Is it better to play for love or money? (renamed)

[The Sporting Pitchfork]

A noted button accordion player that lives around these parts tried to lay down a pretty firm standard for the pro- and semi-pro (those of us who have day jobs) crowd to go by a few years back: bare minimum of $150.00 for the first hour + $50.00 for each additional hour. Sounds fare, if you ask me. You'd be surprised how difficult it is for him or any of us to regularly manage to get such a price (on any day other than St. Patrick's, anyway...). The player I mention generally tends to do alright--he recently got back from doing some gigs @ the Temple Bar Trad Festival in Dublin--but I know for a fact that there have been rough times when he's had to play for a small fraction of his normal asking price. Most people just don't understand what hiring a musician entails. Don't forget, you're not just paying them to knock out a few tunes, you're paying for them to practice the material, drive to the event, and take time out of their day to do it.

I'm not saying that anybody that hasn't been playing for a minimum of ten years and considers him/herself a "serious" musician should just clear off from the bars and leave things to the "professionals"--it doesn't sound like there are likely that many such qualified people in that part of Florida, anyway. But I wish there was a better sense of etiquette that was common knowledge for people to go by when hiring a professional musician for their event.

[Olle Gällmo]

To me, what all this boils down is this: Is there really a market for professionals in traditional music (leaving the contradiction in terms aside) or are we just trying to uphold it by artificial means?

To me there is very little correlation between professional/amateur and good/bad. Some of the best musicians I know are amateurs, and I know some really bad professionals too (though they don't tend to stay in business for very long ...). Of course the average professional should be better than the average amateur, but there are lots of exceptions, both ways. And if an amateur can be as good as a professional, or even better, how can there be a market for the professionals?

And, even if you don't agree with me that an amateur can be that good, does that matter if the audience can't hear (or bother) about the quality difference? The customer is always right, right? If you want to keep it up, you must be so much better than the amateurs that the audience really takes notice. That's a really tough challenge. Especially in a pub.

Most of the really good amateur musicians I know are well aware of this undermining-the-market problem and charges accordingly, and I do too, but in the back of my head I always felt that this is a bit like trying to keep something alive which maybe shouldn't be. Why should we amateurs help you uphold your market?

[Joseph E. Smith]

In the event I am confusing folks, here are my definitions for the following two words.

1) Amateur: Not a professional, not paid, does not rely on occupation for living.

2) Professional: Not an amateur, is paid, relies on occupation for living.

You will note there is no mention of skill, ability or quality.

The point is, by folks doing these gigs for free or for free booze (regardless of their talent and ability... though I suspect if they're any good they'll charge appropriately), the club owners are going to ask them back and the poor slob whose livelyhood is performing for a decent wage is out of a gig. It's not fair and I believe it to be pretty irresponsible of the amateur doing such.

Sh*t, if I wanted to, I could offer veterinary health care out of the back of my wife's truck for next to nothing (though it would be highly illegal ) and undermine more than a few clinics (and their staff's wages) around here. But because it would be illegal, I cannot do so. In the case of the pub musician, there is no legislation protecting them from others undermining their efforts. Don't even get me started on the musician's union... ASCAP and it's affiliates can kiss my big old pimply white... um... nose.

[billh]

In the event I am confusing folks, here are my definitions for the following two words.

1) Amateur: Not a professional, not paid, does not rely on occupation for living.

2) Professional: Not an amateur, is paid, relies on occupation for living.

You will note there is no mention of skill, ability or quality.

[Edited to note that the original topic of this thread was "Partner needed for St. Paddy's (sic) Day Gig" or something like that - topic name was changed on about page 4 of this thread. Bill]

I didn't really want to get into it now, but this divide between amateur and professional, which seems particularly strong in the USA, is one of my least favorite things about "the music scene."

IMO music should be an avocation or vocation. Yes, people should be rewarded for their efforts and contributions. But the notion that anyone with a day job other than waiting tables isn't a "serious" (read: "real") musician is bad for the spirit of music.

Most of the great figures in Irish traditional music did not, in fact, make a living from it. That may partly be because of the economic hardships and necessities of their times, but I believe the shared ownership of musicality by a community, not just an elite circle, is one of the things that gives traditional music in this country, and Irish traditional music of the great diasporas of Chicago, New York, London, etc. such power, grace, and attraction.

