I agree that you shouldn't always be paid - sometimes a great slot comes along with an established act which gives you some great exposure - these kind of gigs I don't mind not getting paid for. Or even gigs just for the fun of it.

But PAY to play? No way.

For someone who's in the business of helping musicians, I sure don't get the sense that he puts much value on what we do.

I'm not sure what's with the quotes around the 'moral duty' of paying an artist, and the 'traditional business model' of being paid for a service. It makes it seem as though these things are dubious. The example of Taylor Swift as someone who made her success by giving her songs away is pretty misleading and a gross oversimplification. In her case, she came from a family of means who hired her a manager and moved to Nashville to help support her career. That's a very different scenario than most musicians who are trying to string a living together, trying to finance their next project while making their rent or car payment.

I agree that there may be occasional opportunities that are worth it for the "exposure". My practical experience is that for some reason, the places that have no budget and promise exposure rarely deliver it in the way you'd hope. Maybe it's just that people who can't manage money well enough make sure everyone gets paid are the same people who don't have the skills to manage a successful event. Dunno. There's this idea that getting exposed to the right person will be a shortcut to fame and fortune, and frankly that IS a lot more appealing than plugging away for years trying to build up an email list and a following a few people at a time. And I guess that's why they feel they have leverage.

Just my thoughts, I've been touring for about 10 years and I'm always grateful for folks who truly value musicians and aren't afraid to put a value on what we do. There are plenty of people out there who really love music and are willing to support it, and those are the people you really want to get exposed to.

This is an interesting subject which I debated about with other musicians. I blogged about this a few months ago and got a few interesting responses. I've reposted it below.

My stance is that it depended on the venue and context as to whether payment should be expected and by whom. Here's my take on the whole issue….

First off, no one is entitled to be paid for anything just because they want to. To be paid a fair wage, one needs to prove that they are doing a benefit, in many cases a financial one, to the organization who is paying them. With regards to music performance, if you want a venue/booker to pay you for your musical services, then you'd better be prepared to have enough people who will come out and see you perform or be able to entertain the people who come to that venue. This, of course, usually translates to alcohol sales for that venue. It really is that simple, if not enough people are willing to drink or eat when you perform then good luck getting the venue to either hire you/have you play or agree to a guarantee fee.

This brings me to my next point, venue type. I believe there are two types of venues. Bars which have a more regular clientele, and theater type venues which don't.
The Bars often have cover and tribute bands and the people who frequent these venues aren't usually there to see the actual band, but to hear good music no matter who is playing it. In these venues, there may not be a cover charge either. The band is doing a service to the venue by either drawing people in by playing popular well known music, or keeping people in the venue by playing popular well known music. Let's face it, most people want to hear something that's familiar so there's less risk involved in seeing a band playing music you will probably know then by taking a chance on some indie band playing unknown music. In most cases the bars pay the band a guaranteed fee since the band is doing the venue a service.
The theater type of venue, which can also include clubs, often have original bands. I believe these venues actually market themselves to the bands, not the general public. "Need a place to play, check out our club, our specs, our amazing equipment." In these cases, these venues are providing a service to the musicians and bands and it's up to the bands to bring out their own crowd. Sometimes they charge a rental fee, sometimes they don't. The places that don't will rely on alcohol sales to cover their costs while the bands take the door. Of course, if your band has a poor draw and alcohol sales aren't covering the costs, don't expect to be first on the list when a booking date comes available, or you may be expected to pay a fee which might cover some alcohol sales.

One of the points brought up by someone in this debate was that promotion for these shows should be the sole responsibility of the venue. All I could say was "Wow"!!! Talk about wanting it all. Any smart business person knows that you need to promote yourself and not rely on others.

Another point to think about is, who should pay for the performance of live music? Should it be the audience by paying for tickets or paying a door cover? Should it be the venue who pays the band a guaranteed fee in which people get in for free? By having the venue pay you and have no door cover , can't that be seen as encouraging the general public to not pay for live music?

My last point is to do with playing for free. On Craigslist there is often a poster who rants about musicians who play for free. They think that playing for free devalues performances and encourages venues not to pay. While I don't disagree with the poster, I also understand that not everyone is playing music to get paid. For some people, it's a great hobby and getting paid is secondary. For others, playing for free works as a great promotional tool and perhaps a way to make money via recorded music sales. Over all, if you put on a good show and are able to get people to pay money to see you perform, then those musicians who play for free will have no impact on what you do.

Thanks
Wilton

I say "YES". You should get paid for your services if you call yourself a professional. They are very few exceptions where my group would perform for free. However as a professional, one must be paid for their services.

Let's turn it around and place the service provided by the BAR OWNER. Perhaps you have seen this post on CRAIGSLIST (paraphrasing): Suppose I need to throw a party and need a bartender to serve drinks. I tell the bartender "I will pay you BUT you have to bring in 50 people and after 50 I pay you a PERCENTAGE" or "after the first 50 you work for TIPS". I can provide someone to count heads or he/she can bring a person to count heads but my guy has to count heads with them too. The bartender may ENJOY his/her craft but how far is he/she willing to work under those conditions?

