-
I'm reading it differently.
Originally Posted by JohnW400
I'd venture to say pretty much everyone who posts to this forum respects music as a profession. I don't think that's the point at all.
I think this is a really discussion between free market, anti-union, fiscal conservatives vs control the market, pro-union, fiscal liberals (towards the socialist side of things).
I think the posters would take the same side of the argument regardless of what profession we are discussing. However if we are talking of a one company coal mining town... my opinion would be different.Last edited by fep; 07-31-2010 at 12:20 AM.
-
07-31-2010 12:18 AM
-
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
Being better is not the issue. For example college jazz majors are going into restaurants looking for work and undercutting to get it. I've lost a few gigs this way. I know I'm not the only one who has.
And yes most pro's have a day gig. I tried to make a living off of music only back in 1976-78 and again in 1992-1993. I didn't like living at the poverty line. I still do the occasional gig but I work FT to pay my bills.
Here, a lot of contractors hire union workers and lose work to contractor 'B' who hires 'day laborers'.
Most of these day laborers are unskilled but eager to work.
Contractor B pays his "day laborers" $80 a day and no benefits. The day laborers don't care since they are happy to be working (and living) in America. Meanwhile the contractor who follows the rules loses work.
Unions had there place and they are still relavent. Everytime the union wins it strengthens the position of the non union workers as well. Without unions we would still be working unlimited hours for nominal money, no benefits and forced to buy things from the 'company store'.
Everybody should play an instrument. Everybody should enjoy it. If the gig pays $50 then play for $50. Don't do it for $35 just to steal it. Compete for the job on the same level. Don't cheapen it.
-
Yes, this is undesirable. But the fault is the system's for not penalizing irregular contractors, not the workers' or the would-be musicians', and you are trying to penalize them.Contractor B pays his "day laborers" $80 a day and no benefits. The day laborers don't care since they are happy to be working (and living) in America. Meanwhile the contractor who follows the rules loses work.
I agree all the way, I'm 100% in favour of unions in their place, collectively representing their members and defending them from the abuses of managers and owners. Not from other workers, that isn't what a union should do, that's how a gang behaves.Unions had there place and they are still relavent. Everytime the union wins it strengthens the position of the non union workers as well. Without unions we would still be working unlimited hours for nominal money, no benefits and forced to buy things from the 'company store'.
And the world changes, nothing stays the same, there isn't the same demand for live entertainment, and there are more musicians around (some of whom have been driven out of their once steady day jobs) chasing the same or fewer gigs - of course they are going to undercut each other. Normal.
-
Anyone who thinks they can make a living playing small clubs, bars, and restaurants is wack. At that level it's all just a stupid game.
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
This is only part of the income. The other comes from teaching. The other pat comes from your significant other that has a real job.
Q: what do you call a musician that split up from his partner?
A: Homeless
-
I've been a member here for a long time and skim a fews threads each day, but I don't post often. I'm glad I found this thread, it's one of the most entertaining I've read on this forum. I especially thank JohnRoss, some of his lines are priceless. John you should do some "professional" writing (another difficult career promising Ramen Noodle wages). Originally Posted by fep
Like many here, I have a bit of experience with this issue: I'm old enough now to count the time I've played guitar in decades, taught guitar for a decade or so, played professionally for many years. And worked a day job in order to eat regularly. Yes, playing is an incredibly hard way to make a living.
But, that said, I do not think anyone has a God-given right to any job or to any particular pay scale. Everything I see in nature seems to say that's not the way the world works.
The most enjoyable and successful band I worked in began as a quartet and, at times had up to a dozen members. We played together for a few years, sounded great, always had work. We had a some great times...and we nearly starved. We could pack bars, people would often come in from surrounding areas, some sneaking tape recorders in - and we often could not find a place to sit down on breaks. Nice? Yeah, it was a blast.
But we worked hard to attract a crowd. We got to know people, talked to customers on break, invited them back. We especially worked to get the girls coming back. Because we knew that if the girls were there the guys would follow. We understood that our value to a club owner was based on our ability to consistently fill his club with paying customers.
I agree with fep and JohnRoss and other posters who say, in essence, that no one owes us a job, a certain wage, or even the freaking time of day.
By helping club owners make money - by drawing a crowd, we can increase our job security and wage situation. If we can't do that, then why should they carry us? Because they love music? Because you're an "artiste?" Ha!
I've also been a union member. But I prefer, by far, to avoid them. I consider unions to be parasites. But they are needed by workers in some industries where employers are even more greedy, disgusting, worthless and parasitic than the average union.
Thanks again, everyone, for the many great posts.Last edited by ingreen; 08-02-2010 at 12:24 AM.
-
Originally Posted by JohnW400
Hmm, well I don't agree about musicians unions, I mostly see them as protectors of their workers to the detriment of non members, unlike labor unions most of which were started with leftist ideologies, promoting the advancment of the working man, musicians unions played a big role in ripping off the music of black musicians and then only allowing 'union musicians' who were often solely white. So my opinion of music unions isn't high, not because I'm against unions, but I truely don't see the benefit of musician unions. I kind of see the debate as between those who feel you should be able to make a living playing music, and those who feel you should count yourself fortunate to be able to.
