First paying Jazz gig -- how much should I charge?

[whippersnapper]

I play in a Jazz trio (2 guitars, and upright bass) playing standards.

The other guitarist is friends with a pub manager who was looking for some "background music" for a bit of atmosphere. We agreed to play the first gig free as this was a place that hasnt had hardly any music on before and it was our first full jazz gig.

It went down fantastic. Playing for money shouldn't be the be all and end all -- afterwards we got someone else wanting to book us for another gig. Although we were mainly playing as background music there was a couple of people in the audience who were into it and definatley sticking round for another beer. The manager also said he "was going to pay" us but we've already started (hmm). Not a big thing though cas it was agreed as a free gig, prior.

Anyway, he want's us there again... possibley on a weekly basis. My friend who arranged the gig is not a good negotiator though, and while he did agree to play for complimentary beer and money this time - the amount was unspecified. Don't worry I'll be handling the future buisiness side of things!


Anyways I am posting here, because before we start to play our secound gig there this week we'll be speaking to the manager before we set up. The question I have is how much do you think is reasonable to ask? Bare in mind:

1) Only 3 of us, and after going to jam sessions and getting confident we've just started.
2) Small pub, and it's possibley a weekly residence
3) Costs us around £10 in transport for 2 of us
4) This is our only gig at the minute and we've rather playing for little than nothing.
5) At the moment it's a 2x45 set but because people we're sticking around this is either gonna be longer or we'll be starting later.

I was thinking of perhaps asking around £90 all together for a gig every other week. What would you guys charge? Thanks for reading!

[mr. beaumont]

90 pounds a man or for everyone? Is there any way you can figure out what the going rate is in your area?

For solo gigs, I like to start negotiations $50 an hour. When playing with a group, I like to see every man get $100 bucks for a full night of work...I'll play for less if I think the gig can lead to something steady or lead to other gigs, but I don't play for shit pay, and I don't undercut other musicians in the area.

[derek]

I typically won't play for less than $25 per hour, and that needs to include things like free food, etc. Like Mr. B, I shoot for $50 per hour. On rock/pop type gigs, We would get between $75-$150 per player for a 4 hour gig.

Playing for free is a big no-no. One time only to see if it fits is okay, but not if they regularly feature live music. Good luck with it.

[whippersnapper]

Thanks for the replies. It's £90 for the 3 of us which is around $130.

Around my area... established Jazz bands of the same line up and style are getting about £150-170 for playing small pubs like us. These are usually 3 hour gigs, though.

£90 for 2 hours is a little cheap I guess, but if it does turn 3 hours I'll need to be charging more so I don't under cut. I guess I should be charging a little more -- I start high I can always go lower if need be to settle.

Hope I didn't make a mistake by playing the first gig free.

[derek]

Hope I didn't make a mistake by playing the first gig free.

No worries, just need to know that guys who are full time musos make their living doing this, and bands offering their services for free, or free booze, are what unions over here call scabs.

[Baltar Hornbeek]

what the f'ck is a muso?

[JohnRoss]

No worries, just need to know that guys who are full time musos make their living doing this, and bands offering their services for free, or free booze, are what unions over here call scabs.

Well, you're a musician if you play music, not because you buy a union card and learn the macho vocabulary. Unions have their place in the world, but if you're not an insider, they are often effectively the enemy because they are, by nature, corporativist organizations intended to keep prices high and outsiders out, I know a little about this. If the lad wants the gig, there's no reason he shouldn't ask for as little or much as he wants, it's between him and the landlord. He's got an hour and a half's material, he needs to build repertoire, and he's looking for gigging experience, it's a fine way to go about it. Frankly, I'd do it for the beer money, in his shoes, why not? Beats busking, he won't get rained on.

[derek]

what the f'ck is a muso?

Muso 28 up, 9 downbuy muso mugs, tshirts and magnets
A muso is a person who is obsessed with music. Their record collection will contain music and artists nobody else has heard of, and if they believe that an artist is becoming popular they will deny they ever listened to them and quickly dispose of any evidence. If they come around to your house they will make a beeline for your music collection and then criticise everything in it just to make sure you know they are cool. As a sideline they will take up the acoustic guitar and then force you to listen to their "revolutionary" take on what music could be like. It will undoubtedly be dreadful and unlistenable.
You're such a muso, if other people have heard of it you hate it.
music bands groups songs lyrics
by Squishflop Dec 26, 2009 share this
2. Muso 961 up, 7003 downDecember 9, 2008 Urban Word of the Day
buy muso mugs, tshirts and magnets
Someone who is obsessed with listening to and creating music. Most can play mope than one instrument, and do so at any opportunity.
guy1: Look at this guy! He plays guitar, piano, AND has professional singing lessons!
guy2: Yeah, he's a real muso.