You may have also read this (again paraphrasing): A client calls an agency for hire 6 musicians for 5 hrs on a Saturday night for party and asks for a price. When given the price, the client says "really? that much? just for music?" The agent goes on to say "I tell you this, call the plumbers union, tell them you need 6 plumbers to work in your home for 5 hrs. Whatever they quote you we'll charge you half". Many of us may not be union workers but because we are not does not mean we should not receive a worthy salary.

This is far-fetched but how about this?: A CPA starts his own business but needs to work during tax season out of your home or apartment. Well, you tell him he has to do taxes for the first 50 clients for free and then gets a percentage for the 51st client and thereafter or only gets TIPS after the first 50 clients. Like the CPA who starts his business, some of us perform under a BUSINESS name with a business TAX ID.

Many of us SPEND money to rehearse, purchase instruments, purchase uniforms (suits, shirts, pants, shoes, ties etc...), send those uniforms to the dry cleaners, gasoline and tolls to get to and from a gig, run websites, monthly cell phone bills. These add up. We should not be paid with barely gasoline money after a show.

That's my take.

Joe Rivera
THE FELLAS

I agree with the responses. I find this article to be an insult to musicians.

The ONLY time I will play for free is for a charity or fund raiser. Will give a free hour for cancer research, a local charity, American Heart Association, etc.

If a friend is having a private party, I might charge him the "bar rate" as opposed to the "private party rate". If its a dead night at one of my weekly gigs, I have no problem being sent home an hour early with a $25 pay cut. I'm known in my area for being easy to work with about things like that.
However, I do not play clubs for free, and I do not play parties for free, etc. With a full time day job and 275 gigs last year, I only leave my house ( and my family) if I'm getting paid.

Nick

Note - If I got the chance to open for a national act, or something along those lines, I might consider playing for free - of course, that would entail playing for 45 mins, not my usual 3 or 4 hours.

you totally lost me at " it also shouldn’t matter if you have to pay to perform some gigs." I'm glad Marcus got some money to throw around but out here in the real world that don't often fly brother. Opening for national acts and selling product to make some money is something we all normally agree to, and also, your Taylor Swift statement is ridiculous. Professionals, all professionals need fairly compensated.

As a Los Angeles based musician whom is always getting asked to "Pay to play" by local bookers this article is the antithesis of surviving as a musician in a large city. I don't knwo anyone who "made it big" by playing for exposure although it seems like companies and bookers whose sole purpose is to make their income off bands seem to tell you different. I've always had a no pay to play policy and the one time I broke it to play a "grammy event" where a major TV network filmed it and I went on after that years Grammy Nominee was an utter fiasco in my opinion. I actually didn't end up paying to play cause I pre sold tickets but as a musician we are not set up for that. It was a nightmare.

I do get to put the show on my resume and the TV station asked to use my song "Profound Peace" on a television show but I turned it down because of the ethics of the show and the deep spiritual manner in which I wrote and perform that particular song. Lets get real, none of the companies that sell services to musicians ever tell you about the bands that spend thousands of dollars over the years into their services and never made a dime. And frankly there are a LOT of them. Far more than the handful they like to put in their press that happened to get a tour or signed or a full time following.

When I made my first album it took hours and hours of research to weed through the indie music service sector. I chose Bandzoogle for it's accessibility, ease of use, and free trial. So I must say at least Dave puts his money where his mouth is (except he doesn't pay us to try Bandzoogle)! If your starting out yes you have to play for free or for drinks but after about 5 gigs or so you better start respecting yourself and charge a fee or get a percentage of the door/bar! I'm tired of people abusing the beautiful souls that make music. No one expects as much from any other artists. You wouldn't expect a painter to give away their paintings for free. As far as Taylor Swift - she had some major pro's manufacturing her career for her. Lucky girl!

the question is sooo stupid it doesn't deserve an answer.
the only answer is, yea sure, play for free if you suck and nobody will pay to see you, if you want to help venue owners earn obscene profits while they toss you maybe a free drink and laugh (at your stupidity) all the way to the bank, if you want all the other musician's trying to earn a living to hate you, if the only way anyone would want to hear your music is if they can utilize all their money to get drunk enough to tolerate your free music cacophony
If you feel you have nothing to offer worth being paid for, set your gear up in your mom's garage, invite your friends over and stay the f@*k out of the real world where performer's like me pay their mortgage and light bill with the rewards of their craft

"Why SHOULD you get paid, doing something you love?" I hear from those who are not artistically inclined. I wonder if they think professional baseball players should get paid for their game. Yes, sometimes I'll get up on stage free for exposure and to sell a few CDs but to make a practice of working free is not sustainable.

Yes, I love singing and writing songs so much I pay to do it - in time, equipment, studio costs, marketing expense and packaging costs. Performance is a completely different aspect of entertainment. If an act were a car, writing original songs would be engineering, rehearsals and recording would be the assembly line and performance would be the sales lot. Every one of those stages gets paid in the auto industry. Yet indie artist are asked to engineer and produce free then pay to deliver the product?

