Playing for Free (Re: A Request for Action and Change)
A few days ago, I was directed to a Craigslist post containing the following thoughts, written by New York jazz saxophonist and drummer Adam Niewood. Craigslist posts expire, so I got Adam's permission to reprint them here with my own thoughts in response.
Title: A Request for Action and Change
Date: 2011-04-28, 2:44PM PDTAdam is a friend of mine and posted this on his facebook:
Hello - Adam Niewood writing.
I'm writing in this space to EVERYONE who plays music - If you play music this is to YOU.
After recently "working" in a local NYC venue - I found the total overall experience to be the proverbial Straw That Broke The Camels Back.
I'm talking about a sickness plaguing our City's music scene - it's us...
OK the big secret is out - Musicians like to play. So much so - that we'll do it for free.
We all talk about how the music scene is so flawed - but it's been going on this way for decades now. And complacency and inaction isn't going to signal the changes we all want.
I truly think it is time for all musicians to:
#1 - respect ourselves and each other
#2 - Start thinking about placing a value on what we do
#3 - Stop playing in venues that charge the artist for the space, and don't pay.I know the argument that there are not enough venues to allow all the talent to perform.
But check it out. As a student of Berklee, William Paterson, Manhattan School of Music, and the Juilliard School. I do believe that music school taught me a lot of things - but one integral, key aspect missing from the curriculum at all Jazz programs: Don't play for zero pay, or for "free drinks"...
I think part of the Jazz curriculum in our schools needs to focus on training the future of Jazz - to place a value on the art, and not work for less than the minimum wage.
I know - this is what the Union used to do for us.
In this economic climate - going after young players to pay-up and Join a Union with dues and fees... All the jazz musicians joining the 802 Union (or Musicians Union in their area) - paying dues... I don't think it would happen (sorry to say) and It is not the automatic fix.
Social Etiquette: You don't sneeze into your hand, then directly go to shake hands with someone. It's rude.
What if the musician's social etiquette was that it was disrespectful to all - to take a gig for under the agreed Minimum-Wage... and/or undercut another musicians' pay to get a gig ???People fear how they are perceived in the public eye.
If all the successful musicians - People of Influence on the younger generations spoke up - and told all the young musicians that this is important.
What if: All Jazz musicians agreed to boycott any of the clubs that profiteer on musicians without paying. I'm talking about playing for free, folks. I'm talking about using email / Facebook / and on-line resources to start a discussion - a petition - whatever is going to get everybody talking and thinking about our collective future.
There would be a period where there would not be as many shows in town... And I truly think that eventually - if there was no musician to be found, who would agree to work for under $50 or $75 bucks... just to shout out a number... If no one in New York would work for less than $50or$75 - what would eventually happen? Just imagine....
For the students who get a Bachelors / then Masters degree / then complete a DMA program (exit school with loans/debt) what life or career is there going to be for them when they graduate?
I think the problem is truly the musicians ... and the Younger generation (my age or younger) does not have the self respect to say NO.
If the bully hits you and takes your money every day - and you do nothing - who's fault is it? Inaction cures nothing.
Please forward this to anyone you think would possibly find it interesting...
Simply imagine if everyone just banded-together - and decided to change our music scene???
Sincerely,
Adam Niewood
First, I have a ton of respect for anyone like Adam who has found a way to make a living with music and love it. They've achieved what I long to. But I've heard the sentiments expressed above from a variety of sources lately (I seem to hear it from jazz players more frequently, as in this thread on rec.music.makers.jazz), and I find that my philosophy fundamentally departs from what I typically hear from fellow musicians.
OK the big secret is out - Musicians like to play. So much so - that we'll do it for free.
This is no big secret. This has been the case since the beginning of music. No one starts learning an instrument because they think it's a wise financial investment. People learn music because they love it. The rest of the world is jealous of our trade because we love it so much.
Start thinking about placing a value on what we do
In order to get paid for what you do, other people need to value it. You could be the greatest musician on the planet, but until someone else values your abilities more than their money, you won't get paid a dime.
