[noizejoy]

> "We can't pay you, but you'll get exposure"

... said the venue owner to the musician.

It’s a frighteningly common invit^H^H^H^H^H^H exploitation providing free labour to owners of gathering places benefitting from that labour (like bars and browsers and operating systems and social networks, etc).

[kazinator]

Why should the venue owner pay the musician?

It's not an iron-clad given that the musician provides value to a venue.

Musicians who are confident they can bring business to a venue negotiate with confidence and get paid.

Those who play for free are ones who don't have that confidence.

What you accept is what you cost. That's the market rate.

How about this argument. Say I have a restaurant. Typically that means there is some landlord, and I pay them utilities and rent in exchange for using the space. Now some guitar-strumming, crooning ape wants to perform in the same space. If he and I are to be considered part of the same organization, we are on the same level of the "org chart". We are sharing the space and doing our thing. Why would I pay him anything? He should pay part of the rent and utilities. Or, why not the other way around?

Let's reverse it. Suppose a musician has a venue where he performs every night, and people come. Paying people. Suppose I want sell hot-dogs and sandwiches there, and he lets me do that. Why the fuck should he also pay me anything? He would be right to ask me to pay some sort of rent.

Now if I give the hot dogs and sandwiches for free, so that many more people come, and those people pay to get into this music venue, then there is a case that I'm increasing the business, and doing it out of my pocket. Still, that is my problem; I shouldn't be doing such a thing. Maybe I know what I'm doing! Or maybe I'm trying out new product to see how people like it or whatever (market research).

[noizejoy]

Context matters: It's a very different dynamic, depending on who approaches whom.

If the venue owner does the approaching (as in the context of the post raising this sub-thread) like Apple, Microsoft or Google approaching extension developers) it's questionable.

If the musician (or the extensions developer) approaches the venue owner, it's an entirely different story.

One has exploitation written all over it, the other not so much.

The context of the great-great-...-parent post suggests the exploitative version.

[lmm]

> How about this argument. Say I have a restaurant. Typically that means there is some landlord, and I pay them utilities and rent in exchange for using the space. Now some guitar-strumming, crooning ape wants to perform in the same space. If he and I are to be considered part of the same organization, we are on the same level of the "org chart". We are sharing the space and doing our thing. Why would I pay him anything? He should pay part of the rent and utilities. Or, why not the other way around?

Owners are allowed to do a lot of things that would be considered exploitative in an employment relationship: they can work excessive hours, below minimum wage, etc.. If they're a genuine owner getting their share of the upside, it's fair enough.

> Now if I give the hot dogs and sandwiches for free, so that many more people come, and those people pay to get into this music venue, then there is a case that I'm increasing the business, and doing it out of my pocket. Still, that is my problem; I shouldn't be doing such a thing. Maybe I know what I'm doing! Or maybe I'm trying out new product to see how people like it or whatever (market research).

You're not allowed to do form relationships that are indistinguishable from illegally-exploitative employment, for the same reason you're not allowed to run the shell game even if you do it 100% honestly. You'll find a lot of similar rules around charities that don't make sense on the surface, but are the only way to have a regulatory regime that protects people: you're not allowed to volunteer for or donate to the same organisation you work for, volunteers aren't allowed to be paid, volunteers can't do the exact same activities that they do for the charity but for a non-charity business...

[raynr]

As the other commenter said, the venue owner should pay the musician in the context provided by the parent poster, because the venue owner is the one asking the musician to play at their venue. Context matters.

The situation being called out, is the very situation that flows from your hypothetical restaurant owner's contemptuous disregard for the "guitar-strumming, crooning ape".

[kazinator]

If a venue representative passes a hint to some musicians that a free space for jamming is available certain days of the week and certain hours, with some sound equipment and possibly an audience, is that an invitation which obliges them to pay the musicians? Certainly not.

The one thing that makes the context different is if the venue wants very specific musicians, and all of their choices are pros who expect to get paid. The venue can't get any of the musicians it wants without paying and that's that.

If a venue is not picky about musicians, it can easily get free ones. So many free ones that if three of them cancel, it can still call a fourth to come over.

[whatatita]

> and all of their choices are pros who expect to get paid

I disagree that an alternative exists. Pay them for their time. They're enriching your business, or at the very least, providing you with their time and expertise.

> If a venue is not picky about musicians, it can easily get free ones

The way you talk about musicians (see also; you "ape" comment earlier) sounds like you don't value them as people.

[kazinator]

> They're enriching your business, or at the very least, providing you with their time and expertise.

What? Not necessarily at all. Say I have a bar that is completely dead on a Wednesday night, due to it being Wednesday night and it being in some off part of town.

I could advertise that I have some free jam space for musicians, a drum kit and a PA with a few microphones and maybe some guitar/bass amp or speaker cabinet. Maybe people will show up to make some noise. Those same people (and maybe a few of their friends) will buy a few drinks, and that's where the "enriching my business" part comes in.

Nobody is required to buy a drink, and so this is a better offer than them having to actually rent equipment and room.

[CRConrad]

Your analogy only works if in the first case it's the musician who pockets the entry fee. Or, in the second, the payment for the food. The second, you specified they didn't (you “sell” the hot dogs, i.e. presumably pocket the payment yourself). The first is usually not the case.

So your analogy doesn't work.

[worik]

" Why should the venue owner pay the musician?"

Because a music venue without musicians insn't

[kazinator]

No, it isn't a music venue without musicians.

But the implied flow of money doesn't follow from that.

Suppose I own an empty space with a little stage, a PA sound system, and some 100 chairs. I put a down payment on this place, paid for equipment and upgrades and have to pay property taxes, utilities and mortgage. If nothing happens there, I lose money out of my own pocket. I intend for it to be a music venue. I meet the definition of a music venue owner.

Some musicians have contacted me and would like to have a concert there.

Should anyone pay anyone? Who should pay whom?

How is this for logic: "A house isn't a home without a family! If you want me to move into this house with my wife and three kids to make it a home, you're gonna have to pay me!"

[worik]

It depends.

For many musicians it is not a career, but a hobby. A outlet for creativity. (That is me) In which case we choose venues that are like us. Our most recent gig was at our local Musicians Club https://youtu.be/URwzKL8pjQo?t=819

For others it is a important part of their income, so they should be paid.

Who should pay? If the punters pay a door charge the band should get it (that is the tradition here) if not then, yes, the owner of the venue pays it.

[kazinator]

Musicians making an income simply have to avoid opportunities that they have outgrown: free jam spaces, open mics, and whatnot.

[worik]

Generally speaking musicians are the last to get paid and the first to blame.

[sokoloff]

But a dive bar is a still a dive bar and a casual restaurant still a restaurant...

[whatatita]

I disagree with this sentiment. People go to a music venue for the music, they go to a bar for the drinks and a resturant for the food.

If the bar had no drinks, it could hardly be called a bar. Similarly, a resturant with no food is hardly a resturant.

In that meantime, where the reason to go there is missing, these are all just rooms with the potential to be something later. The same goes for the music venue; it's just a big room that could be a music venue if there were actual musicians there.

[kazinator]

A dive bar is still a place where people pay for drinks, and not for music.

The "open mic" is on Tuesday nights, because nobody goes there then, so there is no harm to the business, and the people who come to have open mic fun might buy drinks.