The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 160
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Sherry
    Well, chief, you're saying that you won't leave the house for less than a hundred. Really?
    Not even if it turns out that the gig leads to a year of great gigs?
    Not even to play with someone who will turn out to be your playing partner for the next few years?
    Not even if it turns out that {insert name here} is in the audience?

    You don't know what you miss out on when you turn down that sixty dollar gig to keep your reputation as a Hundred-Dollar Player intact. That's why that kind of 'line in the sand' attitude is short-sighted at the minimum. And you're not a dumb guy, so I was pretty surprised to see it from you.

    You play on. I'll take the ones that fall below your standard, and gain the benefit.
    For a jazz gig, I've got to travel, park, or take public transportation and walk.

    For anything less than $100, I might as well pay to play.

    I'm a guy with kids and a job, I'm not looking for my big break. It ain't coming.

    And again, that's for myself, to do a solo gig. I live by the Charlie Christian adage--my guitar comes out of the case to have fun, learn something, or make some money. I'll certainly still go to a jam or something if I know the players and get paid in chicken wings. I'm talking about for what I consider a "gig," a job, not just "fun."

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Was talking about this thread at our (rock'n'roll) gig last night. We were in a theatre doing a self-promoted show. Looking at the posters in the cafe / bar there's an awful lot of tribute acts around. One of the guys pointed out that in his own town last night there was a Dave Brubek tribute band playing and had almost sold that town's theatre out. Maybe that's another way to get paying gigs - join the tribute band revolution!?

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    I would find a clarinet/sax player and put together a ‘tribute to Benny Goodman and Charlie Christian’ act, that would be fun to do and might be a viable sell. Something like that record that Kenny Burrell did.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    I do about 200 gigs a year and average about $100 per gig. I do gigs for less than $100 if the players are all high level pros and it is fun, but I never play for less than $25 per hour. That is my absolute minimum. We all have a comfort level and can make our individual justifications for those levels. There is no doubt a declining market for live jazz combined with an increasing amount of jazz musicians. The race to the bottom has been underway for many years now and the prognosis is grim.

    I do have a couple of thought to share:

    1. Playing for less than minimum wage is illegal and for good reason. Labor, even if it is fun for those providing the labor should be compensated at some minimum level and those breaking the law who provide the labor are just as guilty as those who benefit from it.

    2. Part of the reason that jazz has lost popularity can be traced to jazz musicians themselves. Those who play indulgent music (endless solos, weird sounding note choices, lack of clear time, harmony or rhythm etc.) turn off prospective jazz fans. Those who are not ready for public performance do the same when they perform in public showcasing their mediocre skills. If you wiggle your fingers around the fretboard instead of playing what you hear on an improvised solo, or need to see a chart to play most standards, you are not ready for public performance and are doing the music a disservice.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    An excellent discussion.

    I'm working at music, not getting paid much - but getting paid.

    I like to think of advice from an actor I saw in a TV interview. When asked the key to performing success, he responded "Do something people will pay to see." When I think about this while I play, I take more chances, do more daring stuff, try to get audience attention without being a clown. Or maybe sometimes being a clown...

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    A local restaurant owner advertised on Craigslist for a band to play at his new restaurant. No $ but, he said, it would be good exposure.

    A friend, a trumpet player, replied. He wasn’t interested in the gig. Rather, he was having some people over for dinner, and maybe the restauranteur would like to come over and cook for them. No money but it would be good exposure...

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Pretty good fantasy scenario and conclusions going on here.
    Even so, each of those things has happened to me at one time or another over almost 40 years as a professional musician.

    But my point was not that they happen often and not that they are the reason I play gigs. My point was and is that the benefits of playing any particular gig should and usually do go beyond the money that we make. (I'd be surprised if Jeff disagrees with that FWIW.)

    Posters on JGF will be shocked to hear that I don't play jazz for the money. If the music itself isn't the benefit there is no amount of money which makes up for turning music into drudge-work, or missing out on family time.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    I'm inclined to agree with Sam, but I don't blame someone for turning down gigs for less than a threshold.

    Context is important. If it's my project I often go guarantor if we don't do so well on the door, but it's my music, my thing....

    If someone asks me to play cool original music in a bar for no money in London on a Monday, sure, but if I have to travel 3 or 4 hours to play background music for £150 on a Saturday night, nope.