Case in point: I had a guitar teacher (a superb player) who griped about another musician who was a mediocre player leading a mediocre band and "stealing" gigs from the better players by undercutting their rates. I see nothing wrong with that. If it makes no difference to the promoter whether he hires great musicians or crummy musicians, why shouldn't he pay less? He'll have that extra money available to put toward things he values more.
I think part of the Jazz curriculum in our schools needs to focus on training the future of Jazz - to place a value on the art, and not work for less than the minimum wage.
It would be great to see more career training in music schools; I didn't see much outside the "music industry" degree paths when I was shopping for a spot to learn. And there hasn't been a single formal mention of it in the SDSU jazz program. But refusing to work for the going rate, regardless of whether it's above or below someone's idea of a minimum wage, amounts to voluntarily putting oneself out of work. I consider that poor career advice.
In this economic climate - going after young players to pay-up and Join a Union with dues and fees... All the jazz musicians joining the 802 Union (or Musicians Union in their area) - paying dues... I don't think it would happen (sorry to say) and It is not the automatic fix.
This reminds me, I'd like to learn about the history of musicians' unions. I've dreaded the day when I'd be forced to join one, but they don't seem to have the authority I expected to find when I was younger. In fact, no union issue has ever come up in my professional experience in music.
My general appraisal of unions is that they amount to labor cartels. They can only derive power through force, either through seeking government privilege or threats of violence against individuals who would circumvent them. A union that doesn't employ force is okay in my book, but I'd expect it to be powerless.
Social Etiquette: You don't sneeze into your hand, then directly go to shake hands with someone. It's rude.
What if the musician's social etiquette was that it was disrespectful to all - to take a gig for under the agreed Minimum-Wage... and/or undercut another musicians' pay to get a gig ???People fear how they are perceived in the public eye.
I found this bit fascinating. It's tough to imagine what I'd do in this environment. But it's also tough to imagine it developing, as I can't think of another industry with a parallel standard. It's not considered rude for a gas station to charge the lowest price they can to compete with the gas station across the street. Nor for an engineering student to take a low-paying internship doing work that someone else might have done for a higher wage. Nor for YouTube to allow anyone with an Internet connection to view all of their videos for free in order to attract more viewers to their advertisements. On the contrary, all of these are considered good business practice. Corresponding behavior in the music world would be charging the lowest price you can for your time and efforts in order to fill your schedule with gigs and maximize your overall earnings, which is what people already do.
I truly think that eventually - if there was no musician to be found, who would agree to work for under $50 or $75 bucks... just to shout out a number... If no one in New York would work for less than $50or$75 - what would eventually happen? Just imagine....
Wages don't rise by workers simply demanding to be paid more. Supply and demand determine wages just as they do prices. Continuing your scenario, if every musician in a city suddenly decided to turn down all gigs paying less than $X, the first thing you will find, as you identified, is fewer gigs; some venues can't afford it, and that's why they don't already pay more. But the next thing you'll find is a growing willingness among musicians, stemming from their desire to eat, to work for less than $X in order to get any gigs at all. Soon enough, barring changes in the supply of musicians or demand for musicians, you will end up right back where you started.
For the students who get a Bachelors / then Masters degree / then complete a DMA program (exit school with loans/debt) what life or career is there going to be for them when they graduate?
One shouldn't discount the possibility of poor investment. The fact that you've studied something doesn't give you the right to earn money with it. If a janitor spends years learning how to spin plates on his head and juggle while he mops the floor, he's no more likely to receive a pay increase. I'm finishing a Master's in jazz studies myself, but I don't expect the paychecks to start rolling in with the degree; I have to go earn those separately.
I think the problem is truly the musicians ... and the Younger generation (my age or younger) does not have the self respect to say NO.
If the bully hits you and takes your money every day - and you do nothing - who's fault is it?
Who's the bully, and who's stealing money? If I agree to play a gig, no matter the price, it's because I've decided that it will make me better off. That might be through monetary compensation or drinks and a meal or "exposure" or networking or the pleasure of performing for friends. Whatever the reasons, they're my reasons, and it was my decision to take the gig. When a person voluntarily enters an agreement, they're not getting mugged by a bully. It means they expect to benefit.
