This morning I read two articles. One was a letter to venues that exploit musicians. The other was a letter from a bar owner to musicians. Even though the second letter initially made me want to vomit, I am including it in order to have a fair and balanced presentation of both sides of this issue. It is amazing to me that paying bands is something that people think is up for debate in the first place, but these are the times we live in. I am going to discuss the bar owner’s viewpoint first, and then list all the reasons I think his views are either flawed or only work in certain establishments.
Point one from Mr. Bar Owner is to play simple music that make people want to dance. To me this screams COVER BAND. That’s not to say I don’t think there’s a place for cover bands. In fact, that place is in this guy’s bar. This same guy thinks the band is there to sell alcohol, and that they can help that out even more by asking for top shelf liquor when people offer to buy them drinks. Oh, and if you don’t like it well there are a million other bands I can book on any given night.
Someone I respect very much posted this article on Facebook, and we had the most rational discussion I’ve had in a long time on the Inter-webz. Basically I said that I get this guy is running a business, and maybe this model works for him (although I’ll have something more to say after bringing in the other article I mentioned), but it’s way different running a bar that has live music MAYBE once a week and running a music venue. A bar focuses on selling booze, and uses whatever gimmicks they can to keep their customers drinking. That’s fine for them. It’s part of a business model and it works. A venue’s focus, however, is on live music, or at least it should be. They charge a cover, some of which SHOULD go towards paying the band. They also happen to have a bar, which makes them most of their money. But the people would not be at the bar if not for the music, and that is the difference. Here is where that other letter comes in…
Here we have a musician telling venues that not only is it not fair to the musicians they book to not pay them, it actually will be more helpful for their business if they treat these musicians better (and help promote the shows they are booking). I’ve heard the argument that bands shouldn’t accept shitty deals from clubs before, but I’ve never seen someone try to demonstrate why this is best for both sides. It makes sense when you think about it though… You can have my band play your place and make them bring in a crowd, but that only helps you for one night. BUT, if you help promote the show and keep booking good music (which you’ll get if bands know you’re a good safe space to play in) then you get regulars in your place PLUS whoever comes because of a specific band playing that night. The article does a way better job presenting the case than I can. Definitely read it and then share with all your musician friends why they should try to get better deals. I loved the example the author put in the article: If a wine bar asks me to play their club but offers me very little money, that seems fine to them. But if I offer the bartender the same to work my house show, then they would look at me like I was crazy.
I get that any bar is a business, but if anyone else in that business wasn’t getting paid it would be wrong. So why is it ok to make ridiculously low offers to musicians… for the exposure? Thanks, but exposure doesn’t pay my rent. I’m sure there is a way to make a deal where your bar can make a profit without shortchanging an artist who works hard at what they do and deserves a little something to show for it. If you just care about selling booze, then go find some cover band and don’t waste my time. If you care about creating memorable events every night, then you can find me and we’ll talk. That is all.