    If I just placed my value as a simple lower threshold I'd not do half of the interesting gigs I do.

    Thing to bear in mind - if you are booked for any gig regardless of $$$ you have to make a decision if something else comes up - do I dep or do I say no? If you get offered a function REALLY good money and you have committed to doing a peanuts jazz gig, you have a dilemma, especially as it will be hard to find a dep, and if you do, that player may end up doing the project.

    Know your values, know what you want. You may need the money of the well paid function... life isn't fair, and while the bandleader won't blame you - unless they are the kind of arse you really don't want to work with - things may pan out differently. Every decision has a consequence.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    200 gigs a year is a lot of gigs. Probably not many musicians do more than that.

    And, around here, averaging $100 per gig is also pretty good. Or, at least, that's my impression. I've heard that even musicians play major community theater gigs (shows with books) at significant ticket prices may be paid around that much. So, averaging $100 seems pretty good for a jazz musician.

    Now, to calculate return, you have to consider all the time that goes into playing those 200 gigs. I'd guess average for most players is at least 3 or 4 hours per gig, maybe more, depending on how far you have to travel, how difficult load-in is, etc.

    I live across the Bay from San Francisco. A lot of East Bay musicians play gigs in SF. Most have to drive and the traffic is usually awful. Parking is similarly bad, and you often have to pay for it. $7 for the bridge.

    Then there's the time it takes to book and manage the schedule, rehearse (if needed), maintain equipment and practice.

    A lot of players I know play situations where they are reading arrangements. Often, the charts are provided in advance and players can spend hours getting the material under their fingers.

    So how many hours per week is it really? And for about $20,000.

    I admire players who are skilled enough to get that many gigs. But, from a financial perspective, they're also (almost) giving it away.
    For the skill level, time and expense involved ...

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Someone else (can't remember who!) put it very simply.

    Someone asks you to do a gig. If it makes you say 'hell yeah!' do it, otherwise, don't bother.

    The hell yeah will obviously vary from person to person, gig to gig.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    200 gigs a year is a lot of gigs. Probably not many musicians do more than that.

    And, around here, averaging $100 per gig is also pretty good. Or, at least, that's my impression. I've heard that even musicians play major community theater gigs (shows with books) at significant ticket prices may be paid around that much. So, averaging $100 seems pretty good for a jazz musician.

    Now, to calculate return, you have to consider all the time that goes into playing those 200 gigs. I'd guess average for most players is at least 3 or 4 hours per gig, maybe more, depending on how far you have to travel, how difficult load-in is, etc.

    I live across the Bay from San Francisco. A lot of East Bay musicians play gigs in SF. Most have to drive and the traffic is usually awful. Parking is similarly bad, and you often have to pay for it. $7 for the bridge.

    Then there's the time it takes to book and manage the schedule, rehearse (if needed), maintain equipment and practice.

    A lot of players I know play situations where they are reading arrangements. Often, the charts are provided in advance and players can spend hours getting the material under their fingers.

    So how many hours per week is it really? And for about $20,000.

    I admire players who are skilled enough to get that many gigs. But, from a financial perspective, they're also (almost) giving it away.
    For the skill level, time and expense involved ...
    I used to do 200 a year. Mostly swing gigs. There's a lot of demand for swing and gypsy jazz, and for a while I was one of the guys on that scene in my city.

    It's not really enough to earn a living, and I decided I'd rather be playing other types of music too, fed up of noisy bar gigs and dance things that were my bread and butter, so my gig count dropped.

    But there's no gig I do that I don't want to do, and that's fantastic. That wasn't true 5 years ago.

    People who earn proper money in my town tend to be theatre players.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    200 gigs a year is a lot of gigs. Probably not many musicians do more than that.

    And, around here, averaging $100 per gig is also pretty good. Or, at least, that's my impression. I've heard that even musicians play major community theater gigs (shows with books) at significant ticket prices may be paid around that much. So, averaging $100 seems pretty good for a jazz musician.

    Now, to calculate return, you have to consider all the time that goes into playing those 200 gigs. I'd guess average for most players is at least 3 or 4 hours per gig, maybe more, depending on how far you have to travel, how difficult load-in is, etc.