Psychological issues may appear on an individual basis, but I think this has nothing to do with self respect. I consider it respectful of my fellow humans to assume until contradictory evidence arises that each of them is in full control of his or her decisions, and that their actions are purposeful. By this I mean that they seek their own ends, and with every motion, word, and agreement of their lives, they are pursuing that which makes them happy.
As this applies to younger musicians, myself included, I expect it's just how they become professionals. When your name is worth nothing and you're still cutting your teeth as a player, you need to take low-paying gigs as a point of entry. No-pay gigs are often better than no gigs. Once a player has established himself, he'll tend to value his time more and price himself out of low-paying or otherwise undesirable gigs, freeing them up for the next young player.
In my personal experiences, sometimes I'll play for free, and sometimes I won't. I was often asked to join the house band for Thursday Night Jazz Jams in San Diego, which entailed performing for the first half hour of a three-hour jam, remaining present for the duration, and playing whenever the guitarist supply ran dry. These gigs usually paid a meal and drinks, sometimes some money, sometimes nothing. I accepted every one because I valued the experience. It was a fun jam, I met new people every time, it did wonders for my playing, and it helped me cultivate a professional reputation among local musicians. On the other hand, in my year and a half with Dazed and Confused, I had an absolute minimum payment that I'd accept. I would have done the first handful of gigs for free, but after a few repeats of the same experience, and getting paid for it, I could comfortably refuse to play for less than a certain threshold, because I knew more paying gigs were out there.
Jaime Valle (2 May 2011 at 2:27pm)
Play for free? no thanks!
I've lived and worked in San Diego for 40 years,(no day gig) purchased two homes and put my kids through college, I did it working al type of gigs, studio gigs, show gigs, top forty gigs, jazz gigs, weddings etc, and NEVER DID IT FOR FREE, NOTHING JUSTIFIES WORKING FOR FREE.
All the cats I collaborate with demand to GET PAID, Bob Magnusson, Peter & Tripp Sprague, Allan Phillips, John Reckevic, Rob Thorsen, Gilbert Castellanos & Rob Whitlock to name a few,
(I could list 50 more) They will not work free nor food or drinks. why? because they are pros.
Respect yourself and your music, think twice my friends, free is not always better.
Musically yours,
-Jaime Valle
Joe (3 May 2011 at 6:04am)
Hi Jaime,
Thanks so much for your reply. I've seen you play at Dizzy's a few times, and it means a lot to me that you'd stop by and donate a bit of your time.
I partially agree with you. Any professional is necessarily mindful of his/her money, otherwise he/she wouldn't last long in the business. Music is tricky; everyone must be his/her own private businessman. I think it's great advice for young musicians to be as shrewd as the pros are and to avoid getting excited over gigs that don't pay, but I wouldn't take it as far as a strict mantra of "never work for free."
I'm moving to Seattle in a couple weeks, and I'll be looking for gigs cold turkey. I grew up in the area, and I've made some new Seattle friends since, but I'm not expecting any gig calls before I meet some more players. John Stowell gave a clinic at SDSU a few months ago, and this was his advice on networking: When you enjoy someone's playing at a show or jam session, tell them, and ask to informally jam sometime. Don't worry about whether they will hire you. If the musical connection is there, and you both behave professionally, then the paying gigs will come.
With very few exceptions, I turn down free gigs myself as I'd rather just spend time with my wife. I make exceptions only when I'd rather play out than sit at home, when I don't have a paying gig at the same time, and when I expect to recieve some non-monetary compensation to make up for it. Extreme hypothetical example: if Jimmy Page himself walked into a Dazed and Confused rehearsal and asked us to play a free gig, those of us not having seizures would have fallen over each other to accept.
We all do little bits of free work regularly. Every time we attend a jam session or audition, perform a few minutes later than the contract requires, teach a few minutes past the end of a lesson, we're effectively working for free. In the rare event that I accept a non-paying gig, I do it with the same respect for myself and the music as with any other gig. Whenever I'm in a position to demand payment, I do, but I work for my own reasons and on my own terms. There's no other way.
Joe
Ernesto Schnack (3 May 2011 at 11:13am)
"In order to get paid for what you do, other people need to value it. You could be the greatest musician on the planet, but until someone else values your abilities more than their money, you won't get paid a dime."