[derek]

Well, you're a musician if you play music, not because you buy a union card and learn the macho vocabulary. Unions have their place in the world, but if you're not an insider, they are often effectively the enemy because they are, by nature, corporativist organizations intended to keep prices high and outsiders out, I know a little about this. If the lad wants the gig, there's no reason he shouldn't ask for as little or much as he wants, it's between him and the landlord. He's got an hour and a half's material, he needs to build repertoire, and he's looking for gigging experience, it's a fine way to go about it. Frankly, I'd do it for the beer money, in his shoes, why not? Beats busking, he won't get rained on.

Why not? Because there are full time guys out there trying to make a living playing, guys who play for beer money are cutting their legs out from under them.

In addition, this sort of mentality contributes to the overall attitude that music should be available for free. I think it is a dangerous practice for those of us who would like to be fairly compensated for our efforts.

Don't know what you do for a day job John Ross, but I feel confident that you wouldn't want someone coming in and doing your job for beer money, or the equivalent. Does that make sense?

[JohnRoss]

Why not? Because there are full time guys out there trying to make a living playing, guys who play for beer money are cutting their legs out from under them.

If the full-time guys out there are not doing a better job than the guys who play for beer money, they deserve to have their legs cut out from under them. Anything else is protectionism.

In addition, this sort of mentality contributes to the overall attitude that music should be available for free. I think it is a dangerous practice for those of us who would like to be fairly compensated for our efforts.

Music should be available for free, if the musicians are willing. The alternative is unthinkable, though not unthinkable enough unfortunately, what with musicans' unions and copyright collection agencies and all the other suits and hangers-on.

But in any case you seem to be labouring under a misconception, here. We aren't talking about an orchestra pit job, now, or even a wedding reception, where people are entitled to expect professionalism in a musician. People go to the sort of pub gig that the OP is talking about because they want to have a couple of drinks and watch and listen to a bunch of guys having fun making music, that's all. It doesn't matter if they aren't the best musicians in the world, in fact it almost makes it better if they look a bit slobbish and make a few mistakes. Professionalism is not just not a required characteristic, it would detract from the enjoyment. When I was doing this sort of gig, the usual arrangement was that the pub sold more beer and we were allowed to charge on the door. But other bands just passed the hat round or ran raffles, and good for them. As I said: why not? No-one was going to offer us a contract to play mainstream trad (for example), were they?

Don't know what you do for a day job John Ross, but I feel confident that you wouldn't want someone coming in and doing your job for beer money, or the equivalent. Does that make sense?

No, your confidence is misplaced. I'm straying way too far off topic (sorry), so I'll only briefly mention one of my sources of income, as a translator, Spanish-English, mostly technical. I mention it because for every professional translator there must be a dozen would-be's who work cheap. And the best of luck to them, I don't care, I'm better, so they aren't a threat - often, in fact, they're doing me a favour, because they make me look good.

[derek]

If the full-time guys out there are not doing a better job than the guys who play for beer money, they deserve to have their legs cut out from under them. Anything else is protectionism.
Music should be available for free, if the musicians are willing. The alternative is unthinkable, though not unthinkable enough unfortunately, what with musicans' unions and copyright collection agencies and all the other suits and hangers-on.

But in any case you seem to be labouring under a misconception, here. We aren't talking about an orchestra pit job, now, or even a wedding reception, where people are entitled to expect professionalism in a musician. People go to the sort of pub gig that the OP is talking about because they want to have a couple of drinks and watch and listen to a bunch of guys having fun making music, that's all. It doesn't matter if they aren't the best musicians in the world, in fact it almost makes it better if they look a bit slobbish and make a few mistakes. Professionalism is not just not a required characteristic, it would detract from the enjoyment. When I was doing this sort of gig, the usual arrangement was that the pub sold more beer and we were allowed to charge on the door. But other bands just passed the hat round or ran raffles, and good for them. As I said: why not? No-one was going to offer us a contract to play mainstream trad (for example), were they?
No, your confidence is misplaced. I'm straying way too far off topic (sorry), so I'll only briefly mention one of my sources of income, as a translator, Spanish-English, mostly technical. I mention it because for every professional translator there must be a dozen would-be's who work cheap. And the best of luck to them, I don't care, I'm better, so they aren't a threat - often, in fact, they're doing me a favour, because they make me look good.