    I live across the Bay from San Francisco. A lot of East Bay musicians play gigs in SF. Most have to drive and the traffic is usually awful. Parking is similarly bad, and you often have to pay for it. $7 for the bridge.

    Then there's the time it takes to book and manage the schedule, rehearse (if needed), maintain equipment and practice.

    A lot of players I know play situations where they are reading arrangements. Often, the charts are provided in advance and players can spend hours getting the material under their fingers.

    So how many hours per week is it really? And for about $20,000.

    I admire players who are skilled enough to get that many gigs. But, from a financial perspective, they're also (almost) giving it away.
    For the skill level, time and expense involved ...
    Rick,

    I feel quite fortunate to have this poorly paid (20K here in the Bay Area is pretty weak, indeed) 4th career. I have played gigs with Larry Coryell, Bruce Forman, Mimi Fox, Howard Alden, Andreas Oberg, Vince Lateano, Al Obidinski and many other top pros. Many long time local pros tell me that I am lucky to be playing this much in this day and age and still be getting paid, even if it is a pittance compared to what the gigs should pay.

    I will turn 62 this year and expect that I only have a few years left at this sort of thing. The venue owners/managers and agents who provide my gigs are all older than me and will be leaving the scene shortly. But it has been a great ride. I know that I have done my part in keeping our tradition alive. And I can honestly sat that I have done it well. While I am no Joe Pass or Wes Montgomery, I have put in the time to hone my craft to a level where top flight pros are comfortable playing with me. I know hundreds of tunes, can learn a new tune fast, my time is good, I can sight read pretty well, I can construct a well crafted solo, making the changes and I can provide accompaniment to a soloist that does not get in their way.

    If I taught, I suppose I could earn an extra 10K a year, but I hate teaching and I don't need the extra bread. And 30K (which is the average wage of a professional musician in the USA today) is barely a living wage (and in places like NYC or the Bay Area is NOT a living wage). All of my gigs are jazz gigs. If I played other styles, perhaps there might be more money, but playing jazz gives me pleasure. Playing other genres of music does not interest me and if making money is of importance, I could make a lot more money if I went back to practicing law (I am still licensed to practice in two States).

    Because of traffic and bridge tolls, I will not take an East Bay or Wine country gig for less than $250 these days. I feel the same about Monterey/Carmel/Big Sur gigs. Sitting in the car is no fun.

    But back to my points:

    Venues that cannot pay the musicians at least minimum wage should not have live music; and

    Those who have not put in the time to play at a pro level (or who simply lack the inherent talent to ever do so) should not be doing public performances.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I'm inclined to agree with Sam, but I don't blame someone for turning down gigs for less than a threshold.

    Context is important. If it's my project I often go guarantor if we don't do so well on the door, but it's my music, my thing....

    If someone asks me to play cool original music in a bar for no money in London on a Monday, sure, but if I have to travel 3 or 4 hours to play background music for £150 on a Saturday night, nope.

    If I just placed my value as a simple lower threshold I'd not do half of the interesting gigs I do.

    Thing to bear in mind - if you are booked for any gig regardless of $$$ you have to make a decision if something else comes up - do I dep or do I say no? If you get offered a function REALLY good money and you have committed to doing a peanuts jazz gig, you have a dilemma, especially as it will be hard to find a dep, and if you do, that player may end up doing the project.

    Know your values, know what you want. You may need the money of the well paid function... life isn't fair, and while the bandleader won't blame you - unless they are the kind of arse you really don't want to work with - things may pan out differently. Every decision has a consequence.
    I love that! So true.

    Just last Wed a bass player canceled on me an hour before a (not very well paid but regular) gig. Told me he fell off the stairs and damaged his hand. Knowing him and the way he worded it I highly suspect he got a call for a better paying gig and took it. Thing is he's also booked to play next Monday with me for a decent pay, and, he doesn't know it yet, but I took him off off it. Hand injuries are serious and need a healing time

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    Rick,


    But back to my points:

    Venues that cannot pay the musicians at least minimum wage should not have live music; and

    Those who have not put in the time to play at a pro level (or who simply lack the inherent talent to ever do so) should not be doing public performances.
    Basically, I agree with these points, but I'd add one thing.