Again though, it seems you continue to imply, a 'lesser skills base' when you say in your analogy that 'most of these day laborers have little skills and just are happy to work' this isn't the case, in our discussion. Again if a bar owner wants to pay substandard musicians substandard wages, his club will suffer. Unlike the contractor, bar patrons don't care that the bar owner saved a few bucks on musicians, he's not passing those savings to the patrons. Unlike the contractor passes on the savings of cheap labor to his employer. Whereas, in the bar, no one says, 'hey lets go to O'Malley's he hires the cheapest musicians' they say 'hey, let's go to Jack's because his place is rocking.' So I think in the bar venue, it doesn't present the same economic motivation as the general contractor to get it done cheap. A building is a building, as long as it doesn't fall down. But by and large substandard music is not tolerated(unless you count the radio). And who listens to that anymore?
Finally, I don't think the scenario you're putting forth, holds. Of a gig being 50 and somebody saying I'll do it for 35. That again is very iirational. But if a 'union' sets a gig at 50 bucks, that's not the value of the gig, that's the union's value of its members. And that's different. If I go in with no knowledge of union wages and negiotiate a price of 35 bucks, I don't see anything wrong with that. If I suck, the owner would be wise to not pay me again, and possibly he'll see the worth of the 'extra' 15 bucks next time. If I'm good then obviously the union needs to add me on, or revisit it's price schedule.
As for college jazz students, undercutting, who needs the money for the gig more than them. It's one thing being a broke musician paying dues, but those poor bastards paid 40 grand to be a broke musician!
Last edited by ejwhite09; 08-02-2010 at 11:43 AM.
-
No one makes a living playing in bars. Corporate events, weddings, festivals, private parties, etc... are where MOST musicians get their money. These gigs cannot be undercut because they are gotten through hard work, connections, auditions, etc...
Now, real pro's make money by charging a cover and packing a venue... no need for a union there, just good promotion.
I think the kid in the OP should play for as much as he can get from the owner, he's not taking food off of anyone's table, and I'd be really surprised to find that anyone could make a living playing standards.... anywhere.
The trick to making it happen is to get out on the scene and consistently provide very high quality music. And find a lady with a good job who loves you for who you are... ha ha ha.
Love you guys, but seriously, yeah, if you hear that a local venue is paying a guarantee to musical acts, and you walk in the door and offer to play for free, I would hope that the venue would just say no. Obviously if you aren't going to charge, you haven't put in enough work to think what you are doing is worth anything. If a venue can afford to pay a band a guaranteed wage, they value their music and don't want crap, they also probably have a booking person who is playing quality control.... that's why people make demos and buy suits.Last edited by timscarey; 08-03-2010 at 01:31 PM.
-
There is definitely a misunderstanding about the musicians union and it's role. The vast majority of professional musicians DO belong to the union. Career performers rely on using legitimate contracts, because they are self employed, and the union contract is the enforceable industry standard. You realistically would have a hard time functioning at a certain business level without becoming a member, as most people find out when they reach that level. They are your friend and happy to help part time musicians too. Unfortunately, outside of urban or large population centers, they have little benefit to you at the local level, and you can function without them.
-
My first Jazz gig was for some girls graduation party. M buddy and I got the gig in the first place because we posted up in the corner of the nearby downtown with our cases open, we landed 2 gigs and made 30 bucks each that night; not bad for doing what we would have been doing anyways.
Anywhom, since it was just a duo we charged $100 per man.
-
I agree w/ John. Everyone else is taking this entirely too seriously. Music should not be solely about money.
-
I think, if you're at that 'certain business level' where you need a union, then you shouldn't be competing with the guy, and vis versa, who's walking into a local bar and offering to play a gig. I think thats the distinction some of us have been, obviously crudely and unsuccesfully trying to make. If you're at the level of needing a union, then you shouldn't be competing with the guy who is playing out a local bar. Outside of a major city, or being a traveling musician, which in my opinion are the only ways you will ever make a living in music, I don't see the need for a union(which in my opinion is only an insurance agency that guarantees to sue any bastard that doesn't pay up, to keep contracts enforceable and meaningful among many parties with no relationship). Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
I live in a medium sized city with a very small jazz scene, fusion is much bigger, maybe it's not fusion, maybe its just funk with smooth jazz infusions(lol who the hell knows
) Nobody is 'eating' off local gigs in my city or a city my size, unless you get very lucky and land something like that 'piano gig' we were talking about. 99% of musicians here are just playing out to play out, they are good, they are talented, for one reason or another they can't afford to move but I know and know of many a people who are now on national tours, regional tours, european tours just playing their hearts out and having the right person be in town that night, the other 1% are touring musicians.
