|
|
Post by aj on Oct 4, 2006 11:57:16 GMT 10
There are several sides to the story........I've spoken to musicians who resent earning so little, to staff who reckon they're underpaid, to promoters who believe they take high risks for marginal rewards, and to Michael & Megan who maintain that the overheads are high & the venue would go broke if they paid higher fees & gave the musicians free access to the bar.
Part of the problem is the economics of the local scene. Govt funding is limited (which relates to the 2 nights weekly presented by the Co-op). The audience is reluctant to pay substantial entry fees. Drink-driving laws make it harder for venues to pay bands out of bar profits than was the case 10 or 20 years ago.
I don't know that there is any easy solution. But some options might be :
* if you really believe your band deserves a better deal, negotiate harder with Michael.....yes, if you tell him to take it or leave it, you run the risk that he'll book another band instead...but if you really believe you are worth more, make the stand.
* When you do get a gig, make the effort to get a crowd there ; email or sms everyone you know, try to get an interview in the paper or on the radio, maybe even hire a publicist.
* When you get a gig, deliver. Take Joe Chindamo, for example : I know he works regularly at Bennetts, and I'm willing to bet he gets a better than average fee, because Michael knows he will pull a crowd AND deliver a show that brings them back next time he's on.
* Lobby your local MP for the Co-op to get more $ from Arts Vic or the Aus Council, so they can afford to set a higher standard pay-rate for gigs.
* Set up your own gigs or find other venues, and make it work for you there.
Bottom line : the Melbourne scene would be much worse off if Bennetts went out of business, I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Oct 4, 2006 11:59:45 GMT 10
I'm not asking to be paid an hourly rate for playing music. I'm asking if you think it is normal for people to continue to turn up to work for a rate of pay they think is less than what they deserve? If you don't want that pay - don't play there, go elswhere to earn the amount you think you should be paid. My point about wanting $50 an hour for my time is the same as you complaining you don't get paid enough. There is what the market will pay in reality, and what we want to be paid. They usually don't mesh. If enough people refuse to play, then yes, you may get those amounts, more than likely tho you'll just end up without another venue to play at as to be completely honest, there is more money in running an Irish Pub than a Jazz club. Andrew - to answer your questions - yes they are paid for or I wouldn't be asking you about them. specifically about advertising/promotion: How many people turn up to see the person playing rather than just turn up on a given night because the venue has spent 10 years promoting the fact that it has jazz on every night? The entire point about a door deal is to pay musicians based on them getting people to turn up. Why should the venue be subsiding musicians if it's more cost effective or even profitable to not even have them playing? Would you prefer we had no door charge and just passed around a hat? freddy... What club did you run again? Profitable is it? edit: again, sorry to be so harsh, but I'm getting sick and tired of people telling us we don't pay people enough, we don't know how to run a 'real' jazz venue, that we are blood-sucking vampires, and generally that we are like leeches sucking money away from the arts by providing a venue to play in and actually attempting to make some money out of it. Like Adrian said - go get funding, not just for yourselves, but for the scene as a whole. As much as I thought Dizzy's was a horrible venue (personal opinion not BL's, I just couldn't go and watch a gig there as the actual space wasn't conducive to watching a gig), it at least provided another place for musos to play in. The more gigs happening around town, the more chance you will have other people thinking there may be a market worth catering to and more venues opening, rather than the current state of opening a boutique bar and offering alcohol and nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Oct 4, 2006 13:00:47 GMT 10
Let's face it: Until (when? ha ha) Melbourne gets a joint that sells ribs after midnight, we will continue to dwell in Nowheresville.  |
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Oct 4, 2006 14:53:22 GMT 10
The fiscal argument is complex Ramirez - no jazz club is going to put itself into economic quicksand to stand up for what should be fair wages for musicians - no club could even to begin to reimburse any of us for the time and commitment we give to music.On the other hand , working conditions , professionalism and just plain humanity do not cost a great deal at all and yet can be lacking at times in the present environment - particularly when you have supported the scene by playing for so little for a long time.Whether it be from club owners who never return calls, staff who treat you as if being a musician exempts you from having any common sense, punters who push you out of the way when you are lugging a 30kg amplifier or fascist sound techs who think the show is all about them - the contempt one experiences as a musician might be limited to isolated experiences but they re dispiriting given the poor remuneration...
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Oct 4, 2006 15:33:32 GMT 10
Excellent debate! I'm glad you weighed in Jeremy, gives it all some balance. The bottom line is you can make ALOT of money playing music if alot of people want to hear it. unfortunately it takes the cooperation of the media and the corporate world to reach the masses. I was watching a Robbie Williams concert on TV the other night, and I just couldn't stop thinking, who ARE all these people? I mean, he was standing i front of what looked like the population of an entire country in a paddock in England somewhere. The general public spends absurd amounts of money on music, CD's, concerts (sometimees more than 200 bucks for a ticket) mp3's, mp3 players, phones with mp3 players, etc etc etc, all so they can listen to their favourite music 24HOURS PER DAY. This is the reality of the 21st century. How will you find your slice of the pie so that you can keep on composing your 12 tone rhythm diamond tibetan nose flute improvs?   ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Oct 4, 2006 15:45:28 GMT 10
I was watching a Robbie Williams concert on TV the other night, and I just couldn't stop thinking, who ARE all these people? People with Really Bad taste in music? |
|
|
|
Post by captain on Oct 4, 2006 15:51:41 GMT 10
Look, the point is not how bad Robbie is (and he was pretty bad) but the fact that even when he sucks, millions of people (just think about that for a moment, when we're used to playing to 70 people, tops)
will still fork out hundreds of dollars to hear (that is, see) him.
We live in a wealthy, wealthy country and the pure scale of music economics should all put us in a positive mindfame.