    One of the issues here is that there are amateur players who sound pretty good. In order to be a pro at something you have to be much, much better than an amateur. The marketplace seems to reflect that. Restaurant gigs don't have to pay very much because they can get decent musicians for a song.

    The major concert venues pay higher prices (I hope!) for musicians who are simply at a dramatically higher level.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    If you think there's anything that can come up to prevent you from playing a gig, have a good sub in mind.

    It's called common human decency. Clearly, it's the damn wild west out here.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    I've stayed out of this discussion, because I've never played music for a living, and never seriously thought it was possible. Growing up on a dryland cotton farm where there is never enough rain tends to sharpen one's focus. I got other work, not necessarily enjoyable nor well-paying, but work I could get. Once I had a family, providing a living for them was my focus, and spending money on frivolous things like music never entered my mind. Well, it did enter, but it couldn't be allowed to take hold. But the subject at hand does have some interest to me, because it relates to other fields. If no one can play for free, or for little money, how does one survive and eat while learning the craft? No one, or at least no one I know of, is born knowing how to play jazz guitar at a high level. Once upon a time, someone who knew basic guitar comping could get a job, right out of high school or even earlier, playing for dance bands, and learn on the job. Lots of well-known players started that way. Not much opportunity for that these days, though. So IMO it's a complicated subject. Perhaps only individuals with a high degree of talent, who can learn very quickly, should even consider a career in music, and only play for money from the start. Those without the high level of talent should just do other work. That was my case, and I don't really regret it, because without the high level of talent making a decent living playing guitar is almost impossible. The few exceptions just prove the rule. Or perhaps anyone who wants to should be allowed to try to make a career playing. What do those with lesser talent do? Just sit at home and practice alone? I believe most people learn better, quicker, playing with others. I must admit I'm conflicted, and I can see multiple sides of the issue. It's hard for me to condemn someone for working for free or for cheap if I don't know their situation well. Most people, I believe, are incapable of putting the welfare of others above their own, and that's what this discussion is about, in essence. Ideally we would all consider the needs of others before our own, but in reality it happens so rarely as to be astonish us when it does happen. I've experienced people thinking only of themselves so often I expect it. I don't think most can do otherwise even if they tried. So I guess the point of a very long post is "I dunno".

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Around here, it's understood, among players struggling to make a living at music, that they may cancel to take a better paying gig. The player who cancels is supposed to arrange the sub.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    It's a complicated issue. Most people sell their services for what the market will bear. Society puts a lower bound on that with a minimum wage, but there are ways employers get around it, like unpaid internships.

    So, should we disparage somebody who is willing to play for what the market provides?

    Marc draws the line at minimum wage, which makes sense, although most minimum wage workers don't have to supply their own tools while managing what amounts to a small service business. You'd hope a musician could at least net the minimum wage.

    Above that line, most musicians are working for less money than a worker in some other line with equal time in would earn. Once you're working for cheap, can you really criticize those working for cheaper?

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    There are similarities to the years that I worked as a flying instructor. First, I pushed myself to gain the experience and creditials to legally teach all the curriculums-learn my craft. The crowded, big city market, and competition (from other Pros) drove the price we charged. Sure, some CFIs around the U.S. wanted to (and did) teach for free.

    You hopefully won't give it away like some guys with day jobs might without a second thought.

    The fact that guys that used to work a crowd are now working in a room with 5-10 people is a terrible trend. So much of that is about fewer fans to replace the old ones who sought live music for their ears.

    We need to cultivate youth to take jobs that will get their hands dirty as well as young people that will walk out the door to hear live (instrumental) performance.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    I hope all these folks that live and gig in a location with an active music scene don't think it's a reflection of the broader jazz scene, and realize how lucky they are. If you don't live near an active jazz community, there's not much you're gonna do, and moving somewhere just to play jazz is about as stupid as moving somewhere to pan for gold.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    I love that! So true.

    Just last Wed a bass player canceled on me an hour before a (not very well paid but regular) gig. Told me he fell off the stairs and damaged his hand. Knowing him and the way he worded it I highly suspect he got a call for a better paying gig and took it. Thing is he's also booked to play next Monday with me for a decent pay, and, he doesn't know it yet, but I took him off off it. Hand injuries are serious and need a healing time
    I dep out a lot fewer gigs now then I used to.

