Leave it to the pros

I just got off the phone yesterday with a client who had asked me to play for a fundraiser, but was now turning me down in favor of someone who was willing to do the gig for free. Looking back on that conversation, it seems obvious to me that the person they’re getting doesn’t do music for a living--if he did, he would certainly be charging them at least something. People, regardless of career choice, can’t make a living when they’re not making money.

I think this is a lose-lose situation for everybody involved. First of all, I certainly lost out on what would have been a great gig for me--a gig in which I would have presented European hit parade material that is rarely, if ever, heard on this side of the Atlantic. I’m out the revenue I would have been paid for this gig, and this other guy is being “hired” for free. Is this fair? I don’t think so. Let me ask you a question. If you had a leaky faucet, who would you expect to do a nice, neat, water-tight job? Who would you rather get? A total professional with savvy and experience, who knows what he’s doing, and expects to be paid for it, or somebody just off the street who is willing to do the job for free? I think we both know the answer to that one. The latter person may well forget to turn the water off first. It’s the same with musicians.

Theoretically I could have done that fundraiser for free, but since I’m a member of the American Federation of Musicians, I would have had to clear that with my Local’s Executive Board first, and I suspect I wouldn’t have had time for that. And this is true of any labor union representing any aspect of the performing arts. When the Love Network was created for Jerry Lewis’ Muscular Dystrophy telethons in 1968, there was some opposition from the Theatre Authority, an organization that represented theatrical-related labor unions, because their permission is required before the representing talent can perform without charge.

The amateur in the case of this fundraiser is losing out too. First of all, he may be doing the gig for the exposure, but such gigs are worthless if that’s the only reason the amateur is doing it, because nine times out of ten he’ll be exposing his talent to the wrong people--people who are not involved in the music industry, who are not in a position to help him take his music career to the next level. And if the amateur happens to be doing the gig for free that one time out of ten, the right people may well feel that because he’s doing the gig for free, he has few or no serious aspirations to become a professional. They’ll turn a blind eye. (And it would be very easy for them to determine his status if they wanted to--they could call the AFM Local in whose jurisdiction he’s playing, find out from them whether he’s a member there, and if so, whether he cleared the freebie with the Executive Board or not.) Besides, returning to the plumber analogy, what entry-level professional plumber would want to do jobs just for exposure and no payment? Secondly, do you remember what I said in my blog about Walkmans and headsets? People who want to make a living at music here in Ottawa, or in any other small music market, either have to take on multiple music projects, or do a nine-to-five job while doing only one music project. In the case of an amateur, the latter scenario is more likely--if he doesn’t want to make money doing music, he has to be making money doing something else. As a result, he doesn’t have the time to develop his musical craft on a professional level.

Another thing to consider is that people who are working in the performing arts have to keep their personal feelings in check when they perform on stage. If a musician is having a bad day, for example, they can’t afford to let it show on stage, or it will affect their future marketability, not to mention the event as a whole. Developing the ability to suppress negative emotions on stage like that isn’t something that a music teacher can give you--it’s something you have to develop within yourself. Who is more likely to have a stronger ability at this, the amateur or the professional?

Then there’s the question of having the right attitude on stage. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine actor Marc Alaimo once said at a convention, "People are paying you to entertain them, so don't screw around with the performance." I once read of a band that didn't follow this principle. They played a gig in a seedy bar that had maybe five or six people in the audience the whole night. They decided to goof off in front of the audience, take extra long breaks, that sort of thing. Unbeknownst to them, one of the people in the audience was a booking agent that was looking for a band to book at a venue that would have taken this band to the next level in their career. He was unimpressed, and he left the bar without bothering to talk to the band. Clearly, this band wasn't as professional as they could have been. They were professional in the sense that they were being paid to perform, yes, but little more than that. Would a true professional act like this? Of course not. But what about an amateur?

Given all this, how do you think an amateur’s performance at a given event will affect the audience, his client and the event as a whole? It all boils down to two things: a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and you get what you pay for. People go to events to escape from their problems for a little while, and they expect to have a good time while they’re out. If the musician delivers a mediocre performance compared to a professional, the event as a whole suffers, and the audience won’t have as good a time. The audience may well decide not to return to that event if they know that musician will be performing there again.

With this resultant diminishment of audience turnout on subsequent show dates, the client will lose money in the long run because of lower ticket revenue. And that’s particularly dangerous in the case of a fundraiser because the economic purpose there is to raise as much money as possible. I doubt Jerry Lewis would have raised even a tenth of the money he did at his Muscular Dystrophy telethons if the only talent there, both in front of and behind the camera, had been non-professionals.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re planning parties or running a business--there are times when you have to spend money to make money. How much publicity for a service or an event are you likely to get if you spend money on a tiny three-line ad in your local newspaper’s classifieds section, compared to if you spend the greater amount of money on a larger advertising campaign? Or take the tragic case of Richard Chamberlain’s character Roger Simmons in the movie The Towering Inferno--Simmons’ decision to save money by using substandard wiring results in a massive fire that destroys half the tower and costs dozens of lives, including his own.

So my advice to you is this. If you are planning an event and want music, leave the music to the pros. Labor unions set basic minimum scale rates, and while many musicians charge higher than scale, they will be willing to reduce their fees closer to scale to accommodate an event that has a lower operating budget. I tried doing this for this fundraiser, and I’m sorry the client made the decision that she did. I wish them well, but I doubt the event will turn out as well as it otherwise could. If you absolutely must insist the pros perform for free, you should then assume they are members of the AFM and book them early enough to allow them time to clear the freebie with their Local’s Executive Board. Given that music is as tough a business as it is, and that professional musicians are struggling to make a living, isn’t it better to take advantage of the opportunity to help them out?