The public has been programmed to get music free - commercial music in movies, on hold, in stores ... on COMMERCIAL radio - because lots of big label music supports mindless consumerism, anger, violence, insecurity, conformity, etc. Talent has little to do success in the major league of music. It is about image and format - formatting the mind for its role in a competitive, lack based paradigm.

Is there a time and place for free or pay to play performance? Sure. When there is a quantifiable benefit to the musician. Pay to play at a bar? How many listeners can the bar owner guarantee will be available to buy your CDs/merchandise? How many in the audience are music directors in major label films that might need to license a theme song?

Let's think like business people. Would professional base ball players pay to play after years of practice and months of training, plus travel expenses, promotion, uniforms, advertising ...? Isn't the point of capitalism to do what you love and get paid well for what you do well? The real question is why should anyone be working at a job they don't love.

Dave Cool says...
"When we offer a service that we’re passionate about, the traditional ‘business model’ of receiving payment for providing a service is allowed to turn upside down once in a while, that is, it’s okay for us to pay to deliver a service, why? Because we enjoy doing it, and the real source of anything we do is to be happy. If you’re truly a passionate musician, you won’t mind – as long as you have enough money to carry on doing what you love.

so let me get this straight...Bandzoogle is passionate about the web building service they provide. They're going to pay me $20 a month to use it. Right? Because they enjoy so much what they're doing. Hardly sounds reasonable doesn't it? Maybe for someone that has no idea what being a musician entails..Let's see how many real musicians agree with you. Oh, and I'll be looking for payment credited to my account too ok?

Now I may be a bit old fashioned but in over 50 years of touring and performing I have never, ever paid anyone to play at their venue. It is just something I would never do. If you are in the music business treat your music career like a business. Now, I have certainly played many gigs that were not paid. Most were special appearances I made to help other bands. Some were charitable events and other were just early stepping stones in my music career. In other words, there was a time (a long time ago) that I played gigs just because I wanted to gain exposure.

But I learned very quickly how to make money regardless of whether it was a paid gig or not. I remember one gig that we played with a little tip jar out in front of the band. The tips got so numerous that we had to change up and put a guitar case out there. But most times, we negotiated a payment and signed a contract with the venue owner. No word of mouth/hand shake deals were aloud because we got burned to many times doing that. But generally our management not only negotiated payment for us but also included travel expenses, meals and lodging if we were traveling out of town.

One thing that should be noted is that venue owners often communicate with each other about bands. If you play a free gig it tends to get out and before you know it, you have set a very unwelcome precedence. All the gigs expect you to play for free now. So, my answer simply is this. If you are just getting started, playing for free is okay but only until you have established a following. Once you have established yourself, pay for play should be the standard for you. Of course there other variations such as earning a percentage of the door take, selling your merch and CD's and a large draw bonus which means exceeding the established door expectations will get you a larger pay out. But any or all of this should be negotiated and signed long before you unload one piece of music equipment. Value yourself and others will follow in tow. Earn a reputation for being free and that is exactly what will be expected of you. I know a lot of bands that went down that road and never recovered.

I agree with Stoneman. One band that I was in
hosted an open stage every week. Another band
member got the gig and the rest of the band agreed
to it, although I hated the idea. The reason I hated
it was because I knew what was coming.

You see, the "gig" didn't pay anything. There was a
nebulous discussion about how after we built the room
up, we'd start getting paid. But there was no standard
set about what building the room up meant, and no set
figure of how much we'd get paid. And from the venue's
POV, why pay us? We were willing to work for free so
why spend any money?

What musicians have to realize is that, first and last,
it's about one thing only. How you feel about yourself.
I don't care about Taylor Swift spending years working
for free. There's only 2 ways to work for free for years.
Either be independently wealthy where you can afford to make
no money for years, or have another source of income.

Normally, it's going to be hard to transition from a hobby to
a full time working musician if you are a weekend warrior and
have to give up the nice day job for the road. It's a risk and
most, if not all,of the money, you make for a while is going to
go back into your business.

And it is a business. To use the Bandzoogle example, BZ gives away
the first month of service. After that, you gotta buy it! Wanna play
for nothing to build up your career? Great,but keep in mind that you
need to be focused right out of the gate. You have to set the terms
for the amount of time and benchmark goals to be met before you start
getting paid. And you want to set the terms of how much you're getting
paid.

Personally, my feeling is that if it's a benefit show, I'm going to
donate my services. Otherwise I expect to get paid. Yeah, I realize
everyone has to start somewhere. Promoters usually start out modestly
and work up to bigger things. But if a promoter doesn't have the means
to pay the bands something, even if it's a very modest amount, he's not
likely to pull even a modest venture off.

As Dave Cool said, it's about passion. If you're passionate about something,
you want to be successful at it. That means musicians practice and invest in
equipment in order to be worthy of their pay. Promoters do what they have to
in order to finance the event they are promoting......because they want it to
be successful so they can continue to do it!

