As bad as this is, and it’s bad, I’ve seen worse. I’ve had clubs ask my band to “pay to play.” In other words the band puts up a non refundable deposit recoupable from the door. Unbelievable! I don’t understand why a chef, for instance, isn’t required to guarantee a certain number of patrons but a musician is. I think the bottom line, so…
As bad as this is, and it’s bad, I’ve seen worse. I’ve had clubs ask my band to “pay to play.” In other words the band puts up a non refundable deposit recoupable from the door. Unbelievable! I don’t understand why a chef, for instance, isn’t required to guarantee a certain number of patrons but a musician is. I think the bottom line, so to speak, is that music (and arts in general) is really not valued in a capitalist economy. It pisses me off.
This seems to only happen to artists. They almost seem offended when you mention getting paid. If I go to a store and buy a pop... "Pay to Play" seems to be the mantra of every industry. And nepotism.
What is the difference between "pay to play" and the artist controlling their means of production by renting out the venue and handling the financial aspects behind their performance? Is one exploitation and the other empowerment?
The difference is that a musician is hired by a venue owner to provide music for a fee. The owner also hires a chef, waiters, bartender, dishwasher and maybe a bouncer. The musician is providing a service to the venue just like everyone else. The only hired hand, so to speak, who is obligated to bring in a certain number of patrons or $$ is the musician. This is patently unfair. In our economy it is standard practice for the owner(s) of a business to take the risks and reap the profits unless the workers are also owners. In the case of a band putting a show on it’s own the musician is acting as an entrepreneur so they are the owner. In practice the later scenario is rare. It’s too expensive, time consuming and risky for the musician.
I'm not sure if this is unfair - this would really depend on what the negotiation is between the venue owner and the musician. If the venue owner believes that the musician cannot draw enough people, the musician should have the opportunity to rent the means of production to whatever extent they are comfortable. I would suggest that our economy is rapidly turning into a 'gig economy' - one in which each person has more options as to how they handle their skills and perform their abilities. Although the artists who wish to control their own means of production is 'rare', it does exist and some artists are willing to do so. We have some clients who would rather do a percentage-based deal than a guarantee-based deal, either because they really want the opportunity or they know that they will make more money than what a guarantee is. In both cases, we discuss in-depth with our clients and talk over the advantages and disadvantages. In each occasion we have done a percentage-based deal or a no-payment deal, our clients have been well advised of the scenario. They control their own means of production, and they sometimes choose to enact these means.
You arr 100% correct - the process of live music is DEFINITELY expensive, time consuming, and risky for ALL parties. I would suggest that in both cases, the most crucial aspect is for both parties (the artist/creator and the owner/promoter) should negotiate effectively based on what they want to see happen. I don't believe that a 'one size fits all' scenario works anymore, and it makes my job way more difficult.
By my last paragraph re difficulties, want to state that I'm not a victim by any means, and I wish the business was like it was back in the day. I'd like the process to be easier too :)
RE: "Although the artists who wish to control their own means of production is 'rare', it does exist and some artists are willing to do so."
These days, a booker or presenter is probably going to look at the artist's numbers on social media, subscribers on youtube channel and numbers of listeners on streaming platforms. If they see low numbers there, that may equal an automatic "no", regardless of the quality of the music. Venues who have a strong curatorial approach and a faithful audience who are drawn to the venue for the quality of the music, may be the only ones who can afford to present an artist whose numbers are low.
Not withstanding such venues, which may be increasingly rare, self produced concerts may make more sense financially and artistically for an artist whose social media numbers are low. If the artist can find a good reasonable priced venue and can bring in 50 to 100 people at $20 pp in addition to selling CD's, then there is potential of $2K gross. But then there is venue rental, PR costs. It could work well for a solo or a duo.
Your right. It is only unfair if musician is hired for a fee. In smaller clubs this is standard practice as you probably know. It also assumes the owner is negotiating in good faith which is often not the case. It sounds like you work for an talent agency or some such. Most musicians near the bottom of the ladder don’t have an agent. And that’s really what I’m talking about. The real question is who is responsible to put butts in seats and sell drinks. Let’s say the scenario is a bar that hires a solo artist to perform. As you also probably know, this is a very common, again, low on the ladder. Let’s say the owner also hires a hot, new chef to increase his business. The chef isn’t required to guarantee a number of patrons or dollars but the musician is. Why?
Good point, and I would say that it depends on the chef, and their level of specialization. I don't think that the scenario you are suggesting is limited to musicians. Artists have to sell X amount in order to have their items shown in certain galleries. Star chefs have to sell Y amount in order to have their contracts renewed. The process of 'pay to play' is not limited to one field. Franchise deals are often based on the ability of the brand to market themselves within their ecosystem, or else they can get pulled from certain shopping areas. I'm definitely extrapolating, it comes down to expertise and the size of the job pool.
