Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
...on the topic of playing for free. I love these topics! Too bad I can't take credit or instigating it. :) Maybe we should set the context appropriately here and explain that this is not a black and white issue. Genre, context, venue, personal philosophy on economics and politics, among other things have a lot to do with it. Two local examples come to mind: 1) A traditional jazz gig at a prominent restaurant, down town Boise (or any gig for a popular form of music) 2) The Boise Experimental Music Festival (or any festival for the creative or avant-garde arts) For 1), I played at the venue for 1.5 years, every Monday night (which is a decent run time for this type of gig), and was paid $50 a night, plus free drinks and dinner (estimated value of $75 at this venue), total $125 a person for 3 45-min sets. This is a very typical rate for this type of gig here, at restaurants. Private gigs will pay a lot more, between $100 and $500 a person. And of course, duos will get paid more per person and quartets just because of the math. In this case, local musicians would get very irritated if someone like me (who doesn't even need to get paid to play music to make a living) came in and undercut a them for 40% of the pay. Not only would it irritate them, but it would be considered unethical by many. Many local musicians play for a living, and so maintaining competitive rates is vital to them putting food on the table and supporting their families. In fact, in this light, I don't even feel right taking these gigs from folks who play for a living. I should have donated by fee to my bass player and percussionist, who did play for a living, rather than spending it on more looping toys. Wow, I guess I'm an egoist/hedonist afterall. :) This is why I don't mind not playing these gigs anymore, and now when I get calls for private jazz gigs, I pass them on to guys who need them. So, in a sense I sort of agree with whoever said that when you play for free, you are taking a gig away from someone who plays for a living. You could take it even further and say that when you play for fee, but don't really need the money, you are doing that same. It all depends on your political and socio-economic philosophy I suppose. One could also just as easily take a socio-economic Darwinist approach and say it's just survival of the fittest, in this case, who is shrewd, smart, or good enough to get the gigs, regardless of whether they play for fee or free, or whether they even need the money. Who he hell cares? It's dog eat dog...let the best band win, however you construe "best". We have to be careful with the moral high road here, because all of us probably do something, in varying degrees, that results in getting compensation or a benefit that we really don't need in the extreme sense, which could benefit someone else more. So, I don't really know. In the end, all I can stand by is my belief that this comes down to your own personal philosophy on the value of playing, economics, politics, etc. I am in no position to say that any viewpoint is right or wrong here, only that I would not feel good playing for free or fee, when I don't need the money and I'm taking the opportunity away from someone who does it for living. That's just my personal feeling, not a dictate or principle. For 2), the festival, I have 22 out of state performers and 8 local performers. The average cost per performer to attend this festival (excluding those who get their own financial support, grants, etc) is $650, times 22 is $14,300. If I am lucky, after festival expenses, I can give everyone $50, meaning that out of state performers are not just playing for free, but they are paying on average of $600 a person to play. And of course, I go in the hole personally anywhere between $1000 to $5000, depending on what I am buying for the festival. In this case, paying for free/fee doesn't appear to be a problem, because this is not the type of event or music that is inherently designed to be profit generating, and so musicians are basically glad just to be able to play in such a nice venue amongst so many of their peers. The community benefits, socialization, cross-pollination, etc, seem to overshadow the financial negatives. Do I feel bad about orchestrating a festival where people pay to play? No. They do it voluntarily and make the trade-offs themselves in terms of value, benefits, etc. Kris