Wow. Not sure where to start on this. I guess I would say that bar owners don't care as long as the band sells beer/alcohol. For them, the cheaper, the better. Since when does the general public know good music? Particularly after a few drinks.

Music should be free? I guess you are willing to work for free then? I do not see the difference. Perhaps you and I will just have to disagree on this one.

However, I would suggest that the above viewpoints align you as an antagonist of professional musicians.

[JohnW400]

What I find happening is that most of the restaurant owners don't really care if you 're good or not.

I have been undercut by college kids who went in and offer to do the gig for less. The only thing that mattered to the owner was that he saved a few bucks. And so long as the patrons didn't complain well then why would he want to pay more for a better class of musician.

As far as free...the only thing that's free in this wolrd is the air. Everything else has some sort of cost associated with it. I've done free gigs, mostly civic things for the city or charity.

If someone wants to play in a bar for free than that's fine except if that gig was originaly a paying gig. Then by playing for free, he cost another musician a job. That's not good.

Remember this addage.

"Anything you give away for free loses it's value."

Even money. Once people get something for nothing the value of that item soon becomes perceived to be the same thing. Nothing.

You have to get something for your time/service or it will become expected of you to always do it for free. And unfortunately this will rub off on others and the perception will have become that all musicians should be expected to do it for free.

[mr. beaumont]

"playing music" is not a job, but being a "musician" sure as hell can be.

there's plenty of places for weekend warriors, kids, startups and hobbyists to play for free or next to nothing. If a place is making money and paying musicians, to go there and offer to play for free is a shitty thing to do. That, in and of itself, has nothing to do with "mafia" mentality, unions, or otherwise--it's about having a mutual respect for other human beings who may share an interest with you, but depend on getting paid for their performance as or as a significant part of their income.

No one is "entitled" to any job. So why would I make a conscious descision that could hurt someone else's chances of having thiers?

[JohnW400]

Playing music is great. Everybody should do it. However providing entertainment in a business like a pub, restaurant, private hall or whathave you is a job or a service.

People should be paid for their work. It has nothing to do with union or mafia.

Your gripe seems to be with union players. I think our gripe is with wannabe weekend warriors that think it's cool to go out and play in a bar or restaurant and are willing to do so for some paltry fee just to go out and do it.

They don't need the money and they've confused someones job or work with going out and having fun because they enjoy it.

It's like me translating some documents for one of your clients because I'm fluent in Spanish, but I want more practice. So I do it for less. You may be more fluent than I and have a larger vocabulary but the translation isn't that tough and besides I enjoy speaking in another language so I want to fluant what I know.

I never joined the union yet played out in restaurants all the time. In 1992 I got $50 to play 3 hours. I usually worked Friday and Saturday night there. Not bad pay for 3 hours in 1992. Today, not so good.

Most musicians I know don't join the union because things aren't what they used to be. The number of union gigs are scant. So why join? If it's not some pit band or recording studio gig there's no point

If you play a wedding or such , the owner of the facility sometimes expects you to kick back to him (now thats a mafia) or they make your time there difficult or try to get the client to use his people instead.

No one begrudges people getting together and jamming. There are quite a few bars that have open mike night. They are usually run by a musician with some equipment so it's really his gig. He gets paid. The rest are just sittin in.

It's just not right to steal someones gig by undercutting him. If music is how one makes his living then one would understand.

But having a day gig and going out to play on the cheap for kicks since you don't need the money....... not so nice.

[Bill C]

In all business sectors established participants are challenged by new entrants who structure their fees differently, or do business in new ways, challenging established operators. Why should the music business be any different?

[markf]

seriously, how many musicians actually are able to make a decent living by playing alone? not a lot that I know.