I think that's the key point. If you have an audience, and can guarantee the venue a certain amount of people will come and see you (and buy drink, food,etc..), then they'll be willing to pay because it's good business.
My problem with these types of discussions, is that a 'gig' can mean different things to different people. Is it being hired to play in a band? Your own band? Solo gig? Covers? Original music? Are you the featured act? Background music in a restaurant? Wedding gig?
Some of those I definitely woudln't do for free, others I might if it's part of a larger plan. It depends.
Frankie R. (3 May 2011 at 4:32pm)
I agree with the article to a point. Im originally from New Jersey, and i moved down to austin texas to study and music, jazz guitar specifically. first thing i did when i finally arrived was open my computer and i went on facebook, and found a gig playing with a band as a bassist. Im not trying to say give up your instrument when u do that, but i did it checking my ego at the door. Our vocalist has been working on getting us a following, but since the band has a severe line up change and moniker change, the band is back to zero. for us i suggested we play every and any gig we can and send out posters, flyers, invites, talk to people, invite, spread demos, self fund mini tours, you name it. Just simply do serious legwork to build a reputation so that we get a solid following, and ultimately expand our horizons. Think of it as a job, first job none the less. How can you apply to work as a manager, when you never had the proper training to do floor work. how can you demand money when you are starting from scratch. I do believe we should value our form of artwork and stand up for ourselves. but we need to start somewhere. Now if you have the reputation, that you have worked yourself up to, then you can put a price on your work and go from there. after you have enough experience, only then can you get promoted. its just how i personally feel. im not right nor am i wrong. and everybody is entitled to an oppinion.
btw, joe, thank you for creating this website. it helps me alot as a musician with tips and theory, and you aswell as my old guitar teacher have me thriving to expand kno technical prowess and theoretical knowledge as a musician and im trying really hard to build myself up to play extended chords but thats still in its infancy haha
- Frankie
Mark Wein (5 May 2011 at 5:31am)
I think that you've hit the nail 100% on the head with this...I posted a link to this blog entry on my forum and the response has pretty been the same as mine. Musicians need to be realistic about what they are doing....I play all kinds of gigs and some of them are fairly lucrative but they are usually the ones that a "serious" musician would turn their nose up at. The gigs that are most musically rewarding to me tend to be low dollar but afford me the luxury of playing with better musicians or music that I really want to play without the necessity of keeping a dance floor moving in a club. I think that if you average out my gig income between the two settings I'm probably doing OK every time I go out :)
Joe (7 May 2011 at 3:18pm)
When I was taking lessons with him, Bob Boss explained the "Three Ms": music, money, and mileage. Most gigs will provide ideal conditions in one or two, but rarely all three of these areas.
Frankie (8 May 2011 at 4:50pm)
Yea those three m's sound about right... Unfortunately unleas your a famour pop star... And even then some things just dont work out
Robby (2 Jun 2011 at 12:14pm)
Nice article, enjoyed how you touched on the subjective theory of value. And more importantly, how it is what determines prices, wages and a business' success and not necessarily the time or "labor" put into it.
r.m. (17 Jun 2011 at 1:11pm)
hi-
you posted your response to adam niewood's blog post advocating a minimum wage for ALL musicians beneath an article on the union organizing drive for musicians at 2 particular specific major NYC Jazz festivals at NYTimes.com.
while some of your points re: niewood are well taken, your extension of anti-union perspective to ALL areas of music is not.
Many people play baseball for free. Its fun, and before major league baseball players were unionized, they were exploited in a way that would seem incredible to people today.
No union will ever organize every hole in the wall jazz or rock club (sorry adam n.)- but the players at major New York Jazz Festivals are NOT the little league, and the value we produce is NOT 'subjective': we're selling drinks and paying rentals for the venues, selling well over 100,000 worth of tickets for the promoters. Last year these venues were packed to beyond capacity. we also create indirect profits: for the APAP trade show promoters whose members get in free to festival concerts- while paying $900 for APAP tickets not a penny of which goes to us- even though our concerts are part of their advertising!!!!
We're sick of being ripped off. THe union is a tool to stop this- we've used it successfully before, and we're going to use it again..
