Not sure where to post this - performers, teachers, all should read it!

http://elisabethhobbs.co.uk/2012/04/16/do-you-work-for-free/

and I loved the reply to the ad at the end of the article !

Me too! An excellent article.

Thank you maggiemay for bringing this to our attention. It is a first class article and I liked best the bit about the plumbers. Where would the Olympic installations be without proper plumbing? Where would the Olympic festivites be without music? If they don't want to pay then let them have silent Olympics. Frankly I think the suggestion that musicians should be glad to showcase themselves is downright insulting.

I completely agree with the sentiments in this article, however it is not always straightforward. Making the transition from 'amateur who is happy to do the gig for free for the experience and who feels a bit awkward asking for any money, perhaps they won't ask me again' to the 'I will only turn up if you pay me the going rate professional' is one such grey area.

In this case you should make it clear to the fixer/organiser that you are an amateur, and therefore playing for no fee. Otherwise, as the author of the article suggests, you are doing down those of us who do have to make a living from playing and teaching (and the rest of the things we do!).

Excellent, maggiemay. Thanks a lot for sharing.

Excellent.

Very apt - thanks, Maggiemay.

I must remind my son to stop doing gigs for free!

Oh well done, maggiemay! Have a sticker!

Bags x

Thanks all for your interest. Scooby Doo, (and Misterioso!) I agree, there is a stage when it is really tricky to know what's the right approach.

Bagpuss - (cautiously) ... thanks ... how much ?

Thanks. I agree that professionals shouldn't undermine each other by under-charging, but there are situations where one would like to take the work on, but the organisation in question simply hasn't the funds to afford the full rate, and sticking to the 'full rate or nothing' approach would mean a lost opportunity for a lot of people who need that one person's input. And a willingness to chip in on one occasion can lead to more (properly paid) work in future through those contacts, so it's not always the case that you do yourself down by doing a cheap gig. I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule for every situation.

Although I do not make my living out of music, I am/have been chairman of several choirs in recent years. Even though these are amateur bodies there is money involved in several ways.

In the case of the choral society, we pay both the music director and the accompanist and we make sure we pay a decent fee plus a concert fee. The chamber choir is a bit different as the MD does it "for fun" so he's happy to just take a modest fee to cover expenses (he has a well-paid day job that is not music).

The following mostly applies to the chamber choir. On the flip side, if organisation x asks if we can sing at an event then regardless of the organisation, I expect at least expenses incurred to be paid (e.g. any musicians we've engaged such as organist, any soloists fees, and MD fees if relevant). Generally, I ask for a fee for the choir as well, to cover our running costs and overheads (this is usually about GBP250 but it does vary a bit). For some events, e.g. our Passiontide concert, we don't ask a fee and there's no tickets, but there is a retiring collection and we agreed to split that after expenses had been taken between the church and the choir.

Obviously it's different where we are the organiser of the concert.

I get cross when we get asked to sing at a wedding service and they seem surprised that there's a fee. Sorry, we're not a church choir (and they wouldn't be free): you want us to spend some of our rehearsal schedule preparing material, we might have to hire music, and we have to pay for our rehearsal venue. Don't do free.

I had this argument 30 years ago (eek) in another context where the organisation was always wheeler dealering to get its meeting venues on the cheap/free. This kept the subscriptions down. I kept pointing out that this was foolish and short-sighted as eventually they would have to pay the going rate and that would end up as a severe shock. It took a while (over 20 years!) but it happened and it was a big shock.

erm....
I understand the doctors attending the events will provide their services free of charge, so too those at the gates, and the competition judges.....

So - whilst I do think that professional musicians are undervalued, and that the public at large don't appreciate the dedication and hard work nearly enough, choosing this particular one to gripe about isn't reasonable.

The response to the ad has bad grammar in it.

Indeed - I judged it was copying the tone of the original ad.

That is ridiculous. Did the builders build the new facilities for free? Are the spectator's being allowed in for free? Will London Transport ferry competitors, officials and spectators around for free? These people (i.e. the doctors, gate attendants, judges) are also undermining the professional status of others, including musicians.

It is more than reasonable, it is important to make a stand on such a big event. If the Olympics (with 7billion spent and counting) gets away with using musicians for free, every other event organiser will try to do the same.

Yes I noticed that, too!

