Post by jamesannesley on Aug 14, 2011 17:09:36 GMT 10
This is from my blog jannesley.blogspot.com/
So, I felt compelled to write a response to this recent article by Kim Salmon in The Age newspaper:
www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/spare-a-dollar-for-the-maker-music-doesnt-play-itself-20110809-1ikri.html
His article is mostly about the fact that Melbourne musicians are finding it harder and harder to make a living from gigs. Salmon puts most of the responsibility on the attitudes of punters and venues.
My motivation for writing this might have something to do with the fact that I did a gig last night to an audience of about three and the band made $5 to split four ways. And this is not the first time this has happened to me or anyone else in the Melbourne jazz scene. I'm not talking about hack musicians, I've seen this sort of thing happen to some of the best jazz musos in the country. My band aren't exactly amateurs either, and last night's gig was certainly full of energy and spontaneity, which is what I reckon jazz is all about.
Anyway, the point of this article is really just to give my own perspective on the way things are, though my perspective is more from the jazz scene specifically, rather than the Melbourne live music scene as a whole. So it won't always relate directly to what Salmon is saying. I don't intend to have a whinge, or put blame on anyone or anything. I'm not interested in getting into some kind of 'Us vs. Them' debate either. If we make enemies of punters and venues, things will only get worse. They too have their reasons for thinking and acting the way they do.
Demand has dropped, supply hasn't
In his article, Salmon briefly implies that demand for live music has dropped in recent decades:
"People like to blame digital technology for the ease of obtaining music free, doing it's makers out of their income. Technology will always change things - it is said that some theatre organists committed suicide with the advent of the talkies. Maybe true, sadly, but there are still organists."
True, there are still theatre organists, but the demand for them obviously dropped massively when sound was introduced to motion pictures. That's just how it goes, and something similar, but on a smaller, more gradual scale, has been happening with live music for some time now. Radio, records, cinema, TV, video, computer games, internet, cable TV and digital music have all played their part in this.
Actually, demand for large scale gigs is on the rise. People are willing to pay big money to occasionally attend a concert or festival by a big name artist with lots of marketing hype. These are seen as massive, one-off, potentially life changing events. It's the smaller, more regular, less-hyped gigs which are now generating less interest. And I believe this does apply to jazz to a fairly large degree, not just to more popular music. For example, the Melbourne International Jazz Festival and Wangaratta Festival are both going strong as ever.
This is just the reality of the situation, demand for small-scale live gigs is dropping, yet there are so many musicians living here and trying to make a living, so supply is still very strong, and far exceeds demand.
This puts venues in a position where they always have a lot of bands lining up to do a gig. If one band refuses to play on the grounds that they are being treated badly and not paid enough, there will always be another band to take their place. So even venues who rely on live music for their survival are in a position where they simply don't need to pay or treat their bands fairly. This is also the reason why most venues put the onus on artists to do all the promotion. If they don't the next band will.
Of course, a lot of this mostly applies to pubs who have rock bands on a Saturday night. It's maybe a little different for jazz clubs, where the demand is so low that the venue simply won't survive if they always pay the band properly. It's usually a door deal, so how much a band makes is completely dependent on how many people they can bring to the place. This seems quite unfair to the artist; even if I work hard to promote a gig and my band plays beautifully, we won't get properly paid unless the crowd is big. But it all comes down to the fact that there just isn't enough demand for these gigs.
Should venues cop more of the responsibility?
Pubs with rock bands might be a different story, but for jazz venues, this is a tough one. I've never tried to run a jazz club, but I can imagine it would be quite a challenge. Jazz is a pretty esoteric and diverse genre, and hasn't been particularly popular since the 1960s.
It's true that these venues can't afford to pay the artists a guaranteed fee without going broke, but should the artists really have to cop everything? Like Kim Salmon alludes to in his article, musicians are skilled professionals who work hard for their art, and should be payed properly when hired to play by a venue who depends on them for survival.
I'm going out on a limb here, but would it not be possible for Melbourne jazz venues to invest a little more time and money into promotion, so the load is at least split more evenly between them and the artists? Just a thought.