Places like LA with less history of union action on the rock/jazz scene have more pay-to-play, and more play-for-free, than nyc, where musicians have sometimes been active. so let's stop pretending that pay is simply a product of neutral factors like supply and demand: both can be manipulated, by human beings, and are every day. its our turn.
Joe (22 Jun 2011 at 9:36am)
Hi r.m.,
(For anyone else reading, see the New York Times article Petition Seeks Better Pay for Musicans [sic] at Jazz Festivals and the petition Winter/Undead Jazz Festival Musicians Petition.)
While this post doesn't directly address any festival situation, I thought it would be relevant for anyone interested in the Winter/Undead developments. The principles are the same, but on a different scale, whether one calls for a minimum wage for all musicians, US musicians, NY musicians, or a handful of festival musicians.
I think the crucial difference between your view (and likely everyone signing those petitions) and mine is the subjective theory of value. In short, things do not have intrinsic value; people value things. Every human has different circumstances and motives that contribute to how he/she values things. (Prime example: I love Frank Zappa, while my wife can't stand him. His music provides nothing desirable to her.) This piece by Jim Cox is the most illuminating introduction, comparing it with the labor theory of value. Also see the Wikipedia entry and Artwork and the Subjective Theory of Value.
Also, were I a promoter, the following statement would not get me excited about renegotiating pay rates:
I don't see how you're getting ripped off if you voluntarily agree to play the festival for the fee offered. If it's too low for you, don't play.
Joe
Joe (22 Jun 2011 at 9:47am)
On another note, if "r.m." happens to stand for "Ribot, Marc", then you are one of my favorite guitarists alive.
r.m. (22 Jun 2011 at 11:59pm)
Joe writes "I don't see how you're getting ripped off if you voluntarily agree to play the festival for the fee offered. If it's too low for you, don't play."
Joe's logic denies the philosophical basis of unionism: that workers have both a legal and moral right to bargain collectively.
so- let's extend Joe's logic:
"i don't see why you coal miners are getting ripped off if you voluntarily agree to work in mines without adequate safety standards. If its too dangerous for you, work somewhere else."
"I don't see how you factory workers in the machiladoras are getting ripped off for working for 50 cents an hour while your employers sell what you make for 30 times that. No one forced you to work at this particular machiladora. If the 50 cents is too low for you, don't work here."
"I don't see how you garment workers are getting ripped off working 16 hours a day 7 days a week for the fee offered. If it's too low for you, work somewhere else."
I could post more sickening examples- let's recall that the "free market" joe's ideology posits as the solution to all problems only ceased hiring child labor as a direct of the type of labor action he philosophically opposes.
and i will send another post commenting on other weaknesses of Joe's thinking.
but let's cut to the chase:
Joe writes: " I'm finishing a Master's in jazz studies..."
Incredible to me that someone could reach the Master's level in Jazz studies without being aware of the basic facts of its economy, which has not been primarily market based since it ceased being a dance music over 60 years ago, but rather that of the 'art' world, highly dependent on subsidized festivals and cultural centers, in particular those of Western Europe, where "the european cultural exemption" specifically exempted certain areas of culture (along with medical care), from what were otherwise market economies.
Unless your studies are exclusively in the moldy fig department, this exemption is responsible for the existence of much of the art form you are studying. The lives of most contemporary jazz musicians would not be economically viable without subsidized european touring. Are you willing to say, on purely ideological grounds, that their music (and opera, and symphonic music, and contemporary classical, etc etc) therefore shouldn't exist?
Joe (25 Jun 2011 at 5:19pm)
r.m.,
I think you've misinterpreted my ideology. I do not deny workers' rights to bargain collectively. In fact, I'd defend those rights. (I'd just prefer not to be involved in collective bargaining myself.)
My entire ideology, since you brought it up, boils down to the non-agression principle: I oppose "the initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property."
There's nothing in the abstract idea of a union that I oppose. It's a voluntary association of individuals working toward a common cause. I do oppose anyone who'd forcibly prevent a voluntary association. Unfortunately, some unions do just that, threatening non-union workers with violence in order to prevent them from entering a voluntary agreement with an employer. (See The Myth of Voluntary Unions, which argues that violence is an inherent part of unionism.)
