-
The amount paid for live music seems entirely arbitrary and to obey no law of economics that I can discern.
If I'm doing function work, I have a standard fee, non-negotiable. But that's basically the market rate. People know what they are getting, and I know how to play those gigs.
-
08-16-2019 10:19 AM
-
The amount paid for live music seems entirely arbitrary and to obey no law of economics that I can discern.
In the bigger area where I live, live jazz has basically become an amateur thing with weak or mediocre players gigging for free. The whole local jazz scene is completely uninspiring therefore. Workshop level at best.
DB
-
Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
Hopefully there are some areas left where Jazz musicians can earn a decent income for their skills. I would like to know where these places are...
-
Originally Posted by AlsoRan
Nobody, not even the top players, can survive on gigs only. So basically all competent jazz players over here are teachers. The professional jazz musician does not exist economically speaking.
DB
-
Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
I do agree with folks that have posted things weren't so easy in the good old days, either. This is undoubtedly true and it's never been easy. But, the economics of being a musician have clearly shifted.
Lot of downsides to this. On the upside, at least we don't have to debate on internet forums about what being a "pro level" musician means, and how it doesn't count if you teach!
-
The economics of jazz are also resulting in the shrinking band. Where some quys might really want to present their music as a septet or quintet, even a quartet, for the sake of the music, are finding themselves scratching for a duo gig.....
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
The organ trio resurgence has something to do w that, you can get the chords and bass line from it and essentially have a "quartet " w 3 instruments.
That said I prefer organ bands regardless of financial considerations, but I know a bunch of piano players that aren't happy about it, so..
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk
-
It never ends.
I just received this yesterday. The name is x'ed out to protect the guilty.
"I got put in charge of the entertainment for the xxxxx Festival this year but info has not changed hands very smoothly and it is all very late coming together. So consider this a fledgling, rather than a solid, request, query:
Would the swing band you play with possibly be interested & willing to play? It's Sunday September 8, 10:30-5 and the group would play one 45 minute set, get free food tickets but not get paid. (Oh, I REALLY love asking musicians to play for free! Yup.) We usually get very good publicity before & after, if that matters."
I replied that I could not ask the other 15 band members to play for free.
I am getting too old and cranky for this.
-
The guys over at the polka forum complain about the same thing.
-
Originally Posted by mittens
-
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
My philosophy is that if a venue asks me to be somewhere for a certain amount of time and expects me to start on time, dress and act professionally, then they are expecting to hire a professional and should pay that professional for their services. The value of those services may vary from place to place and that's where the musican needs to decide what their services are worth and what the venue/market will pay. I do a lot of solo gigs for 2 hours because their budgets will only cover that type of service. If they want more time or musicians, the cost will increase accordingly.
It's funny to me that that same venue asking for a free musician probably would not be happy if you showed up late or cancelled for another paid gig. They're paying their staff with those same expectation, so musicians should be paid as well.
(BTW, I'm speaking from the perspective of a working musician hired for background music at a bar, restaurant, private party or event. Bands that are trying to get their name and music out or even trying to get yourself established in a large city like NYC are totally different animals. In those cases, I feel you may have to make certain trade offs in the short term to hopefully reap the rewards in the long term. It's no different than starting a new business. There's going to be a certain amount of time where business development/networking/marketing needs to be done for little to no money before you start getting steady revenue or shut down..)
-
My first pro gig was in a top 40 band-Two female leads, horns, and 100 tunes. The leader charted every part, so you had to read. He expected everyone to play the parts as written. We did five sets a night, six nights a week, for 250.00 a man. That was in 1979. I've done thousands of gigs since in many styles. Outside of playing in a big band, or playing for a flamenco dance company, that top 40 gig was a tough as any. I still play almost everyday, still learning, but I'm pretty much done doing gigs. The reality is there is no money in it, and never has been, except for the incredibly talented and/or lucky. I don't fall into either camp.
Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
-
11-10-2019, 05:59 PM #140joelf Guest
I need to get paid. Just like the landlord. No more free lunch. If someone wants me for a door gig, sorry, pay me. I play jam sessions b/c I'm still relatively new in town (Philly) and it's led to a FEW paying gigs.
I'm 65, know thousands of tunes, can write, solo, play solo guitar, accompany a singer, etc.
Damn right---pay me.
I have a steady starting Wed. in town and a POSSIBLE steady next week. My attitude remains: Pay me or get a 'kid who'll play in a burning house' with 1/20 of my skills (as we all know, owners and leaders do all the time).
No one put a gun to any of our heads and said 'be a professional musician or die right now'. We CHOSE this profession b/c we love it. That DOES NOT mean we have to take anyone's bullshit...
