I've been thinking recently how much difference there is amongst us in our levels of commitment to making music, and how this affects our individual opinions of the money we deserve to be paid for playing gigs.
For a start, it's clear that we can be separated into three categories:
1) The professionals (those who I assume need very little support from RTYD)
2) The semi-professionals or wannabe semi-professionals (who need a bit more but not as much as..)
3) The hobbyists (who need all the help they can get)
Now, I was talking to my good friend Dove Jones in the park last weekend while the kids were playing. Dove is an RTYD member and MCs at RTYD gigs at The Dublin Castle. He's a great bloke and so passionate about everything he does. To borrow one of his favoured adjectives, he's a wicked keyboard/piano player and regularly sits in with bands and plays live jam sessions. He has a repertoire of covers and originals. He is less concerned with virtual networks and more interested in getting out there and playing (you can see him in his element here). I regard him as more of a musician than I'll ever be. I could never sit in with anybody and jam along. As I've said before, I play guitar in order to write songs. And my ability and interest in the guitar stops there.
Now Dove aims to achieve 'semi-professional' status as musician, meaning I assume that when he plays he wants to earn a decent wage doing so; making music would then become one of his 'jobs', as opposed to his pastime. And I truly believe he'll have little problem making this happen.
Me, I can't 'jam', but I could, if I wanted, get out there with my acoustic guitar and play more often. But I don't. Because I like playing in a band. It's lonely up there with just your acoustic guitar. I've got nothing against doing acoustic shows with my band, but it's enough to get my band rehearsed for an electric gig. I would be happy to play more regularly with my band, maybe once a week? But this is difficult for a number of reasons, such as the fact that we won't play covers, we haven't got a big enough following to keep promoters happy, and there's only so much following you can do of a band that only plays in central London, and that rarely releases a record. For the time being too, my wife works full-time so I do all the school runs, my bass player has a new baby, my guitarist is skint and can barely afford the bus fare to rehearsal and my drummer is an advertisng executive and is often so busy he is unable to leave the office early. Playing weekly would be un-do-able right now.
My band and I are therefore hobbyists. By reason of our collective commitment level. I'm not sure I like calling myself a hobbyist or my band a hobby. But hey, it's a fact. Get over it.
Anyway, since I started promoting these RTYD gigs, I have noticed that occasionally people ask me about money, that is, being paid to play. Now this took me by surprise to begin with. Maybe this because being in band that is basically a hobby, it doesn't occur to any of us to think about being paid. We're just happy to have a gig. We play originals. We don't consider ourselves entertainers. It's too self-indulgent to be entertainment, at this level anyway. But should we play for nothing? And if we did play for a fee, what's the minimum we should be paid? That any band should be paid? What would cover costs for example? And what are the costs? Transport? Beer? Evening meal? Babysitter? Strings? Lem-oil?
Anyway, at RTYD tomorrow night there's no money to pay the bands, semi-professional or hobbyist. Not yet anyway. Not until the punters arrive with their £4.50. Then after venue and PA hire and staff costs, profit is split with the venue 60/40 in RTYD's favour. Last time the profit was about £85. So RTYD was paid 50 quid. I bought the MC a nice bottle of Scotch and my DJ a couple of music books. I paid the last band 20 quid, cos they bought the most people. That left a tenner each for the other bands and ten quid for RTYD (me).
No comments:
Post a Comment