The notion of 'professional music" nearly prevented me from becoming a "real musician" - that is, it formed a barrier that prevented me from meaningfully participating, until I moved into a community of musical amateurs who welcomed me and encouraged me to play in public. (For free).

(I say this, now, as an "amateur" who will, in seven days' time, rely on the pipes for my sole livelihood)

OK, I should shut up now, or else this thread will go on either forever or until it is locked

Bill

[PJ]

Well said Bill.

Willie Clancy was a carpenter. Seamus Ennis was a broadcaster. Performing music certainly wasn't their sole source of income. It's the nature of traditional music. There's very little money to be made in it.

[Joseph E. Smith]

In the event I am confusing folks, here are my definitions for the following two words.

1) Amateur: Not a professional, not paid, does not rely on occupation for living.

2) Professional: Not an amateur, is paid, relies on occupation for living.

You will note there is no mention of skill, ability or quality.

I didn't really want to get into it now, but this divide between amateur and professional, which seems particularly strong in the USA, is one of my least favorite things about "the music scene."

IMO music should be an avocation or vocation. Yes, people should be rewarded for their efforts and contributions. But the notion that anyone with a day job other than waiting tables isn't a "serious" (read: "real") musician is bad for the spirit of music.

Most of the great figures in Irish traditional music did not, in fact, make a living from it. That may partly be because of the economic hardships and necessities of their times, but I believe the shared ownership of musicality by a community, not just an elite circle, is one of the things that gives traditional music in this country, and Irish traditional music of the great diasporas of Chicago, New York, London, etc. such power, grace, and attraction.

The notion of 'professional music" nearly prevented me from becoming a "real musician" - that is, it formed a barrier that prevented me from meaningfully participating, until I moved into a community of musical amateurs who welcomed me and encouraged me to play in public. (For free).

(I say this, now, as an "amateur" who will, in seven days' time, rely on the pipes for my sole livelihood)

OK, I should shut up now, or else this thread will go on either forever or until it is locked

Bill

Well said Bill.

Willie Clancy was a carpenter. Seamus Ennis was a broadcaster. Performing music certainly wasn't their sole source of income. It's the nature of traditional music. There's very little money to be made in it.

Never did I say that amateurs weren't serious or weren't good or weren't real musicians... where did I say/write those things? I certainly do not believe it.

I'm belly-aching from the stand-point that as a former professional musician, I found it increasingly difficult to get gigs in the pubs that were my main venue, a lot of which were in my home port... the Twin Cities at that time. Instead, more and more non professionals were playing and for far less than I, in some cases without free suds. This was happening all over the country but I felt it more at 'home'.

I could give a rip what Clancy, Ennis and whomever else did for their day jobs, my day job (although it was at night ) was playing in the pubs to make a living and I was making out pretty well.

I really do not find fault for those who play for free, I wish they wouldn't, but I can't say they have no right. The fault is with the pub owners, looking for entertainment at the lowest possible nickle. The thing is, the more folks play for next to nothing or free beer, the more the publicans will expect it. As a result, the livelyhood of many is in jeopardy.

I fail to see what is so wrong with my notion, and why it is hard for some to wrap their thoughts around it.

[Patrick D'Arcy]

Well said Bill.

Willie Clancy was a carpenter. Seamus Ennis was a broadcaster. Performing music certainly wasn't their sole source of income. It's the nature of traditional music. There's very little money to be made in it.

Yes, but they could really play.

Pat.

[MarcusR]

My opinion:
As we are talking about a music in a pub, not a concert, music club etc … the main issue should be who makes the pub customers most happy, who makes them spend most money and are most likely to make them return. I bet all pub owners see it as a business, public music education comes far behind profit.

And lets face it quite a few people even go and see people who clearly can't sing at all on Karaoke night, even pay to get in . Pub entertainment is not about quality, it is about having a good time.

When it comes to ITM, I have seen a number of pub performances by very talented musicians playing, very nice complex sets, with brilliant variations and ornamentations, but the crowd just don’t get it. It is music for the few that already are involved and these few would rather have had the concert any place else, where they could actually listen to it.

The same musicians are too good, and could never stand the to play "Black velvet band" and "Whiskey in the jar" ten times in three hours even though it is what the crowd wants.