And THERE'S the bottom line. If you want to continue to do it, you need to get
paid. Otherwise, it's almost guaranteed that you'll deliver bad product. Bad
songs and bad performance because your time is being spent in the day job, not
the music. Because the day job pays, not the music. For the "fans" that expect
music to be free, they aren't fans. They're cutting their own throats because
unless their "favorite" bands get paid, they are probably going to stop doing it.
Why bother if there's no payoff? If you just want to play music, you can do that
in the basement.

There has to be "value" in playing a show, either financial or approximate value in some way. For example, at the early stages of a career there's huge value in playing free shows for experience and building performance craft and building the start of a fan base. I think lots of young musicians expect more then they deserve, however I also think more experienced musicians mostly don't demand what they're worth. The sense of whats valuable to a musician at a particular stage of their career is hard to judge

benstewartonline wrote:

There has to be "value" in playing a show, either financial or approximate value in some way. For example, at the early stages of a career there's huge value in playing free shows for experience and building performance craft and building the start of a fan base. I think lots of young musicians expect more then they deserve, however I also think more experienced musicians mostly don't demand what they're worth. The sense of whats valuable to a musician at a particular stage of their career is hard to judge

Thanks
Wilton

Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Unless u really suck, why would u pay to play? Maybe I'm old school, but venues are making money off your talent, hard work, rehearsal time and equipment investments. The people that are doing this crap will one day want to be paid, but in the mean time, you're only hurting the hard working bands out there that promote their self and have good followings. We also do several charitable benefits, but if someone is making a profit because of us we want a cut of it. My band doesn't leave the house unless we get a minimum of $900 per night (for local clubs) or $1500 (for local special events). Yes....I love to play, but I'm not gonna pay someone to do it and watch them rate in the cash. I'm sure a plummer likes what he does, if that's the profession he chose, but I'd bet you're not gonna find one to come out, fix your toilet and pay you to do it!! Wise up or get in another business....and yes it is a business and should be treated like one.

[quote="EastRiverDrive"]Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Unless u really suck, why would u pay to play?

Yip.

Even if your band is just starting out, it's probably a bad idea to "pay to play". If you're going to pay a bar to play, why not take that money and use it to rent a venue instead? We did that, got a temporary liquor license, and absolutely cleaned up on alcohol sales. We also invited 3 other up and coming bands/musicians and a bunch of local artists. We made full use of the free local media and websites. The whole thing was a great success, a lot of fun, and everyone made a few bucks.

In my band, we all have good paying, professional day jobs, and we play music for the love of playing. At the same time, playing for free, in my mind, tells the bar owner that you're not really worth seeing. It just seems unprofessional, and in the long run, will probably keep a band from getting gigs. Plus, there are venues that tell you that it's a non-paying gig just to see what you'll say. If you insist on being compensated, they usually step up and offer something. If money is a secondary issue, that's great, because it's easier to work something out.

EastRiverDrive wrote:

Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Unless u really suck, why would u pay to play?

Because sometimes a gig is about more than a few bucks, and reward is not always instantaneous. If you're a working band who play a club circuit for cash, then it's probably not going to benefit you. However if you are an original regional act looking to expand your national fanbase, a 'buy on' for a high profile gig or tour with an established national act is commonplace. The rigid thinking of "a gig is my work, and I get paid goddammit!" is a little narrow minded and doesn't apply for everyone.

For example, if you played a medium-sized gig for $1000, it would be money in your pocket, but your fanbase would remain broadly unchanged. If you paid $1000 to play a huge 5000cap venue with an established national artist, the investment of $1000 in lost revenue and $1000 buy on will result in a total upfront 'spend' of $0.40 per person exposed to your music - not just random people on the street, but music fans who you know (from the fact that they are there) are willing to pay money to see live music.

Most artists/bands think nothing of giving away a promotional track for free if it downloads 5,000 copies and leads to a beefed up mailing list, even though they would have spent money in the studio recording it (an upfront expense), and would have lost revenue ($0.99c per paid download). I don't see how the live show aspect is any different. It's costs vs profits, risks vs rewards - the backbone of business. Hopefully your investment will result in broader fanbase for potential future live shows, and sales of merchandise/cds etc that will (if you exploit the opportunity correctly) pay for itself many times over.

It's not something I've ever wanted to do myself, however the people who are talking about treating their music as a business, yet are ignoring this as a potential avenue of investment are being fairly narrow minded. You'll always be a 'market stall' as opposed to a 'multinational' if you think that way (no bad thing, but everybody's different!). Sure - don't pay your local venue to host a gig for you if you're doing all the work and bringing in the crowd with no tangible benefit...that's a no-brainer. However, paying to have access to a massive new potential fanbase should be considered as a marketing expenditure, not as an affront to your skills or earning potential. Much like a company putting up a large billboard - you pay out in the hopes of a return later down the line. It all depends on your aspirations for your music really. If you're content to simply be paid for doing what you love and are able to do that to a level you are happy with then kudos, but if you are thinking big you shouldn't balk at an upfront cost without looking into the potential benefits later.

my 2c anyway!