I know a lot of very good players, some of them pretty well known, all of whom at some point have part time or full time jobs outside of music, in order to survive.

music lessons, house painter, carpenter, guitar tech, selling used cars, you name it.

The only way the original poster and his friends will get better, is by playing live somewhere. This is their chance.

And some places, just are not financially able to pay that much. small places, inexpensive places, and so on.

[JohnW400]

No way, most of the decent musicians I have known have been union men. My gripe is with the musicians' unions, not their members. Instead of defending their members' rights, they act as their promotors and even defenders of their privileges and sometimes actual territories. That's mafia behaviour.

Sounds pretty healthy to me. I'm danged if I can understand why anyone should not play for free or cheap because you would like to do the same gig for more money. It isn't their fault you've got debts.

I don't remember when that was postulated and I can't find it looking back over this thread. But, in any case, unless you had done something like rescue my mother from certain death, I don't see why "it's just not right." If I can cut it better than you, that's your fault for not working harder at it, and if I can't, you're going to win in the end. So what's the problem?

So you would be ok with someone going to your customers and undecutting you prices just because they had some spare time they wanted to kill and because they enjoyed what they were doing?

Sounds to me like unfair competition. Someone that doesn't do it for their primary source of income and can afford to undercut you. They don't need the bread.

I never mentioned playing better. I don't care what music style or whatever. How well you play is irrelevant. We're talking about people turnig a paying gig into a free gig because someone want's to play for some people

The point has to do with are you doing it as your profession or are you doing it to pass the time, have fun?

I still stand by my statement about confusing a job with having a good time.

If you come to my job and offer to do it for free because you have a different source of income and can afford to do it for free or beer then that's pretty smarmy , no?

That's my point.


Music is a great thing but it's also a job. If the place isn't already having music then fine, but going into an established gig and undercutting other musicians well that's pretty shitty , don't you think?

Same as you would feel if somebody came on your job and started to undercut you to the point where you couldn't make a living. I don't care how good or how much better you are theres always somebody else who's good enough to get it done.

Now this point as well as the other point about undercutting the gig are just statements and not directed to anyone in particular


It never ceases to amaze me how many player's out there don't respect it as a profession.

Everybody with a guitar thinks they can go out and play a gig. And the problem is that since the union is no longer relavant for most gigs, they can do it unfettered.

Now this point is directed at you:

Your opinion is proof of why we need unions. Years of fighting for a living wage and some kind of benefits get thrown out the window because some guy thinks "hey I can do that too" "and for beer".

[Bill C]

If the place isn't already having music then fine, but going into an established gig and undercutting other musicians well that's pretty shitty , don't you think?

Can I just preface this by saying I'm not out to cause offence here, just contributing a point of view to the debate.

I can see a situation where the undercutting could happen unintentionally. You have a gig on Wednesday at, say a restaurant. I know this and offer to play on Thursday. Owner offers me less than you. I accept - I need the money and/or need to be "out there" gigging. Owner sees how Thursdays are going and thinks "that's good enough, takings are ok on Thursday" and tells me Wednesday is now available as well ...

The other issue here is the distinction between professional and non-professional. Say I have a day job, but want to play gigs for a living instead. In order to make this happen, I either sit by the phone, or start offering my services to potential employers - ie competing in the market as a supplier of live music. I'd guess supply outstrips demand here, so it's almost inevitable in this situation that I'll find myself competing for work with other musicians at some point, intentionally or not.

Playing devil's advocate, why should I be the one that endures the day job? If I start getting more of the gigs, can't the other guy take a day job to make ends meet? Who decides what the market rate is, the guys already in the market? And if you shouldn't take paying gigs because you aren't a pro, how will you ever become a pro?

I guess what I'm saying is that anybody can enter a business sector at any time and shake things up - the status quo is not guaranteed.

[bkdavidson]

Derek, Mr. B, and John, I really wish there were more guys like you out there. As someone who is trying to make their income solely on teaching lessons and gigs, it just infuriates me when "musicians" charge next to nothing. I'm sure that all bigger cities have this problem, but in St. Louis it's awful. People just allow terrible pay to happen, and it makes the union seem like a bunch of over-charging snobs. We're not. THIS IS OUR JOB. IT'S HOW WE MAKE OUR LIVING.

