"Bars have bands to bring in customers."
It has recently become quite a phenomenon on Craigs List for musicians to rant in the "musicians" section about the evils of the music empire, bitch about various venues that routinely bilk musicians out of respective pay, and just whine in general. There are always the musicians who think that they know "the nature of the business" more than anyone else, and they are usually the ones who most surely back the ridiculous policies of today's club owners and promoters. They are also usually the ones who say we should all stop bitching and just suck it up and deal with it, because business is business, or what have you. Silly rookies.
Case in point: When I was reading through a post entitled "The nature of the business" this ranter said what I have heard so much in recent years: "Bars have bands to bring in customers." Sure, that is a basic truism, but doesn't mean we have to accept it as logical or sensical. When you go back through history and consider how the live music business has changed, you quickly realize that this is nothing more than the sign of the end of the live music scene as we know it. There once was a time in history, not long ago actually, when the way bands were hired to play a club was not altogether different than how bartenders, doormen, and soundmen were hired. That is, they consulted with the owner/promoter/manager of the establishment to strike a deal that worked for both of them. Usually that was a deal that involved something along the lines of the venue taking the responsibility of marketing and promoting the night, incluing the band and the venue, with the expectation that the place would get packed out. The band would then charge a certain amount of money, usually to play the entire night, under the agreement that the band would rock the house; that they would keep the people there, drinking, eating, and hanging out until the wee hours. In fact, I remember one of the first good gigs I had as a musician. I was 17 years old, playing with a blues/funk band in the Bay Area of Northern California, and I still remember the distinct words the bar owner had for us: "I'll bring the people, don't worry about that. You just rock the house and keep em' drinking all night." This was in 1988, and we got paid $500. We played three long sets, practically bleeding out the last set of the night. We worked damn hard for our money, no question.
The point here is simple folks. Just like the door guy, the bartenders, the waiters, and the sound guy, we got paid a reasonable wage for our labor. And we got paid because we were good, not because we were the reason the damn bar had any business at all. We went to the club and said, "we will blow the roof off the place, don't you worry about that. For that we charge $500 as our regular fee." The club owner packed the house, and of course a bunch of our own friends, fans, and family came to the show too, and we rocked, hard. We played there a dozen more times over the years. That place is dead now, because some young turk bought it and operated it like they operate bars here in the Twin Cities now, deciding to put all the weight of the night on the bands and their ability to bring in the who clientele that the bar needs in order to operate. And still, the bartender, the door guy, the sound guy, and the waiters all get their regular pay for their regular labor. Only now, the bands don't make a dime unless they prove to be miracle workers by bringing in a packed house to a bar that has usually done NOTHING to promote the night.
What I am talking about here is the demise of the respect for labor in this country. And I'm not talking about unions, although they are a dying breed now too. I'm just talking about one person's honest labor. When a carpenter gets hired and paid more than another carpenter, it's usually because that carpenter is more skilled, faster, and more efficient than one that charges less. He is hired to frame a house. He frames a house beautifully, accurately, and efficiently, he is compensated more for his labor. A musician should be no different. A club hires a band to "keep the people there" by performing a rockin' set or sets and in return he/she is compensated for their labor. Just because musicians love what they do and would not rather do anything else, does not in any way mean that they should be treated, or better yet that their labor should be treated, with any less respect than any other laborer.
When payment for the labor of live music is left to the fickle and constantly varying tastes of the average Joe walking down the street, both the venue and the performer stand to make less. When payment for the labor of live music comes as a result of the relationship between club owner and band, with the club bringing in the people, and the band entertaining the people, everyone makes not necessarilly more money, but more stable money. Business 101, folks.
Note to venues: WHEN YOU DEPEND UPON THE MUSICIANS TO NOT ONLY ENTERTAIN YOUR CLIENTELE, BUT ACTUALLY PROVIDE YOU WITH THE CLIENTELE, WITH THE ONLY MONEY THEY MAKE COMING DIRECTLY FROM THOSE WHOM THEY BROUGHT TO YOUR CLUB, YOU ARE ENGAGING IN WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS A PYRAMID SCHEME. You are one step away from Amway. You, as the club owner are risking nothing. I, as the musician, am risking everything. I stand to make nothing at all - effectively paying out of pocket a significant chunk of change - if the club does nothing to populate itself with customers. The club is often in the same boat, only the club has done NOTHING to combat the reality of making no money, while the band has still rocked and kicked ass in many cases. Who wins in this situation?
I'll tell you who wins: FREE MARKET CAPITALSM. That's who wins. And who loses? You labor and the labor of the artists lose. The only people who win are the people that for some reason the club feels are more important than everyone else, the door guy, the sound guy, the bar tender. Good for them! Somehow, they have negotiated themselves a respectible deal, where their labor is supported under every circumstance.
Look, as long as we operate under the assumption that "BARS HAVE BANDS TO BRING IN CUSTOMERS", bands will never EVER be properly paid. The best way for bands to guarantee a huge showing is if they have a bunch of bands on the bill, in which case each band will only make a pittance, or the band has to be so well known that just having them on calendar guarantees the bar does well and there are enough people paying at the door for the band to make at least close to what they are worth. And in that situation - when the only reason the bar is doing well is because of the band - the band is still making hand over foot less than they should be. Under this paradigm of the band being responsible for bringing the customers, NOBODY TRULY WINS.
So, we are left with two options: One, only very popular bands with big draws can play any clubs if they expect to make a decent wage. Two, we go back to the more efficient paymaster relationship where the venue is the paymast for the band, and the band is an employee, if only for a night, of the venue. The job of the band, being to entertain the hell out of whomever enters that establishment. In that case, who wins? THE GOOD BAND WINS. THE BAND THAT BLOWS PEOPLE AWAY THE MOST. But here's the thing: The club wins too. Why? Because if the club is responsible for packing the house, the people who come just to see the band are icing on the cake, and all bands market their shows to their friends, family, coworkers, and what not. And, because the club has put the energy and committment into creating a scene that people want to come to, the fickle average Joe is paying $5 at the door not just to see a band, but to be a part of the scene! That's what "going out to check out some music" used to mean. You went to a bar because you knew the scene would be hopping with lots of people, good drinks, and great music. These days, especially here in the Twin Cites, this is no longer the case. With the possible exception of Bunker's, I can't think of anyplace where you can go any night of the week, and hear an amazing band for a cheap price and know that there will be a cool scene that makes you want to hang out all night. The only other place I can think of is the 331 and the 501, both owned by the same folks. In their case there is never a cover, and the music is always great, as well as the scene and the drinks. The bands make decent money just from the tips. It's sad that tips works out better than payment for your labor in this market.
It's time for us, as musician labororers, to stand up for ourselves. We can always play just to play, or play a show just to play a show. We can do that in basements, warehouses, in parks, at schools, or whatever. If we are playing in establishments where we are essentially being hired, we need to have the courage to ask for what we think we are worth, and we need to make it clear that we are not marketing firms, poster distribution houses, and promoters; we are artists, laboring. And for our labor we expect payment, in some form that is respectible. We can have discussions about whe "respectible" means, but let's at least start on the basic agreement that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE MUSICIANS/BANDS TO FORFEIT THE PAYMENT FOR THEIR LABOR. Let's change "bars have bands to bring in customers" to "bars hire bands to entertain customers."