See it for what it is, if you have a pub that specialise in ITM music they will have a crowd that appreciate good musicians, and in the end the talented ones will get the job. If the aim is to let people have a good time, whats the fuss? Stealing job opportunities, lowering the payment? Hey, in Karaoke people even pay to get on stage

And how fun would it be if only pro singers were allowed to get up on stage, Karaoke would die out in a week. Zzzzzz!

/MarcusR

[billh]

My gripe is with the "professional/non-professional" dualism, and the mindset that intentionally or unintentionally results.

[Joseph E. Smith]

My gripe is with the "professional/non-professional" dualism, and the mindset that intentionally or unintentionally results.

Perhaps it may change with time spent in a professional capacity?

I really am not trying to be dualist, but the problem does exist and there doesn't seem to be a happy solution to it.

[Joseph E. Smith]

And how fun would it be if only pro singers were allowed to get up on stage, Karaoke would die out in a week. Zzzzzz!

/MarcusR

... yes, and it would be a sad, sad thing too.

[billh]

My gripe is with the "professional/non-professional" dualism, and the mindset that intentionally or unintentionally results.

Perhaps it may change with time spent in a professional capacity?

I'm trying not to be offended by that, but I am afraid I am failing.

Obviously this is something I feel strongly about. I believe that the notions of 'professionalism' and the related issues of compensation that arise are among the most serious threats to our musical tradition.

One huge downside of having and trying to support/protect a "professional" class of fulltime paid purveyors of traditional music is that one immediately enters a market economy of musical choices, and in that arena the forces of popularization, marketing, and property rule. These forces run contrary to the mainstream of the tradition. The laudable few who have managed to swim upstream and "popularize" forms of musical expression which are deeply traditional are still rarely able to make a living from it.

That is not to say that populist/popularization of traditional music is itself bad, but when one begins to view fulltime performance of 'traditional music' as a primary model, one risks cutting the music off from its lifeblood.

We live in a spectator, consumer culture, and notions of market, protectionism, regulation, and intellectual property are ingrained. It may not be obvious that they can be a danger to the music we love, but they often are.

I really am not trying to be dualist, but the problem does exist and there doesn't seem to be a happy solution to it.

My issue with "the problem" has much to do with the terms in which it is cast. If the problem is one of fair compensation for one's contributions, or of lowest-bidder economics, it's certainly not unique to commercial music. Drawing these sharp distinctions amounts to building walls between "music professionals" and other musicians (or would-be musicians and lovers of music). Doing this in an effort to safeguard the livelihood of those who have chosen music as a profession, not just an avocation, is "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face".

Bill

[*] or even drawing sharp distinctions...

[Joseph E. Smith]

Bill, I apologize for any offense, it certainly was not intended. I guess I am not making my point well enough. All I meant was 'wait until it happens to you'. Pipemakers do not make enough as it is to really earn a living (at least a comfortable one) without someone underbidding them. Hell, we've seen some evidence of it happening in this forum for pete's sake.

It is obvious we'll not agree on this matter for the present, if not for the future. So I am willing to "agree to disagree".

Please, accept my apologies for any offense.

[djones]

The discussion does not matter. In a free market situation, which is the situation we're in, busineses are compelled to get the best for the lowest cost. Their best might not be THE best. Doesn't matter.

In my region, there are a lot of GHB pipers who contract for weddings and such (myself included). The competition is tight and it has been noted that sometimes younger or less able players who charge less get the gigs. It doesn't feel nice, but that's the way things are: why complain about the rain? One nice thing about the heavy competetition emphasis in the GHB world is that we can site our accomplishments before a judge when advertising.

History has supported artists through patronage (wealthy folks add to their own prestige by supporting the livelihood of an artist or musician). Too bad that's not going on any more, although I'd hate to be at someone's beck and call like some court jester.

The market only has enough space at the top for a limited number of musicians to make their living through performing and teaching music. People of any skill level who charge less are not undermining the market: they're serving a natural function in a free market economy. When the kid down the block gets the GHB wedding gig instead of me because he charges less (and I know he is less skilled), it's up to me to lower my price or advertise better.

I'm not quitting my day job! Although I confess I have often considered how nice it would be to make a living in music. Maybe when I retire...

DJones

[glands]

...... but when one begins to view fulltime performance of 'traditional music' as a primary model, one risks cutting the music off from its lifeblood.

This is brilliant and perhaps the most important sentence in the whole discussion.