MitchellMusic wrote:

Unfortunately in this day and age, more and more amateurs are taking work away from us pros because they charge so much less or nothing, so they are harming the real musicians who need to make money as a living.

HA! What a joke. I have a job as well as being in a band, so am I not a "real" musician? I've played with some major bands, toured, played festivals... but I'm harming "real" musicians because music isn't my primary source of income?

Get over yourself dude.

@amonthofsundays: As was stated in the intro, this was a guest post from the Musician's Guide, not written by the Bandzoogle team. I posted it because it's an issue that almost all bands face in their careers and I figured it would spark a good discussion, which it has.

That being said, some of the comments are starting to border on personal attacks. We love for members to express their opinions, and hopefully it allows people to see things from a different perspective, but please keep the discussion respectful.

Thanks,

Dave Cool

(Yes, that’s my real name)

Director of Artist Relations

Bandzoogle

MountFabric wrote:

MitchellMusic wrote:

Unfortunately in this day and age, more and more amateurs are taking work away from us pros because they charge so much less or nothing, so they are harming the real musicians who need to make money as a living.

HA! What a joke. I have a job as well as being in a band, so am I not a "real" musician? I've played with some major bands, toured, played festivals... but I'm harming "real" musicians because music isn't my primary source of income?

Get over yourself dude.

Quite! I hope it's just poor choice of words, and that this guy isn't actually that deluded/entitled/bitter...Yikes! :-S

...personal attack? please....

[quote="MitchellMusic"]I have been a professional singer for almost 30 years - I always expect to get paid for gigs because it is my job.
Semi pro or amateur musicians have another job/source of income so if they don't get paid it's their business.
Unfortunately in this day and age, more and more amateurs are taking work away from us pros because they charge so much less or nothing, so they are harming the real musicians who need to make money as a living. It grinds my gears. You wouldn't say "oh, I fancy being a bank teller, I'll just go in and have a go" - you have to have an interview, get training etc. What I'm saying is that the music industry needs to be regulated. I'm fed up with every tom, dick and harry having a go at doing my job and undercutting me in the process. That's taking food from my table.

Jim Croce was driving a truck throughout much of his adult life. Was he not a "real" musician until the day he became financially successful as a musician? Music is like any other commodity or service. People will only pay for what it's worth to them. Professional lawn services will always have to compete with the 12 year old boy (or girl) going door to door with a lawn mower. If you have a good live performance, you will be able to charge for your gigs whether or not there is a band that would be willing to do the same gig for free.

We won't do a show for free (other than benefit shows), because we feel that in the long run, it would actually make us less marketable and cost us gigs. At the same time, we have no disrespect for bands that will do a free show. Maybe they're young and just trying to get their name out there. More power to them. Maybe they're older musicians who have spent a lifetime on the road in a bus, and have got to the point where they just want to make music for fun. More power to them as well.

Also, I would never pass judgement on who is a "real" musician based on the financial compensation for their shows. In fact, don't many musicians take abuse for "selling out" when their music becomes lucrative? There was a band out of Chicago called the Psalters. These guys played for free, gave away their CDs, and encouraged people to copy their CDs and give them to their friends. These guys were also some of the most creative, talented and entertaining musicians that I have ever known.

The life of a musician is not an easy one. As Bon Scott said, "It's a long way to the top if you want to rock & roll".

uh oh! my two cents!
First off @ Dave...Kudos and Cheers to your hard work! =) (maybe we all just need naps) read us a story, pass out the choclate milk and when we wake up we can have a new topic to chat about no?

the actual topic: (to anyone who wants to read or chat about it)

My question is did you decide to become musicians because you wanted to make money or because it is just in your dna to create and play music no matter who is listening?
Let us please not forget, that as musicians, (from my understanding) we do what we do regardless of who is listening or watching, granted, fame and rolling around in our own personal money bins would be most awesome, if that becomes the clear and obvious goal of what is supposed to be our passion, then it(music) is no longer our passion and what drives us, and instead greed.

That being said, I have played for free, once a week, every week for about 10 years at a small club in my hometown, just because I like doing what I do and like putting myself on a stage, the only place I feel at peace. I have also been paid to play, many places, many times, some awesome venues, and some less savory events as well. I guess what I am trying to say here is to follow your heart or gut here and do what you think is best for you as a musician/artist, some of us make the right moves on the chessboard, others simply just try to pull off an "en passant" to argue about a 500 year old rule that most just ignore or dont know about.
Keep in mind I am not from this planet (my views about money are very warped for this day and age) and when I blew my head off last night with a shotgun, instead of blood and brain matter spewing all over the place, unicorns, rainbows and fluffy little bunnies came out instead putting me all back together and asked me to please not do that and it made them very sad. So here I am like it never happened, to respond and add my two cents to this topic! Thanks for your time - Joshua Derr

WOW! Who would post something stupid like this?

@JoshuaDerrMusic: Hehe, thanks. New posts coming next week, can’t wait

@amonthofsundays: I wasn’t referring to your comments.

