Who Pays For The Music ?

"Who Pays For The Music" was a question raised at the first Live Music Forum in 1993. Unfortunately, not much progress on the remuneration of musicians has been made in the intervening 17 years and besides the number of gigs that has depleted, the variety of music on offer has also suffered.

Even worse, the establishment of the culture of "Pay To Play" in cities like London, is spreading further afield. This is where a well known venue charges a band for tickets to sell to their fans before receiving any payment for their performance. Some musicians have had enough, though, and have formed a Facebook page against the 'Pay To Play' system,

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=37748164227

With cuts looming for all kinds of Arts funding, the situation seems likely to get worse. Unless we begin a review of the way we pay for music at a local level.

In the early eighties I used to play at a pub in Clapham Common called the Two Brewers and the Brewery gave the landlord a weekly budget of £100 plus to pay the bands. That covered the band wages for three nights a week of live music, which was free to the public.

The tradition of Breweries having a responsibility to provide a budget for entertainment seems to have disappeared, certainly with regard to larger operations. Licensees rarely benefit from support from their employers to subsidise live music which, after all, is becoming a more attractive component of many pubs operations in these hard times.

What is also important is the perception of the general public. The people who regularly attend and support live music gigs in cities, towns and villages throughout the country. The same people without whom there would not be any gigs for musicians to play in the first place.

Many pub gigs are still free entry, and as cheaply available alcohol and the smoking ban have lowered the numbers attending pubs in the evening, the average wage to a band seems to have dropped by about 25% over the last few years.

Some venues charge a couple of pounds at the door when a band is playing and everybody's expectaions are raised, but that door charge is enough to put some people off.. The venue owner expects a good attendance for his bar takings, as does the band, because they are on a percentage of the door takings, and the audience who have paid to get in expect a good show.

The majority of musicians who can deliver a good show have probaby invested the greater part of their lives in learning and continually practicing their instrument. Not to mention the upkeep of their instruments, travelling expenses, earning a living and paying the rent/mortgage.

A good wage for a band in a pub has dropped from £200 to £150 and that means about £35 a man for a four-piece band, when some bands have as many as seven or eight members, thus paying £20 a man. Even if this hypothetical four-piece band were red hot and could maintain a schedule of four or five gigs a week throughout an entire year, a top earner will be lucky to gross £250 per week which is nowhere near to the "average wage".

Given that there are many, many more bands and musicians out there than actually get to gig regularly, there is a lot of competition for bookings. And with more and more capable musicians learning from the internet and turning out of colleges and private music education each year, you have to ask the question, "Where are they going to play ?". This is one of the factors we have been highlighting in our campaign for a long time.

Musicians in Canada have suffered similar problems, especially in Toronto. Although some music bars are free entry, especially on early week nights, many operate a Cover Charge when a band is performing. Sometimes this is as low as a few dollars ($2 Can = £1), or more for a better known or more popular band. It seems sensible and fair and all the money is supposed to go to the band.

More recently we have heard of a new term advertising gigs in Canada - "Pay What You Can". This is a policy used by top Fiddle player Darcy Good at her Bluegrass gigs around the Ontario State and it seems to work very well.

Darcy said, "In Toronto, musicians have been struggling to find venues that pay fairly for some time now. Basically if you weren't big enough to fill a big bar for $20 a head, you are out of luck. So, back in the late 90's 'pay what you can' was introduced to entice bar owners to have live music and also keep the dreaded cover charge at bay.

The band is provided with a beer jug that they keep on a table up front that says 'for the band' on it. During their set, they may or may not decide to 'pass the jug' and listeners will donate what they can to the band. Most bands choose to do this at a time when the room is enjoying the music and is most populated.

Sometimes the bar will also provide a small bar percentage, especially if you draw a fair crowd. Mostly we rely on our audience's generosity which varies considerably. On a good night, I have seen hundreds in the jug and on a bad night, a couple bucks.

The main thing is that it has helped keep live music in the pubs. Its hit and miss, but at least we get SOMETHING for playing."

The "Jug" is not a new concept in the UK and people certainly don't seem to mind contributing when they are enjoting themselves. Indeed some live music supporters can be extremely generous and appreciate the opportunity to 'give something back' when they are having a great night.

With unusually hard times expected in the UK imminently, the issue of 'Who Pays' for the music is set to become even more important. Financial difficulties are common to musicians, as they are to most working people, especially the growing unemployed. But even the poorest of us can mange something from our 'night out budget' no matter how modest that is, and the option to pay what you can afford could be the fairest solution to the finance problem at some gigs. However a 'Pay What You Can' collection is unlikely to reach a fair wage in many smaller venues and it may be neccessary for Landlords and Breweries to play a responsible part to complete the equation.

The ideal solution would be a combination of the public contributing something and the Venue working with their Alcohol supplier, whether it be a Corporate Brewery or a local supplier to supplement their live music budget so that musicians are getting more reasonable payment for their time and skill. They could all benefit from better paid, better organised and better advertised gigs.

These are just some options that we could consider. But, whatever we do, it is vital that we address the issue of 'Who Pays For The Music', if the 'Homogenisation of Music' is to be avoided.

In the recent moratorium on illegal downloading some consumers intimated it was not their desire to make musicians fabulously rich. Live music is a completely fifferent proposition and although the hypothetical band of four may have been paid £200 plus, if they have had to travel 100 miles then their working day could easily be ten hours, with travel, setting up, soundcheck and doing it all again in reverse. That means this well paid band is working for around £5 an hour/each.

Live Music exists in seemingly a different universe than the pop/celebrity recording industry. Most live music lovers don't go to gigs to worship the performers and nobody playing pub gigs is getting rich, so maybe it's time that we all think about putting our hands in our pockets (Brewery chains included) when we set out to enjoy the special rewards of a night of live music.

After a Small Gigs Exemption, a serious review of how musicians are paid is what we most need, to ensure that the quality and variety of live music is maintained and improved.

Phil Little - November 2010

Want to comment ? - Join us on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/LiveMusicForum