The music better be good
Not to name names, but I've seen some pretty half-arsed performances by some Melbourne jazz groups over the years (as well as many incredible ones). I think it's important that we always present high quality music that has the potential to really engage the audience. You don't have to be a highly experienced virtuoso to play an energetic gig either, just put some soul and pep into it, for god's sake. Yes, I know I've already stated that I've seen some of the country's best jazz musicians play to an empty room, but this will happen a lot more when the music is crap.
Don't blame the punters
Here is a link to an article written about the theatre scene in England, which I think relates very well to what I'm saying about the way jazz is too often presented.
www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/mar/21/features11.g2
At the end of the day if people don't want to go out and see a gig, they just wont. Guilt tripping might work on a few friends now and then, but it won't work on the public at large. I'd much rather play to a room full of people who really want to be there and are enjoying themselves, than a bunch of sympathetic souls who have come out to support some live music because they feel they should.
Accept reality
If you are a musician who is in a position where you have to work hard to promote yourself, then do it and do it well. Either that or get a publicist (which most people can't afford), or play only gigs that are guaranteed payers (not too many of these around nowadays). And if you have to have a day job (true for almost 100% of Melbourne jazz musos), do something you like doing and do it well. Don't just accept that you have to teach school kids, if that's something you don't like doing. Either accept things the way they are, do something to change them, or quit.
Why do I still do it?
I've been playing in public since I was 14 (I'm now 31), and I've never made nearly enough to live on. But I keep working hard on my music, and on promoting myself as an artist. The only reason I do it is because I love it... a lot. Some gigs are better than others, but for the most part it just feels amazing to stand up there with a great band and pour my heart out to an audience, even a small one, even for little or no money.
I could possibly be making a living from playing music I don't enjoy, say corporate gigs for example, but that would defeat the purpose of being a musician in the first place. I see myself much more as an artist than a businessman, so I have to deal with whatever comes with that. If our culture changes one day, and more people actually want to hear unusual, creative, instrumental music, that would be fantastic.
n.b.
There are other, broader issues affecting the Melbourne jazz scene which I wont go into right now, to do with organisational problems, arts funding issues, publicity and other stuff which I might save for another post. There are also great organisations like the government-funded MJC who present jazz and improvised music on a weekly basis and always pay the artists a guaranteed proper fee.
So, I felt compelled to write a response to this recent article by Kim Salmon in The Age newspaper:
www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/spare-a-dollar-for-the-maker-music-doesnt-play-itself-20110809-1ikri.html
His article is mostly about the fact that Melbourne musicians are finding it harder and harder to make a living from gigs. Salmon puts most of the responsibility on the attitudes of punters and venues.
My motivation for writing this might have something to do with the fact that I did a gig last night to an audience of about three and the band made $5 to split four ways. And this is not the first time this has happened to me or anyone else in the Melbourne jazz scene. I'm not talking about hack musicians, I've seen this sort of thing happen to some of the best jazz musos in the country. My band aren't exactly amateurs either, and last night's gig was certainly full of energy and spontaneity, which is what I reckon jazz is all about.
Anyway, the point of this article is really just to give my own perspective on the way things are, though my perspective is more from the jazz scene specifically, rather than the Melbourne live music scene as a whole. So it won't always relate directly to what Salmon is saying. I don't intend to have a whinge, or put blame on anyone or anything. I'm not interested in getting into some kind of 'Us vs. Them' debate either. If we make enemies of punters and venues, things will only get worse. They too have their reasons for thinking and acting the way they do.
Demand has dropped, supply hasn't
In his article, Salmon briefly implies that demand for live music has dropped in recent decades:
"People like to blame digital technology for the ease of obtaining music free, doing it's makers out of their income. Technology will always change things - it is said that some theatre organists committed suicide with the advent of the talkies. Maybe true, sadly, but there are still organists."
True, there are still theatre organists, but the demand for them obviously dropped massively when sound was introduced to motion pictures. That's just how it goes, and something similar, but on a smaller, more gradual scale, has been happening with live music for some time now. Radio, records, cinema, TV, video, computer games, internet, cable TV and digital music have all played their part in this.
Actually, demand for large scale gigs is on the rise. People are willing to pay big money to occasionally attend a concert or festival by a big name artist with lots of marketing hype. These are seen as massive, one-off, potentially life changing events. It's the smaller, more regular, less-hyped gigs which are now generating less interest. And I believe this does apply to jazz to a fairly large degree, not just to more popular music. For example, the Melbourne International Jazz Festival and Wangaratta Festival are both going strong as ever.