In a city my size, pretty much everyone knows each other, gigs are traded. Venues have relationships with their musicians, if you have a gig in this city, nobody would come in and purposely 'undercut' you and if they offered the venue would stick by it's musicians. I just think it's ridiculous to start all this 'undercutting' and 'scab' talk because two guys walked into a local pub and played a few tunes for free. You'd think they walked into Wembley Stadium and stole a show from Paul McCartney.
-
I'm sorry if what I write is a bit off topic, I stopped reading half way through the first page.
I think one of the main problems with the music industry these days is that there are far too many amature musicians who will do gigs for 'fun' and have no intention of getting paid. This is all good and fine however it has given venues the idea that they do not have to pay for music. I have played so many gigs where the only money that comes to the band is the door fee (which is also split between door man and sound guy), when the band is offering there services, advertising, entertaining and ultimately earning the venue business they should at least be entitled to some of the return. The other day i played a gig where the DJ (who used the venues equipment and played other peoples records between sets) actualy took home more money than the entire 5 piece band. that is a joke. but at the end of the day we as musicians can do nothing about it as there will always be more amature players who are happy to play for free.
This is actualy one reason I am working on my solo jazz guitar stuff at the moment (there are not too many players capeable of stepping in and undercutting you) as it seems outside of the corporate seen there is very little room for making a living playing in bands.
I know people are going to hype up and say music is about more than money and I totaly agree but at the end of the day if the best musicians are 'professional' musicians who do nothing but play day in day out and if music cannot make people money the standard of players and music in general will go down. simple as that.
And the only way i can think of fixing this is if everyone demand payment for gigs (no matter what your intention for playing the gig is), if venues are not given the option of free entertainment they will pay musicians.
-
Whenever I play at Mabel's Laundrymat, she lets me wash and dry my clothes for free, plus gives me free soap.
-
Music is a very competitive business, and it's always changing. In any cultural endeavor where there are lots of people doing something because they love it, there is a fluid boundary between the amateurs and the pros, and there are too many people doing it to all make a living. Having too many people in a profession is a very common thing and has occurred in many places and times, but if it's something that the culture values highly, then such an excess of activity is going to drive that particular art to a higher level. Chinese Martial Arts in old China (lethal competition), yoga in India, Flamenco in Spain, MBAs in the US of A, etc. - the guitar (not, of course, specifically or only jazz guitar) is in this class, as a very popular cultural activity with a whole lot of creativity going on throughout the entire culture zone, which these days is global. The fact that people will actually "pay to play" (as in some L.A. clubs) is evidence that there is a superheated cultural activity going on here in which the rewards are beyond money.
The fickle taste of the listening public means that novelty and creativity in music are arbitrarily rewarded at random times when they just happen to hit the money, and other times not. However, it should be obvious that if you're going to sit in your bar and keep on playing "Melancholy Baby" while the kids down the block are making folks hop with some new funky rhythm, that complaining about the mortgage and how you need the money isn't going to cut it. In this case, becoming a plumber might be a good choice. They make great money, have strong unions, and the style of plumbing doesn't change very fast. Or you could go back to woodshedding and see if you have forgotten how to get creative. Creativity rules, you know. The rest of us play covers.
Jazz has become a "classic" style, which means that there are a lot of folks doing it just the way their heroes did it 40 years ago, but meanwhile musical styles keep right on changing, and musicians whose business is recycling old styles are always at risk. Every style has its day. One of the interesting themes of my lifetime has been the way that the classical guitar had its day in the sun in the 60s and 70s and then faded back to a dimmer position leaving all of Segovia's students (and his student's students, which is every classical guitarist in the world) playing musical chairs to get the university teaching gigs ("I need the job! I deserve the money!"). Some of the rest of us found other music to play - necessity being the mother of invention.
Unions also have their times and places in the grand economic cycle. When there's no work, it's a long list down at the union hall. Fat lot of good they are when the economy has moved to China.
Unlike the guys who are defending their right to hold on to a gig and the money that they need and deserve, I really do believe that the young guys with no experience should get out there and play wherever they can find a spot. Let there be music on every street corner, and let it be new and fresh.
Ah. You're gold, John Ross. Originally Posted by John Ross
There are, of course, some corners of the world where there isn't much music happening. Music is hot in tourist towns and university towns, but perhaps not in the "rust belt" in the USA, and so if you are a musician living in a place where there's nothing going on, it might make sense to pack your axe and head out for greener pastures, and see if your music can compete for the ears of the listening public alongside creative young cats who have no mortgages and a bunch of new musical ideas (that you probably don't like).
-
The reality is that you have to sell yourself whether you're a musician, a plumber, a salesman, or even a school teacher. Consider who YOU want as the seller, what they expect of you, and what you will expect of them. You may have to play an audition (free sample), but really, is the guy that had you in for free going to give away HIS product? Such as food or beer? Not take a little less, or give a sample, I mean give it away. So why should you play a full set for no fee? Is this the guy you want to work for? Could it lead somewhere, or is he just going to take you for a ride? Originally Posted by timscarey
Reply With Quote
The Moon Song, Johnny Mandell
Today, 05:51 AM in The Songs