For any of you that have some sort of salaried day job, let's do some math. If you work Monday to Friday, 9 to 5, with two weeks vacation and make $50,000 a year, that's 50 paid weeks. That gives you $1000 a week, which then breaks down to $200 a day. I haven't worked at a job that was answered to OSHA since 1996, but I remember that for every 4 hrs you worked you got a 15 minute break, and for an 8 hr. shift you got an hour lunch. So there's 6 1/2 hours of work per day. That breaks down to about $30.75 an hour.

Musicians aren't going to perform for 8 hours a day. Even if they practice for that much, it won't be performance. Musicians might not gig 5 nights a week (at least regularly) or make their full desired amount, so sometimes you'll have to make a little more.

Sorry for the rant. What this boils down to is that I will not open my door for less than $100, and it'd better be closer to $150 for a starting point. Exceptions are made, of course, for friends, bands that are just starting out, etc.

[bako]

Who decides what the market rate is, the guys already in the market?

The minimum standard for the market rate should be a living wage.

[mr. beaumont]

I thought that was the sort of place we were talking about all along. I note your clever use of vocabulary to denigrate non-professionals.

Why? If I'm no good, I'm no good, and if you're not as good as me, what makes you think you have more right to the gig than I do?

John, while I'm really already tired of this arguement and am pretty sure no one's opinions will be changed, I need to address these two points, because I honestly feel you don't know what I'm saying and there will need to be clarity if there's going to be any more intelligent discussion here.

First, nothing clever with my vocabulary, unless you assume I wanted to denigrate myself-- I am very much a "weekend warrior," I'm a guy who works a regular job monday thru friday and then likes to get out there and do something different on the weekend. I suppose the difference between me and some is I like to get paid for what I do.

Secondly, it has nothing to do with how "good" you are. You may also want to look back at my previous post in which I clearly say "no one is entitled to any job." It's not about "cutting it."

I have to ask, are you from the UK? I've heard several people I know from there say the situation regarding paying gigs is very bleak. If that is the case and that's where you are from, I understand the disconnect we are having here...but the deal is, here in the states, making a living playing music (or at least a substantial portion of your income) is very possible.

So, to close this up from my end, all I'm saying is--

There's plenty of places to play for free or next to nothing, and that's completely fine.

There's also places that pay, and to go to them and take a gig away from someone who could have gotten paid is not cool.

And to the OP, I hope you know were not talking about you! You have the right idea, and from what I've heard of your playing, they're getting a quality act that should be paid.

[JohnRoss]

So you would be ok with someone going to your customers and undecutting you prices just because they had some spare time they wanted to kill and because they enjoyed what they were doing?

I already answered that. The answer was yes, because I'm better than them, and when I stop being better than them, it's time for me to find another way to earn a living.

Sounds to me like unfair competition. Someone that doesn't do it for their primary source of income and can afford to undercut you. They don't need the bread.

You do need the bread, so you think you are more entitled to be paid? And are going to sic the union on me? What has this got to do with music?

I never mentioned playing better. I don't care what music style or whatever. How well you play is irrelevant.

No, it's primary. Music is holy, mortgages are just personal problems.

We're talking about people turnig a paying gig into a free gig because someone want's to play for some people

We weren't originally. We were talking about a young lad who wanted to know if he was charging too little, you invented the intrusionism.

The point has to do with are you doing it as your profession or are you doing it to pass the time, have fun?

The point is that you're a musician because you make music. All else is secondary. You're an artist if you make art, not because you sell it. There's no artists' and painters' union, is there? If you're Picasso and someone contracts you to do a mural, then someone else comes along who is a talented painter just starting out or a rank amateur and offers to do it cheap or for free, you don't whine about union rates, you convince the client that you would do a better job or you move on to the next gig.

If you come to my job and offer to do it for free because you have a different source of income and can afford to do it for free or beer then that's pretty smarmy , no?

First a scab, then shitty, now smarmy... Keep it coming, it's like manure, I thrive on it.

Music is a great thing but it's also a job. If the place isn't already having music then fine, but going into an established gig and undercutting other musicians well that's pretty shitty , don't you think?

That's capitalism for you, I didn't invent it.

Same as you would feel if somebody came on your job and started to undercut you to the point where you couldn't make a living. I don't care how good or how much better you are theres always somebody else who's good enough to get it done.