This is just the reality of the situation, demand for small-scale live gigs is dropping, yet there are so many musicians living here and trying to make a living, so supply is still very strong, and far exceeds demand.
This puts venues in a position where they always have a lot of bands lining up to do a gig. If one band refuses to play on the grounds that they are being treated badly and not paid enough, there will always be another band to take their place. So even venues who rely on live music for their survival are in a position where they simply don't need to pay or treat their bands fairly. This is also the reason why most venues put the onus on artists to do all the promotion. If they don't the next band will.
Of course, a lot of this mostly applies to pubs who have rock bands on a Saturday night. It's maybe a little different for jazz clubs, where the demand is so low that the venue simply won't survive if they always pay the band properly. It's usually a door deal, so how much a band makes is completely dependent on how many people they can bring to the place. This seems quite unfair to the artist; even if I work hard to promote a gig and my band plays beautifully, we won't get properly paid unless the crowd is big. But it all comes down to the fact that there just isn't enough demand for these gigs.
Should venues cop more of the responsibility?
Pubs with rock bands might be a different story, but for jazz venues, this is a tough one. I've never tried to run a jazz club, but I can imagine it would be quite a challenge. Jazz is a pretty esoteric and diverse genre, and hasn't been particularly popular since the 1960s.
It's true that these venues can't afford to pay the artists a guaranteed fee without going broke, but should the artists really have to cop everything? Like Kim Salmon alludes to in his article, musicians are skilled professionals who work hard for their art, and should be payed properly when hired to play by a venue who depends on them for survival.
I'm going out on a limb here, but would it not be possible for Melbourne jazz venues to invest a little more time and money into promotion, so the load is at least split more evenly between them and the artists? Just a thought.
The music better be good
Not to name names, but I've seen some pretty half-arsed performances by some Melbourne jazz groups over the years (as well as many incredible ones). I think it's important that we always present high quality music that has the potential to really engage the audience. You don't have to be a highly experienced virtuoso to play an energetic gig either, just put some soul and pep into it, for god's sake. Yes, I know I've already stated that I've seen some of the country's best jazz musicians play to an empty room, but this will happen a lot more when the music is crap.
Don't blame the punters
Here is a link to an article written about the theatre scene in England, which I think relates very well to what I'm saying about the way jazz is too often presented.
www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/mar/21/features11.g2
At the end of the day if people don't want to go out and see a gig, they just wont. Guilt tripping might work on a few friends now and then, but it won't work on the public at large. I'd much rather play to a room full of people who really want to be there and are enjoying themselves, than a bunch of sympathetic souls who have come out to support some live music because they feel they should.
Accept reality
If you are a musician who is in a position where you have to work hard to promote yourself, then do it and do it well. Either that or get a publicist (which most people can't afford), or play only gigs that are guaranteed payers (not too many of these around nowadays). And if you have to have a day job (true for almost 100% of Melbourne jazz musos), do something you like doing and do it well. Don't just accept that you have to teach school kids, if that's something you don't like doing. Either accept things the way they are, do something to change them, or quit.
Why do I still do it?
I've been playing in public since I was 14 (I'm now 31), and I've never made nearly enough to live on. But I keep working hard on my music, and on promoting myself as an artist. The only reason I do it is because I love it... a lot. Some gigs are better than others, but for the most part it just feels amazing to stand up there with a great band and pour my heart out to an audience, even a small one, even for little or no money.
I could possibly be making a living from playing music I don't enjoy, say corporate gigs for example, but that would defeat the purpose of being a musician in the first place. I see myself much more as an artist than a businessman, so I have to deal with whatever comes with that. If our culture changes one day, and more people actually want to hear unusual, creative, instrumental music, that would be fantastic.
n.b.
There are other, broader issues affecting the Melbourne jazz scene which I wont go into right now, to do with organisational problems, arts funding issues, publicity and other stuff which I might save for another post. There are also great organisations like the government-funded MJC who present jazz and improvised music on a weekly basis and always pay the artists a guaranteed proper fee.