-
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Hi, SS,
Great post! However, I disagree with your last paragraph in re: not playing unless you are "competent" to do so. I played my first paid professional gig at 12 and had more b-lls than talent. It was in the early 60's when there were many opportunities for performance and it enabled me to develop the skills(over the years) to grow musically and professionally. I didn't take any jobs from the pros because they played in venues that were not musically accessible to me and my small group based on skill levels and audience. And, we didn't get paid what the pros were paid. But, we performed and developed the skills that only gigging can provide for a musician. However, I have NEVER played for free and will NEVER play for free since it hurts everyone who is serious about music. And, when you DO NOT play for free, potential venues can decide for what level of musicianship they are willing to pay--amateurs or pros and, if they don't want to pay--they wont have live music. The "musicians" who want to play for "exposure" are just buying into the trite and fantasy-filled mentality that it will promote their careers but in reality, never helps serious musicians--irrespective of their skill level and ,in reality, never helps the majority of these dreamers despite their desire to play on the stage. The plumber that unplugs your clogged toilet gets $130. an hour, or more, in urban areas . . . and you want to play for free???? I wonder who has the most talent? Good playing . . . Marinero
-
To be fair, plumbers and musicians jobs are very different in importance. Going out to hear music is optional, having a functional toilet not so optional. People don't like paying for garbage collection, but without it life in the city becomes unbearable. Life without live music, while not pleasant, can still be bearable. So comparing apples and tangerines is not a valid argument. I agree that musicians should be paid, but they're musicians by choice, and have to realize that they aren't going to be paid at the same level as many other vocations. There is a very wide range of compensation for different kinds of work, and not all of it is fair, but playing music will always be on the lower end of the scale, for most.
-
Originally Posted by sgosnell
I think you're taking this literally (which works for me) but, in a figurative sense and for better clarity,--I'm comparing the skill level needed to become a proficient musician and those required to be a plumber and, of course, fair compensation for both. I realize the world is not fair but part of the problem with musicians pay is THE ATTITUDE OF MUSICIANS. They sell themselves short at a drop of a hat because they want to play so badly. And, when we set the standard with a three-chord guitarist playing Jimmy Buffet songs in a tee shirt and blue jeans for $10.00 an hour you begin to see the problem. I have never met a pro in my generation(Baby Boomer) that plays for free or for less than music union wages. And, this is why most pros teach so they have an income and do not have to sell their skills at fire-sale prices. And then, of course, we see the three-chord guitarists that make millions a year--but that's another discussion. Thanks for your reply . . . Good playing . . . Marinero
-
11-16-2019, 05:56 PM #144joelf GuestOriginally Posted by Marinero
-
So what is a reasonable amount to offer for, say, a guitar\bass\drum trio for, say, two session of around 45 mins each, for a house party?
We are planning a party and I was going to ask my guitar teacher to perform, and I wouldn't want to offend him with some low-ball offer.
I pay $40 for a lesson of around 45 minutes. OR do I just offer him a flat rate for the entire band and leave it up to him what he pays the bass and drummer?
-
Originally Posted by jameslovestal
Ask HIM what he charges, dont throw out a price, but keep in mind this has nothing to do w what he charges for a lesson.
THAT would be insulting
-
Originally Posted by jameslovestal
-
Originally Posted by jameslovestal
Hi, James,
I'll tell you what I do. At present, I only play solo gigs: usually, a mix of Classical, Bossa, and Jazz. If it is a local gig(within 15 minutes from home), I charge $75.00 minimum per hour. If I play more than one hour-- roughly $65.00 per hour for up to 2 additional hours. So, a 3 hour gig is $200.00. However, most opt for 2 hours which is fine for me since 3 hours is a long gig on Classical guitar. If the travel time is greater, I adjust my rate accordingly. Included in this price is set up, soundcheck for the room and take down. And, in reality, a two-hour gig is really over three hours when you factor everything into the picture. So,in reality, a two-hour gig pays about $50.00 per hour- not much for the skill and time involved. If the owner tries to get a cheaper price, I politely tell him that its not worth my time for anything less but there are probably others with lesser skills who might play for his price. I require 50% down when we sign the contract and the balance due in cash BEFORE I set up my equipment. If they balk at this, you've done yourself a favor since your deal will certainly change at the end of the night in his favor if you get paid at all. That's my deal.
In answer to your question . . . $75.00 cash per man, per hour-- $450.00-500.00 for the gig. I hope this helps.
-
Last year I was asked by a good friend to accompany her for a couple songs at a fundraiser. I rarely turn down a fundraiser.
I didn't ask what the fundraiser was for. I found out later it was local musicians playing for free to raise money to pay outside musicians for a summer concert series.
I won't do that one again.
Unrelated topic.
I went to one of the summer concerts. I opening act was good. But he appeared in a dirty tee shirt and ripped up jeans. Looked like he slept in a dumpster. What happened to looking presentable when performing. That is another whole discussion.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
Last month I went to a couple of shows- Beppe Gambetta (solo flatpicker) had an audience of about 100 at 25 bucks a ticket.
The other show, Warren Vache', a great cornet player, had maybe a couple of dozen, tops, at a local restaurant/bar with a $10 cover.
RIP Nick Gravenites
Today, 05:48 PM in The Players