Regarding your examples of miners, factory workers, and garment workers, those are all crummy situations, and I would defend, not deny, the workers' rights to associate. But the question remains: why don't they work somewhere else? What's stopping each of them from quitting? I suspect the answer is in their situation, that they have no alternatives, they need to feed families, no one else is hiring, they lack the savings or ability to uproot and move away, etc. All of this adds to the crumminess of their plight, but if they have no other options individually, how can they have other options collectively? If there's nowhere for any single worker to work somewhere else, how can they collectively threaten to work somewhere else? What are their bargaining chips? If they strike, they're just as out-of-work as if they'd quit, and those who can least afford to lose wages (and those unemployed) will be the first to break the strike and return to work. That is, unless they're forcibly prevented from working.
While I don't agree with the above article that all unions necessarily employ force, I just don't see how they can have any bargaining power without doing so.
The tricky part is that the force often takes the form of "legal privileges and immunities that they get from government, both by statute and by nonenforcement of other laws." (See "Labor Unions" in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.) In this case, union members needn't resort to any threats or violence themselves, and their actions are entirely understandable within the landscape of the laws.
Regarding the jazz economy, I was not aware of the "European cultural exemption." In fact, Googling the phrase yields nothing but the very page on which we're having this discussion. Other than discussing local gigs, we didn't study the means of funding jazz musicians in the program at SDSU. I'd expect the economic realities of one's own profession to be more effectively studied through experience than in academia. I haven't been pursuing jazz for very long, so my experience is miniscule, and I admit I'm frightfully ignorant about the global workings of the jazz world. If you can point me to any enlightening sources on the European subsidies (or on jazz not being market-based, of which I was also unaware), I promise to read them.
To answer your final question, no. I wouldn't say that any type of music shouldn't exist. I oppose only coercion. So, strictly speaking, I don't even oppose those subsidies. I oppose what is most likely their source: taxes. It doesn't matter where the money goes, I oppose taking it from someone who doesn't consent to giving it. (Hypothetically, those subsidies could come from a private benefactor who earned the money through nonviolent means, which is fine by me.)
In any case, I doubt that jazz would cease to exist without subsidies. I submit as evidence the plethora of unsubsidized contemporary creative music (jazz and so much more) available today, more than at any time in history.
Joe
r.m. (3 Jul 2011 at 7:51am)
" I was not aware of the "European cultural exemption." In fact, Googling the phrase yields nothing "
try 'european cultural exception'
John (30 Aug 2011 at 2:32am)
I read this and was instantly reminded of many of my own rants about the devaluing of music and the treatment of musicians over recent years.
This is something that we as musicians and songwriters are, for the major part, responsible for. We draw the lines that define how we are treated. That is true when it comes to record deals, publishing deals or playing gigs. It's true when it comes to us putting pressure on professional bodies and collection agencies to insist on fully respected performance royalties for all artists. Earnings from on-line streaming sites are absolutely ridiculous.
BTT
Pay to play? It's a result of less scrupulous venue owners relying on the desperation of artists to get their music out there. We all know that. It doesn't happen in all genres, at least not to the same extent, but it does happen.
The point is how do we collectively deal with it, while being realistic that there are desperate bands out there who know so little about the business of music that they are prepared to pay to play, or play for free.
From observation this has been established by un-confident bands, ignorant of what is possible and / or too damn lazy to pursue the alternatives. I have posted several times on my own blog on related issues, but this post called "Why is my band not famous yet?" covers a good deal of the issues.
We can't think that a stance by union musicians and the more idealistic artists alone can change this, precisely because of the reason above.
Musicians need to be educated about alternatives, and it needs to be ongoing as more and more musicians and bands pour out of schools.
For example, "Become Your Own Promoter - Earn Money And Play Better Gigs". It's not the only solution, but one that allows bands to take control of their earnings.
Not only do current bands need educated on alternatives, it's about time that schools educated pupils about the music industry and how it works at all levels. There are already many music initiatives out there that could evolve to encompass this.
Until we engage with tomorrow's bands this is a problem that will not go away, and probably even then not completely.
Now I've cheered you up I'll get off my soap box. At least for a while!
Good topic!
John