@RedBarnConventionCenter: That would be me. I posted this guest blog from the Musician’s Guide because it’s an issue that most bands face in their careers, and I thought it would spark a discussion, which it did.

My 2 cents on this subject:

When I was managing a band, we often had discussions on whether to take unpaid gigs or not. Sometimes we did, when we felt that the exposure was worth it (industry showcases, for example), and sometimes we decided to pass on the offer if we felt it wasn’t worth the band’s time. I can honestly say that a few of the unpaid gigs were the best ones for the band’s career, and led directly to bigger opportunities to play larger (paid) gigs. And of course, others didn’t work out as well, but were an opportunity for the band to connect with a new audience. We never saw it as a loss, only an investment and a learning experience. We treated each offer individually and weighed the pros and cons for each.

Cheers,

Dave Cool

Director of Artist Relations

Bandzoogle

I think most of the musicians on this topic can agree
that as far as being paid, it depends on the gig. For
most of us, we'll play a benefit for free. For club gigs,
most of us expect to get paid. From there, the opinions
diverge wildly. To each their own.

I'll jump in and share my experience over the last ten years.

Here in Seattle we co-promote club shows with the various venues. If people want to see/hear you, and you can sell tickets, then you should be paid.

If you are good at your craft and people enjoy what you do, then yes you should be paid. It doesn't mean that you have to be paid. We rarely do shows/events that are not paid gigs because we are "full-time" musicians and we all have families that depend on us for shelter, food, etc...

I will mention that the money we make from venues ($500-$3000 in range) is small compared to the money we can make in the merchandise we sell (t-shirts, CDs). Writing great music and landing publishing is the BEST way in my opinion to make a living as a musician.

Sincerely,

Dustin

therhythmmethod wrote:

I think most of the musicians on this topic can agree
that as far as being paid, it depends on the gig. For
most of us, we'll play a benefit for free. For club gigs,
most of us expect to get paid. From there, the opinions
diverge wildly. To each their own.

My sentiments exactly!

man FUNK THAT !!! I want to get paid. I don't march up in Guitar Center and walk out with gear without paying. My BZ account is not free "every now and then" Itunes is not letting me put my music on their site free (unless I am missing something) The dude mixing and mastering my music is not like "Hey dude...this mix is on the house" ...so..If I perform...I want to get paid. I would go the extra mile on stage...and try to give the people MORE for their money... but I want to be paid for performing...I know..I know... I suck right? lol

talkincode wrote:

Because sometimes a gig is about more than a few bucks, and reward is not always instantaneous. If you're a working band who play a club circuit for cash, then it's probably not going to benefit you. However if you are an original regional act looking to expand your national fanbase, a 'buy on' for a high profile gig or tour with an established national act is commonplace. The rigid thinking of "a gig is my work, and I get paid goddammit!" is a little narrow minded and doesn't apply for everyone.

EvilEyeGypsy wrote:

...if you're going to pay a bar to play, why not take that money and use it to rent a venue instead?

Again as I stated earlier, if you can come close to packing a venue when ever you play live, then it's most likely that you'll have the bargaining power to demand a certain fee. For venues it's all about alcohol sales and if your band either brings out people, or keeps the regulars drinking, then you're a benefit to the venue and they'll want you back and should be glad to pay you. If not, charge a door cover and take your fee from the patrons. Either way you'd be getting paid.

Quote: "if you're going to pay a bar to play, why not take that money and use it to rent a venue instead? Isn't that basically paying to play?"

No, it was an investment, and we absolutely cleaned up on the alcohol sales. How much money does the average band have invested in gear? In promotion? Renting a venue is just another investment. If the point is to make money, that is exactly what we did that night. Along with that, we had complete control over every aspect of the show. We chose who the opening acts were, we had the ability to set up and sound check hours before the doors opened. I'll go as far as saying even those "pay to play" gigs could be a good investment if you consider the point Dustin Blatnik made about making more money on merch sales than on the door.

I will say, however, that the band trying to get discovered by taking that type of gig, with no real way of making money on it, will probably be disappointed. I've been playing in bands most of my life (since I was 16), and from what I've seen and experienced, the only way to "make it" is hard work, night after night. Even for a new band, if they knock on enough doors, they'll be able to find a venue that will offer fair payment for their talent.

EvilEyeGypsy wrote:

Renting a venue is just another investment. If the point is to make money, that is exactly what we did that night. Along with that, we had complete control over every aspect of the show. We chose who the opening acts were, we had the ability to set up and sound check hours before the doors opened. I'll go as far as saying even those "pay to play" gigs could be a good investment if you consider the point Dustin Blatnik made about making more money on merch sales than on the door.

I will say, however, that the band trying to get discovered by taking that type of gig, with no real way of making money on it, will probably be disappointed. I've been playing in bands most of my life (since I was 16), and from what I've seen and experienced, the only way to "make it" is hard work, night after night. Even for a new band, if they knock on enough doors, they'll be able to find a venue that will offer fair payment for their talent.

