Low Paying Gigs
There is something inherently absurd with complaining about your gigs that pay poorly.
Somewhere in the booking of a gig, there’s a buyer, and there’s a seller. Club owners, restaurant managers, wedding planners and concert promoters are all buyers that offer value (usually money) to performers (sellers) who offer their live music in return. When negotiating, buyers and sellers should be looking to establish a point of equal contribution where value-given is equal to value-received. Otherwise, the seller is undercutting himself or the buyer is throwing his money away. One side reaps the benefits of an unbalanced deal while the other side is left to respond to lost value. Because of it’s familiarity, I think this process is taken for granted.
If you agree to play a four-hour gig for $50, you are bound by the nature of that agreement and cannot claim to be worth more or less for that particular occasion. You are worth exactly $50. Otherwise, you’re undercutting yourself.
This is an ethical dilemma. You know you’re product is worth more, yet you accept less. You’ve spent a lifetime perfecting your craft only to throw it away. You’re undervaluing your work, your craft, your purpose, your love, your music, and your life! You’re now offering the skin off your back. That lost value is made up with the price of your soul!
Remember, there is never an obligation for you to accept gigs, and buyers are never obligated to hire you. Don’t let any buyers convince you you’re worth less (and don’t let other sellers convince you you’re worth more). Know yourown price, and if the price isn’t right, say no!
“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone…Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.”
- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
Well put, Chris. I realized long ago that the only one I have to blame for low paying gigs is myself. It does no good to complain about the $50 gig…just say “Thanks, but no thanks”. And you know what? Every time I’ve turned down a low paying gig, a better paying gig has come along to fill the gap.
I wrote a post that addresses similar topics here: http://oneworkingmusician.com/the-proactive-positive-musician
I enjoy you blog, and find your posts to be very thought-provoking. Keep it up!
Jason
http://oneworkingmusician.com
sometimes things are a little more complicated where give and take is more than the sum of it’s monetary value.
Thanks Jason!
I enjoyed your post, and will be reading more in the future… Congrats on getting married, and welcome back!
Keep in touch,
Chris
Do you have a specific example in mind?
Chris:
Some remarks.
Obviously, there is something strange about complaining that you accepted the terms of an agreement when you accepted the terms of the agreement. But the argument that that complaint is incoherent is itself incoherent. Consider the following cases.
1. Duress. You put a gun up to me, and ask me to perform an action, threatening my murder if I do not comply. If I perform the solicited action, I am legally entitled to recourse on account of the position itself being an unfair one.
2. Blackmail. I make an agreement to do such-and-such for you on the grounds that I do not want sensitive information leaked. I comply, and uphold our agreement. But, again, this puts me in a precarious position — one to which I have legal recourse.
(The legal issues are relevant, because they point out that not all agreements are just, even if we knowingly make them. Tons of law articles on this stuff, and I doubt anyone would throw away this pillar of the judicial system.)
3. Child exploitation. Would it be incoherent for a child worker, for instance, to complain about their having accepted a job for 12 cents a day? Suppose they signed the papers. Suppose they assessed their options, and determined that this job was a better opportunity than dying of starvation. Where is the incoherence in their complaint that they are getting exploited about the deal that they made with the abusive factory?
I do not think the case of the dissatisfied musician is different in kind. It is clear that there are superficial between the cases, but the points of relevance stick. There is an agreement that musicians make in accepting a low-paying performance. And they are entitled to complain about having made that agreement because they depend upon the opportunity (for creative and financial reasons) to further their aesthetic enterprise. In other words, performing is essential (again, whether for creative or financial reasons), and so the musician is stuck in a position of having to accept something less than ideal — just as the child worker accepts the abusive position because they are starving.
And as an aside, it is a strange rhetorical move to cite a statement of the same thesis expressed by Rand (queen objectivist, mistress of right-wing philosophy, unread in philosophy departments worldwide) as something that bolsters your own point. That is like quoting a passage on the sanctity of life from the bible in a debate about abortion. Moreover, Rand is well-known for having a flaky discussion of the intrinsic value of an action, and this seems to be an indispensable variable to the above discussion.
Emilio
Hi Emilio,
Thanks for your comments.
Let me clarify. This post addresses instances where musicians have the freewill to accept, reject or negotiate terms based on their supposed value. In regards to instances where musicians are starving, being blackmailed and/or being threatened by murder, I’ll have to save that for another post!
I just returned from playing a gig where I received no financial compensation. I perform at this venue because I believe it still offers value that is equal to the value of my performance. I don’t complain because the action of complaining assumes that this relationship is unequal. Complaining would be silly because it is in my power to reject or renegotiate these terms! It’s in all musicians’ power to reject or renegotiate these terms.
You may ask then: Would I sacrifice a career in music if I thought the whole world undervalued my work? You bet I would!
As for the Fountainhead reference, it’s a beautiful quote and expresses perfectly my feelings on this subject. I won’t hesitate to share things that have moved and inspired me. Regardless, I don’t entirely understand your views as you’ve written them, so we’ll have to save the debate for another time.
Chris
Great post!
I get tired of hearing musicians complain about being undercut by amateurs wiling to accept less… instead, you actually offer constructive advice about what to do.
@Emilio Duress? Blackmail? Child labour? “the musician is stuck in a position of having to accept something less than ideal — just as the child worker accepts the abusive position because they are starving.” That’s a bit of a tenuous connection if I’ve ever seen one… Listing a bunch of non sequitors doesn’t automatically relate them to the subject at hand…
i’ve never played saxophone with a gun to my head, but i have been asked to stop a couple times…