Also, I do think that anyone can negotiate their own way. It's all about building leverage, and true it is easier when you have more leverage, but each individual has the power to say no. The core concept still exists - every entity should negotiate based on the value of their worth, and the ability to pass on opportunities is as important as the ability to take opportunities.
As bad as this is, and it’s bad, I’ve seen worse. I’ve had clubs ask my band to “pay to play.” In other words the band puts up a non refundable deposit recoupable from the door. Unbelievable! I don’t understand why a chef, for instance, isn’t required to guarantee a certain number of patrons but a musician is. I think the bottom line, so to speak, is that music (and arts in general) is really not valued in a capitalist economy. It pisses me off.
This seems to only happen to artists. They almost seem offended when you mention getting paid. If I go to a store and buy a pop... "Pay to Play" seems to be the mantra of every industry. And nepotism.
What is the difference between "pay to play" and the artist controlling their means of production by renting out the venue and handling the financial aspects behind their performance? Is one exploitation and the other empowerment?
The difference is that a musician is hired by a venue owner to provide music for a fee. The owner also hires a chef, waiters, bartender, dishwasher and maybe a bouncer. The musician is providing a service to the venue just like everyone else. The only hired hand, so to speak, who is obligated to bring in a certain number of patrons or $$ is the musician. This is patently unfair. In our economy it is standard practice for the owner(s) of a business to take the risks and reap the profits unless the workers are also owners. In the case of a band putting a show on it’s own the musician is acting as an entrepreneur so they are the owner. In practice the later scenario is rare. It’s too expensive, time consuming and risky for the musician.
I'm not sure if this is unfair - this would really depend on what the negotiation is between the venue owner and the musician. If the venue owner believes that the musician cannot draw enough people, the musician should have the opportunity to rent the means of production to whatever extent they are comfortable. I would suggest that our economy is rapidly turning into a 'gig economy' - one in which each person has more options as to how they handle their skills and perform their abilities. Although the artists who wish to control their own means of production is 'rare', it does exist and some artists are willing to do so. We have some clients who would rather do a percentage-based deal than a guarantee-based deal, either because they really want the opportunity or they know that they will make more money than what a guarantee is. In both cases, we discuss in-depth with our clients and talk over the advantages and disadvantages. In each occasion we have done a percentage-based deal or a no-payment deal, our clients have been well advised of the scenario. They control their own means of production, and they sometimes choose to enact these means.
You arr 100% correct - the process of live music is DEFINITELY expensive, time consuming, and risky for ALL parties. I would suggest that in both cases, the most crucial aspect is for both parties (the artist/creator and the owner/promoter) should negotiate effectively based on what they want to see happen. I don't believe that a 'one size fits all' scenario works anymore, and it makes my job way more difficult.
By my last paragraph re difficulties, want to state that I'm not a victim by any means, and I wish the business was like it was back in the day. I'd like the process to be easier too :)
RE: "Although the artists who wish to control their own means of production is 'rare', it does exist and some artists are willing to do so."
These days, a booker or presenter is probably going to look at the artist's numbers on social media, subscribers on youtube channel and numbers of listeners on streaming platforms. If they see low numbers there, that may equal an automatic "no", regardless of the quality of the music. Venues who have a strong curatorial approach and a faithful audience who are drawn to the venue for the quality of the music, may be the only ones who can afford to present an artist whose numbers are low.
Not withstanding such venues, which may be increasingly rare, self produced concerts may make more sense financially and artistically for an artist whose social media numbers are low. If the artist can find a good reasonable priced venue and can bring in 50 to 100 people at $20 pp in addition to selling CD's, then there is potential of $2K gross. But then there is venue rental, PR costs. It could work well for a solo or a duo.
true!
Your right. It is only unfair if musician is hired for a fee. In smaller clubs this is standard practice as you probably know. It also assumes the owner is negotiating in good faith which is often not the case. It sounds like you work for an talent agency or some such. Most musicians near the bottom of the ladder don’t have an agent. And that’s really what I’m talking about. The real question is who is responsible to put butts in seats and sell drinks. Let’s say the scenario is a bar that hires a solo artist to perform. As you also probably know, this is a very common, again, low on the ladder. Let’s say the owner also hires a hot, new chef to increase his business. The chef isn’t required to guarantee a number of patrons or dollars but the musician is. Why?
Good point, and I would say that it depends on the chef, and their level of specialization. I don't think that the scenario you are suggesting is limited to musicians. Artists have to sell X amount in order to have their items shown in certain galleries. Star chefs have to sell Y amount in order to have their contracts renewed. The process of 'pay to play' is not limited to one field. Franchise deals are often based on the ability of the brand to market themselves within their ecosystem, or else they can get pulled from certain shopping areas. I'm definitely extrapolating, it comes down to expertise and the size of the job pool.
Also, I do think that anyone can negotiate their own way. It's all about building leverage, and true it is easier when you have more leverage, but each individual has the power to say no. The core concept still exists - every entity should negotiate based on the value of their worth, and the ability to pass on opportunities is as important as the ability to take opportunities.