Agreed. So really what it's all about is control of the show, control of the finances without having to deal with a greedy club owner. I actually do understand and asked the original question more as devils advocate. The point is, as you stated, sometimes you have to invest/pay a venue/promoter to have complete control over all aspects of a gig including the finances. Not a bad idea if you think you can do it and especially if you think you can make money.

I don't look at it as "greedy" club
owner versus band with integrity. I
look at it as a simple business deal.

I know one club owner who owns a lot
of real estate and his clubs are more
an ego thing than anything else. But
most club owners need to make money.
That means getting people into their
establishments and keeping them there
all night long drinking. Or having a
steady turnover of patrons, with one
group of customers replacing the last
group of customers so the net effect is
still alcohol flowing lal night long and
cash registers going KA-CHING! If that means
hiring a karaoke host or hostess, they'll do
it. A single band that brings in customers is
easier to deal with than 4 or 5 bands. If it
takes 4 or 5 bands to draw enough, then that's
what they'll do. For most of them, it's just
about the benjamins.

But let's look at our side of the equation. From
a club owner's viewpoint, the band doesn't make
points for being "artistes". If you want to get
on a club owner's good side, you need to let him
know that you look at it as a joint venture that
you'll do your part to make a success.

That means setting precious ego aside and promoting
your gig. That means showing up on time and prepared.
Pouring your heart and soul into your show, whether
3 people are in the club or 300. That means when you
aren't onstage, instead of sitting at a table you are
working the room. That benefits both the band and the
venue.

Speaking of ego, you have to be able to set your ego
aside and play for the crowd and the venue. I ran into
a former bandmate of mine last night who was lamenting
the fact that even though after finding a new drummer
who could sing and a new bass player who could sing, he
was having a hard time getting gigs. He went into great
detail about how the band could play anything, just like
when I was with them and they were covering Yes and Rush
and King Crimson. In short, they were playing for themselves
and not for the crowd. Most of the successful cover bands are
giving the crowd what it wants, which is generally music that's
danceable. Even the Tribute Bands are tributes to Kiss, Creedence
and AC/DC, rather than Rush, Yes, King Crimson etc. Sure, there are
exceptions but as a rule.......

Another friend of mine complains about not getting repeat gigs. They are
all great players but they play loud. VERY LOUD because it's rock and roll,
dammit! Who cares if the bartender and wait staff can't hear the customers?
They don't have good taste in music anyway!

The point here is that as musicians, we are responsible for handling our
business. The better we do that, the better we do in this music BUSINESS.

therhythmmethod wrote:

I don't look at it as "greedy" club
owner versus band with integrity. I
look at it as a simple business deal.

I know one club owner who owns a lot
of real estate and his clubs are more
an ego thing than anything else. But
most club owners need to make money.
That means getting people into their
establishments and keeping them there
all night long drinking. Or having a
steady turnover of patrons, with one
group of customers replacing the last
group of customers so the net effect is
still alcohol flowing lal night long and
cash registers going KA-CHING! If that means
hiring a karaoke host or hostess, they'll do
it. A single band that brings in customers is
easier to deal with than 4 or 5 bands. If it
takes 4 or 5 bands to draw enough, then that's
what they'll do. For most of them, it's just
about the benjamins.

But let's look at our side of the equation. From
a club owner's viewpoint, the band doesn't make
points for being "artistes". If you want to get
on a club owner's good side, you need to let him
know that you look at it as a joint venture that
you'll do your part to make a success.

That means setting precious ego aside and promoting
your gig. That means showing up on time and prepared.
Pouring your heart and soul into your show, whether
3 people are in the club or 300. That means when you
aren't onstage, instead of sitting at a table you are
working the room. That benefits both the band and the
venue.

Speaking of ego, you have to be able to set your ego
aside and play for the crowd and the venue. I ran into
a former bandmate of mine last night who was lamenting
the fact that even though after finding a new drummer
who could sing and a new bass player who could sing, he
was having a hard time getting gigs. He went into great
detail about how the band could play anything, just like
when I was with them and they were covering Yes and Rush
and King Crimson. In short, they were playing for themselves
and not for the crowd. Most of the successful cover bands are
giving the crowd what it wants, which is generally music that's
danceable. Even the Tribute Bands are tributes to Kiss, Creedence
and AC/DC, rather than Rush, Yes, King Crimson etc. Sure, there are
exceptions but as a rule.......

Another friend of mine complains about not getting repeat gigs. They are
all great players but they play loud. VERY LOUD because it's rock and roll,
dammit! Who cares if the bartender and wait staff can't hear the customers?
They don't have good taste in music anyway!

The point here is that as musicians, we are responsible for handling our
business. The better we do that, the better we do in this music BUSINESS.

QUOTE [Agreed with all of above. A great post. Of course if you can prove yourself to be a benefit to a club by having a good draw and being respectful, and the club still doesn't either want to pay you or let you handle your own finances from the door, then it's time to look for another venue. My band is not a consistent draw but I'm very respectful to the club and owners, I promote to the best of my ability and I space out my gigs at this venue. So far everytime I've asked for a gig, I've gotten one. Respect goes a long way.}

Great point! Being polite and easy to work with can get a new band recurring gigs. Helping the venue promote the show is also a good practice. The more a venue sees you as trying to make a show a success, the more likely those well paying gigs will come your way.

