the rate of compensation you want. Club owners, or owners of any other venue are business people. If what you bring them represents a higher value to their bottom line than the kids who are allowed to put out a tip jar as a form of compensation . . . then more often than not, they will pay you your fee. If not. . . they won't. It's no more complicated than that.

Maybe the guy who wrote that letter should bemoan the people frequenting these establishmnets next? After all, they should be insisting on more professional and more expensive entertainment. Now, that makes as little sense as the letter he originally wrote.

Just because we love it. . . that doesn't make it valuable to everyone else.