...But who here is in it for the money, as someone put it so well...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Oct 4, 2006 15:59:22 GMT 10
Just kidding. Sort of. Despite being widely - especially in my office - ragarded as a snob (with some justification - depending on your perspective), I can, er, get down with some real trashy commercial stuff at times. But Robbie Williams I just don't get at all.
It's a mystery to me, too: How in a city crammed with music (much of it for close to free, as addressed in this thread) and other goodies, live music means for so many people shelling out bikkies once or twice a year to get shoehorned into some stadium to see/hear some schmuck do his lame crapola.
Continue ...
|
|
bod
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by bod on Oct 4, 2006 16:31:06 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Oct 4, 2006 17:40:08 GMT 10
Like it or not, Jazz is now considered a niche market, with exceptions made for the likes of Jamie Cullum and the other random "lets put out a jazz CD" superstars like him.
As is shown repeatedly (and yes, BL has done this too), put someone up to impersonate an oldschool jazz singer/muso (Satchmo anyone?) and people will turn up and gladly pay $50 to see it.
Why? Well that's a different debate altogther though, as in the end, most original jazz will never get heard by the popular masses as it's not their cup of tea. Jazz has a certain perception to the general public, and no amount of explaining to them that it has moved on since the 60's seems to sway that vision.
I was speaking to Alison the other night about this (well, it was a different topic, but it came up as part of it) - Why do people regularly pack in to see Yvette Johansson?
Her voice is nothing spectacular, sometimes it's cringeworthy, and I won't comment on her looks, but she seems to draw in a crowd, gig after gig simply because she is a great impersonator. Close your eyes and you will be thinking of Ella not Yvette.
My point is - that's the public perception of jazz, not 'weird' improvised free jazz. Not modern improv, not even the fantastic reworkings of old music.
How would you explain to a non-'jazz' listener what Tinkler or Oehlers play on their regular gigs? How about the 12 tones (who I think are awesome)? Figure out a way of getting people excited to see something new, and half the battle is won. Hell, i'd love to be coming to work to see a massive crowd at the front door on a Monday night
|
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Oct 4, 2006 17:48:36 GMT 10
My point is - that's the public perception of jazz, not 'weird' improvised free jazz. Not modern improv, not even the fantastic reworkings of old music. Unfortunately it will stay that way if we all continue to allow it - inform the public and hopefully they will begin to appreciate more interesting music. I personally think that many people turn away from jazz because this MOR cabaret stuff is indeed boring and cliched, not the stuff of inspiration and excitement. |
|
alison
Junior Member
oobleeedoooobleee ah ah
Posts: 98
|
Post by alison on Oct 4, 2006 18:00:45 GMT 10
It's a somewhat sad fact that the general public want to hear music they can sing along to...
I would love to "inform the public" so they would appreciate more interesting music (esp. involving improvisation), but how long would that education process take? A lot of these people that show up to Bennetts on a Friday or Saturday night don't want to THINK when they listen music- they want to sit back, have a beer, and be entertained...
|
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Oct 4, 2006 18:38:53 GMT 10
It's a somewhat sad fact that the general public want to hear music they can sing along to... I would love to "inform the public" so they would appreciate more interesting music (esp. involving improvisation), but how long would that education process take? A lot of these people that show up to Bennetts on a Friday or Saturday night don't want to THINK when they listen music- they want to sit back, have a beer, and be entertained... my point is how may people aren't even considering attending a jazz gig because they believe it to be dull and boring? Exciting heartfelt music will draw people - it may piss off the current crowd who will maybe stop going (or perhaps a few may even enjoy something new) - I reckon there is at least a crowd equivalent in size to the weekend jazz dags that would attend quality concerts |
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Oct 4, 2006 19:26:08 GMT 10
There's a lot of talk about door deal vs guaranteed money, but perhaps a happy medium is the way to go for some of these gigs. Have a base payment that is not an insult (pick a figure, maybe $50 per muso), then give the band a cut of the door - less than if it was just a door deal, but at least a reflection of audience numbers and an incentive for the band to more heavily promote their gigs. On a good night, you could top $200 each, and on a bad night you still make enough to more than cover petrol, drinks and have a token remainder. With this kind of arrangement there is clear incentive for both sides to make a fair crack of it, and not screw the other side over.
My favourite though is when the sound guy gets paid more than the band when he can't even do his job. Perhaps a system where they get fined for every instance of feedback, bass drone, inappropriate drum miking and tinny piano sounds, with the fines going straight to the band to (in a small way) make up for their embarrassment.
|
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Oct 4, 2006 19:35:53 GMT 10
There's a lot of talk about door deal vs guaranteed money, but perhaps a happy medium is the way to go for some of these gigs. Have a base payment that is not an insult (pick a figure, maybe $50 per muso), then give the band a cut of the door - less than if it was just a door deal, but at least a reflection of audience numbers and an incentive for the band to more heavily promote their gigs. On a good night, you could top $200 each, and on a bad night you still make enough to more than cover petrol, drinks and have a token remainder. With this kind of arrangement there is clear incentive for both sides to make a fair crack of it, and not screw the other side over. My favourite though is when the sound guy gets paid more than the band when he can't even do his job. Perhaps a system where they get fined for every instance of feedback, bass drone, inappropriate drum miking and tinny piano sounds, with the fines going straight to the band to (in a small way) make up for their embarrassment. I should probably remind everyone that Bennett's used to be a door deal on weekends, until the reputation of the venue grew sufficiently by, oh I don't know, perhaps the quality of the music being presented. Unfortunately at this point musicians started making more than the $200 you suggest (sometimes over $300). The current arrangement of a set fee was introduced which is considerably less than they then got off the door. That'll stop those upstart musicians wanting to make a living from their art!! |
|