There are times when I get really sick of musicians instantly complaining about PtP without taking any context into account. There are many situations in which it is legitimate, and it's not always a ripoff. Firstly, if you are a new band, you have not proven yourself a commodity. For a bar, for example, for all the owner knows, he cpould lose money due to people walking out because your music is either a)that bad or b) is in the wrong setting. The easy fix to this is to pay your dues, and if all works out, you'll most likely get a paid offer to return. Add that to the fact that if you're decent, you can easily make that money back and then some that same night via merch and music sales in-venue.

Secondly, there are times where tours/festivals/bills/whathaveyou only have a certain number of available slots, and if you want in, they need a certain financial recoupment, deposit, or guarantee.....especially if you are new or unproven. Who do you think pays to get small or new bands on major tour or festival slots? The labels. If you choose to be independent, you knowingly accept the responsibility of paying the expenses that would normally be absorbed by a label. That's just the way it goes. I know not everyone chooses to be independent, on a side note...not everyone gets signed....but you also accept that when you start playing music, period.

Having said that, as I stated above, if you're good enough, or can prove yourself, all it takes is one good night to prove yourself and get a paid offer to return from there on out.

The music business sucks. Don't like it? Find another hobby. Not trying to be harsh, but that's the reality.

TheChallisEffect wrote:

Firstly, if you are a new band, you have not proven yourself a commodity. For a bar, for example, for all the owner knows, he could lose money due to people walking out because your music is either a)that bad or b) is in the wrong setting. The easy fix to this is to pay your dues, and if all works out, you'll most likely get a paid offer to return. Add that to the fact that if you're decent, you can easily make that money back and then some that same night via merch and music sales in-venue.

Wilton

It's not so much being a new band, but whether you
have experience that most determines whether you're
going to get paid. If you're experienced, you aren't
going to call your band Corrosive Deviants and try to
book a gig at the Silver Spur Country Showcase! You
are going to do your homework to match your band with
the right venue. You're going to have a demo the booking
manager can hear, and preferably see as well. I've booked
plenty of paid gigs when I didn't even HAVE a band by using
a demo that gave them a good idea of what to expect.

Well see, that's part of the problem too, is that a lot of kids think they can just get a band together, go to a random club owner, and expect a paid gig. It's like, uh, no? If you get a gig that way, don't be surprised if it's a PtP show...I wouldn't expect anything less. And you can't really complain about it.

There's the rub actually. I have seen a lot
of "bands" that aren't worthy of the name.
They can't play well individually or as a
group, can't sing well and have no idea how
to put on any kind of stage show. When I
was starting out, it was expected that we'd
rehearse a LOT before we even went out to a
jam night for exposure to stagecraft from
established players that knew their craft.

Now I talk to young players who don't have
any kind of understanding of craft at all!
They think jam nights at local clubs are
because the clubs don't want to pay a band.
They don't realize that the host band is getting
paid!

I see a trend of young "bands" that only have 20
to 45 minutes of material! They play with 3 or 4
other bands and wonder why none of them make any
money!

If you put in the time and select good material
that you play and sing well.....if you work as
a band instead of at cross purposes.....if you
have a good sense of showmanship and presentation,
you can not only get paid but you can get paid well.

You hit the nail on the head, my friend.

One other comment I'll make, and it
goes hand in hand with the one about
band members playing WITH each other
instead of against each other.

A friend of mine recently moved here
from Arizona, and we started planning
the band we wanted to put together. I
want a very specific group in terms of
instrumentation in order to get a very
specific sound and stage presentation.

We are looking at a 5 to 6 piece that
will include drums, bass, 2 keyboardists
and either one or 2 guitarists. We want
a very full sound both instrumentally and
vocally and preferably with 2 or 3 members
who are multi-instrumentalists and can switch
off on bass, guitar, mandolin, harmonica etc.

I like to tell people upfront exactly what to
expect, but it never fails. Someone will say
they dig the concept, understand the reasons
and by golly they are up for it......then the
excuses start before they finally are honest
and say what's really on their minds.

That's cool. I don't expect every musician to
agree with my idea of playing a wide variety
of styles of original and cover music. They don't
have to justify their musical tastes to me any more
than I have to justify mine to them.

But I notice a lot of bands whose members are competing
with each other for the simple reason that they aren't
on the same page! Over the past several decades, I've
led bands and been in bands led by others. I've declined
offers by bands as well simply because they had different
goals than I did. I'd rather not play in a band at all than
play with people I didn't especially like as people, or play
narrowly defined genres of music, or play 1 or 2 gigs a month
JUST to be playing in a band.

If you love country music and want to play it and your guitarist
or bassist hates country music and only wants to play Ted Nugent
and Judas Priest, neither one of you are terrible people. You just
aren't compatible! If you try playing together anyway, it won't be
hard for everyone around you from audiences to club owners to see
that it's not working!