If he's starting out and he's that good, he's soon going to be well established enough to move up out of my price range, so he's only a temporary nuisance, I can live with that.

Everybody with a guitar thinks they can go out and play a gig. And the problem is that since the union is no longer relavant for most gigs, they can do it unfettered.

"Unfettered" is a nice word, it means "free." And everybody with a guitar thinking they can go out and play a gig sounds like a desirable state of affairs to me, as well. I'm an old hippy, of course.

Your opinion is proof of why we need unions. Years of fighting for a living wage and some kind of benefits get thrown out the window because some guy thinks "hey I can do that too" "and for beer".

Yeah, well, maybe you need them. I've been in the situation of being in a new town and trying to switch from the bar circuit to the hotel circuit and finding union gorillas on all the doors. And I would bet that if I went to your corner of the world, your union would do its darnest to make sure that I couldn't earn a living. You see them as looking after your interests, which is fair enough, they probably do, but from where I'm standing, they're thugs in suits.

[JohnW400]

Yeah, well, maybe you need them. I've been in the situation of being in a new town and trying to switch from the bar circuit to the hotel circuit and finding union gorillas on all the doors. And I would bet that if I went to your corner of the world, your union would do its darnest to make sure that I couldn't earn a living. You see them as looking after your interests, which is fair enough, they probably do, but from where I'm standing, they're thugs in suits.

First, you didn't answer my question. Just because your good at tranlating doesn't make you immune from people coming on your gig and trying to steal it. Being good at it has nothing to do with it. Any class of musician can ask for a gig. Many get it. The club owner doesn't care. As long as his customers are happy, he's happy.

Don't tell me you wouldn't be pissed if this started to happen to you on a regular basis.


As far as the union, join the union. It will gaurantee you a wage. Thank god these places have unions. The union is there to protect the worker from abuses and assure a decent wage. They also keep wannabe's out. Unfortunately they don't hold the same clout as they used to. We now have to hope that club owners are good guys and respect the profession. After all the arts as well as being ART is also somebodies bread and butter.

If music is so sacred to you then play it in a church. The people who try to make a living at it would like to be able to make a living and not have to depend on the Church to eat.

Here's the scenario that I call the cannibal effect. We just eat eachother till theres nothing left.

I go into a rerstaurant and convince the owner to have music. I offer my services at a reasonable rate. $50

While I'm gigging there on a Saturday night, some guy having diner there get's the idea that, " hey, I play music. Maybe I can get a gig here as well"

So this guy goes to the owner and says 'How do I get a gig?" The owner says "Well John has the gig" Not wanting to be dissuaded the wannabe asks "how much do you pay John? " The owner replies " He get's $50"

Being the shrewed businessman , the wannabee says "well I'll do it for $40"

Being the greedy SOB, the club owners says "great, start next week"

So John is out a gig.

The next week comes and the new guy is doing the gig. Wannabe #2 is in the audience and says " hey, I play music. Maybe I can play here." He goes into the owner and this time he undercuts wannabe #1 by $10 and does it for 30.

Now wannabe #1 and #2 have sucsessfully undercut the market by pissing on John's work and cheapening it. Thanks to John, the gig paid $50. But due to the efforts of Wannabe #1 and #2, It now only pays $30

This happens over and over until the it get's to the point where the owner is paying the band with 2-3 beers. The owners as happy as a pig in shit and no respectable musician goes near the place. It's no longer a viable gig.


Good job boys. You put a working musician out of a job so that you could make some chump change while having a good time.

[Bill C]

They also keep wannabe's out.

Do you mean they keep "price undercutters" out, or they keep aspiring musicians out? The former, one would hope!

[JohnW400]

Do you mean they keep "price undercutters" out, or they keep aspiring musicians out? The former, one would hope!

wannabe = predominantly guitar player's, that can't really play but thinks they can. Is better at air guitar than real guitar.

Looks at any other guitar players and says "I can do that", but has no real idea what went into being able to do it. When they see a gigging player the first thought that comes into their head is that it should be their gig, but they did nothing to get the gig in the first place. (no networking, no groundwork etc)



Seriously, aspiring player's should have at it. Just don't undercut the gig. It hurts everyone. If you want to compete, then compete on the same level and don't handicap yourself by doing it for less.

That's all one could ask.