Are the doctors attending the events as volunteers? Or were they told "you'll be doctoring at the Olympics in addition to your normal work and not getting paid for it"? I think if you volunteer to do something for free that's very different to being told you are expected to do something for free (especially with if it's with a "so you can showcase your doctoring skills to the world" line )

Never mind doctors.

I thought I heard somewhere that bus and tube train drivers in and around London had been offered bonuses of between 500 and 750 for working during the Olympics. Some of them are still demanding more, and no doubt would have been given it but for a change in government!

SB

It is quite simple really: If EVERYONE just said no, nobody would try to get professional services for free. You always get the ones though who think it will further their career - I probably believed that as a very young artist as well. Truth is, you'll just be expected to do it for free every time. It's the same with unpaid internships, where people are promised they might get a contract after a while, or it will "look great on their portfolio". They won't, because the next person willing to do it for free is waiting. Whole industries (e.g. fashion) are built on this concept these days. Why pay for something you can get for free?

If you are volunteering your services for a charitable cause, that's a whole different matter. If you are expected to work for free on an event that has a budget of billions though, and some are being paid and you just happen to be in one of those professions that, for some non-apparent reason, are not regarded "pay-worthy", that's entirely different.

And no, I don't think this just concerns musicians.

If I choose to give my services free to what I consider to be a worthy cause it is for me and for me only to decide. The moment someone tells be I should do it for free - and also be glad to do so for whatever reason - my gut reaction is that in that I won't do it at all. I don't tell other people how and when to work for free and I don't appreciate any attempt to tell me.

The spirit of the Olympics - amateur sportsmen and all that - is a thing of the past. There is big money in it now. It may be a shame but that is how it is and all those who provide their time and talent should be paid. If they don't want to be paid they can silently give their earnings to any charity of their choice. That way they can act according to their principles and at the same time not undercut those who need to earn.

I suspect the element of quid pro quo comes into it all though: yes, the Olympics are vast moneyspinners, but those going to work in areas which also give them a chance to see the action, quite probably from prime positions, without the need to pay for a ticket, and indeed without also having to go through the bidding processes, might be said to be getting something for nothing that way round? Those workers not able to see - cooks, others behind the scenes, will be being paid.

There was a circular sent round to us asking us to offer our services, as it happens - I decided that the costs involved for me getting there, even with the possibility that I might be able to cadge accommodation more locally than the city in which I live, meant it wasn't commercially viable for me.

And to whomever it was who said forget the docs - I only put them up there because they/we happen also to be professionals, and there was a lot of chuntering about "professional" status going on in the thread at the time.

That assumes that those people actually want to see the action.

And if not, opt out of playing and let someone who does want to see it do so.

I've had a good think about this...I can't help thinking that this is the thin end of a wedge that has the potential to be driven in harder and harder until, just possibly, a career in music will be virtually impossible for all but a few people.

I really don't think it's that drastic. There are other pressures on how the work of musicians is paid for which are far greater and more persistent than a showcase sports (ie not music) event, and I think that there needs to be a lot of thought put into how, for instance, the recordings industry responds to the likes of YouTube, how artists reach out and how we encourage appreciation of skilled musicianship. Yes, a musician whose music is his income will put in a huge amount of work and effort into honing skills, and deserves financially subsidised time to do that - that work is reflected in better performance than even an advanced amateur can manage, and that difference will be enough to bring in the money needed. Get someone working for their grade 5 exam to perform a piece from list A: even if they "know" the piece really well, it's not going to sound like the career musician playing it, and the cognoscenti can tell the difference and will value that. Good amateurs providing performances free of charge at lower levels of competence than professionals will at least provde a service to those professionals - that of drawing attention to audiences what music is out there, and those who are interested may well seek to develop their knowledge further.

It's not just musicians. I am a professional translator and I still get asked if I could do a website for free or give a free lesson for the experience.

Tortellini, that's the example that sprang to my mind too! As in "You won't translate this massive long contract, which will form the basis for work over months or years, worth millions of dollars and several contractor's businesses, for free? Oh well never mind I'll ask the girl who works in the sushi bar down the road to do it!"

Indeed. Wasn't there a link on another thread recently to a thesis on piano technique where the author was asking for volunteers to translate the whole thing with all its complex, technical language?