    I depped my way out of a band on purpose once though. The bandleader ended up thinking it was their idea to work with other people :-) I don’t know if that’s a good thing or not haha

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Basically, I agree with these points, but I'd add one thing.

    One of the issues here is that there are amateur players who sound pretty good. In order to be a pro at something you have to be much, much better than an amateur. The marketplace seems to reflect that. Restaurant gigs don't have to pay very much because they can get decent musicians for a song.

    The major concert venues pay higher prices (I hope!) for musicians who are simply at a dramatically higher level.
    Indeed - but I think you are conflating the need to sell tickets with musical merit.

    A venue is most interested in whether or not they are going to lose money. In Greenwich Village jazz clubs I think audiences are more or less guaranteed so it’s the clubs who make the call, and I actually think it’s a bit more of a meritocracy (bearing in mind how problematic a concept that is lol) but in most cases here it’s, can you draw an audience? (Less so Ronnies cos it’s famous.)

    Furthermore, Peter Bernstein generally plays smaller venues than Pat Metheny.

    Imo it seems silly to compare them. Metheny has just got a bigger audience, for various reasons.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar

    So, should we disparage somebody who is willing to play for what the market provides?
    ...
    Once you're working for cheap, can you really criticize those working for cheaper?
    Couldn't agree more with this, this is my fundamental problem with disparaging "free" gigs. I don't think gigs that pay $20-$50 are that much different than "free" gigs. And we can disparage cheap gigs all we want, but, ultimately, the market for high quality jazz just isn't there in most places.

    My parents frequent a local restaurant in NC that I played at for many years, the restaurant has for 25+ years paid something like $50/person + dinner for musicians. Years ago, a lot of musicians boycotted the place because of the pay, but no one that goes there cares that much about the quality of the music, to be honest. Patrons like to see people playing on the small stage, the owner likes having live music, but they don't really need to have high quality music because no one really cares if the pianist is the next Keith Jarrett.

    I personally go out and see as much high quality live music as I can, and try to spend my money at places that have jazz.

    I think one thing that we miss here is that there are lots of things in the world like this; for example, Boxing. A relatively few elite athletes earn a lot of money boxing, virtually all other "professional" boxers work as trainers, or other day jobs. Everytime I watch the olympics, most sports that are showcased do not seem to have a path to providing a full time income for individuals, the olympic weightlifters all have day jobs, for example. We seem, culturally, to be stuck on the idea that musicians should be able to make a living, but I contend this is more due to recency bias (it's been possible for the last 100 years, sorta).

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Furthermore, Peter Bernstein generally plays smaller venues than Pat Metheny.

    Imo it seems silly to compare them. Metheny has just got a bigger audience, for various reasons.
    If there's anyone who embraced the punk DIY aesthetic and applied it to jazz, it's Pat Metheny. In interviews I read, the early PMG did all the same things I did when I was a kid playing in ska bands: toured incessantly in a small van, slept on people's floors, would play literally anywhere, and sometimes lost money.

    Pat devoted a large chunk of his life to non-stop touring in order to build up the fan base he has today, I remember reading an interview from the 80s where he described his living situation as totally nomadic. I don't think he does this anymore (he has a family now), but he seems to have done this from when he was in his early 20s well through his 40s. that's a long time and a lot of dedication.

    I agree it's silly to compare Peter and Pat anyways, just wanted to point out that the level of touring that Pat has done in his career as I think we underestimate how much he scuffled early on.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pcsanwald
    If there's anyone who embraced the punk DIY aesthetic and applied it to jazz, it's Pat Metheny. In interviews I read, the early PMG did all the same things I did when I was a kid playing in ska bands: toured incessantly in a small van, slept on people's floors, would play literally anywhere, and sometimes lost money.

    Pat devoted a large chunk of his life to non-stop touring in order to build up the fan base he has today, I remember reading an interview from the 80s where he described his living situation as totally nomadic. I don't think he does this anymore (he has a family now), but he seems to have done this from when he was in his early 20s well through his 40s. that's a long time and a lot of dedication.

    I agree it's silly to compare Peter and Pat anyways, just wanted to point out that the level of touring that Pat has done in his career as I think we underestimate how much he scuffled early on.
    'various reasons' :-)