In a blog post about helping one’s self, Derek Sivers writes about the hard realities of gigging music:
“There are no great agents that would want to take you on unless you’re already earning $5000 a month gigging, so that their 10% cut (only $500) would be worth their time. ”
This, I believe and have experienced, is most certainly true.
This remark is tangential to Derek’s point, which was that no one but one’s self is going to help. If I want gigs, I must book them myself, simply because the economics of the music business dictate that it’s not worth the effort for a professional.
Still, Derek’s remark got me to start thinking about the economics of music gigging, agents, and the music business in general. It’s not a pretty picture.
But I would offer that the realities are not a factor of either the lack of interest on the part of agents, nor of the skill of musicians.
It’s the economics of music that have driven some big changes from my grandparents’ time to the present time. Couple these changes with antiquated booking models and agent laws. This creates a situation where the less well known players and other music-minded folk cannot help each other. Doing so is literally a violation of state laws.
While there are corners of the business that operate a little differently (weddings and corporate events), for most clubs and other performance venues, I think the economics are more or less consistent with what I’m going to write, below.
I’ve gigged a great deal, getting paid everything from dinner, a drink, and tips for a couple of sets to getting $400+a gourmet meal for 15 minutes playing (not bad. Too bad it was only once!). I’ve happily played for free because I wanted to or the cause was right for me. And, I’ve been paid some nice chunks, as well, for everything from reading charts of music I didn’t particularly like, to playing with great folks that I would happily have worked with for free.
One of the big changes that I made 5 years ago was to let go of the idea that if I wasn’t being payed, I was playing for “real”, whatever that means. That was incredibly liberating.
But, now that my 3rd solo album is having a little bit of success, I’m back considering once again the economics of gigging and touring.
Derek’s post has me thinking about some important realities.
Consider this story. I was playing a jazz gig, I think perhaps, subbing for a sub at the No Name in Sausalito, California some years ago (bass player called me. Thanks, Lee!) The sax player on that gig (also subbing. hehe) told me this story.
There was a sax player who worked the jazz clubs in North Beach, San Francisco in the 1950’s. At that time the median income for the USA was in the neighborhood of $135/week. Local gigs paid $35-50/night/player. As you can see, a couple of gigs a week brings in a more or less middle class income. Working for $50/gig 3 times in a week is starting to look pretty nice. This sax player bought his house in San Francisco, raised his kids, sent them to college in the ’60’s. Golly, it’s great to be a musician, huh?
Now, let’s consider the booking agent law. California’s (like other states that have such laws. not all do!) mandates that agents may only take 10% of the performer’s compensation. These laws were enacted to protect performers from unscrupulous business practices. The law mandates that the majority of the earnings goes to the performer. That should be great, right?
In the 1950’s, this system worked fine. If an agent had 5 performers, all making $100/week (perfectly reasonable, in those times), that’s $100 for the agent, too. If the agent worked hard and the performers made a little more, then life is good all ’round, see? Even local musicians and local agents can make a living under this system.
Now, fast forward to the 1990’s: That same saxophone player was still playing in North Beach. Pay each night? $35-50!
And, those numbers have not shifted particularly since the millennium. While it is certainly true that a band may get more than this, $200 is typical pay for 4 in small clubs. (When working as a soloist, I do a sight better, but it’s not big money in music!) For the agent, that’s only $20. Not worth the time and effort – all those recalls to get the club owner on the line, to pitch the band, ugh!
So, the booking agents chase the stars, the already successful. Of course. That’s where a living can be had.
That leaves yer local musicians with no possibility of help. None. Booking a tour? All those calls are on you, friend. Got a day job? I hope they don’t mind phone interruptions during your work day?
Where am I going with this?
I believe that our laws are antiquated. They were put in place in a different time:
– there were fewer musicians trying to work professionally
– live music was the usual, not the un-usual: there were more gigs to go round
– pay was much, much higher, relatively
Today, there are millions of folks who’d very much like to work as musicians. Just take a listening tour around myspace.com. There are fewer venues. There are many more competing events – how many CD release events are happening this week where you live? And gig pay has fallen or at least, not risen in 50 years.
Most importantly, the technology for reproducing recorded sound has vastly improved in the last 50 years. Why have live music at all? (some clubs owners say.) Add the new art forms for DJ’ing, mixing pre-recorded and sampled music, who work where bands might have worked in the past. (I don’t mean to dis great DJs. Like any musical skill, it takes time, ears, taste, experience to be a great DJ, just like it does to play any instrument well. Still, if ya wanna dance, DJ’ed music is just as big, maybe bigger sound than a band)
Nope, the situation is not good for all but the well known names.
I’m thinking that we need a different model. I’m thinking that like everything else in the music biz, gigging has changed dramatically. But the process, the roles, the economics have not.
What about a collective of folks who are the “production company”? Each contributes what skills they have: performers, publicist, someone good on the phone (booker?), graphics, engineering, all the skills that must come together well for successful performances? Maybe they all share whatever financial gains are seen by the collective work?
I’m probably just dreaming? But I do think that the day of the booking agent is over. Just like labels (who buys CDs any more? Well, I do, but I’m weird!), booking agents are dead. But that doesn’t mean that the performer must do it all him/herself!
Sorry Derek, I disagree. Rather, can we think outside the box that has been given to us? Can we figure out other ways to get booked than having a brilliant but perhaps highly introverted performer trying to book herself? Or should she just sit home letting the more brazen but perhaps far less interesting performer get the gigs?
This situation calls up the activist in me. Why live with the world as it’s given? Maybe that’s not the best choice? Why not make the world that which we want to live in? Let’s make it different right now?
cheers
/brook
