This is a topic that a lot of people have very strong feelings about – either one way or another. Being a musician – no matter what genre you play – is so fiercely competitive that many venues and booking agents don’t only expect people to play for free but they sometimes actually expect the musician to pay them in order to perform.
This is not a new concept but it’s more widely used today more than ever. For example, musicians who play New York recitals actually pay in order to perform so that they can get reviews. They hope to sell enough tickets in order to break-even but they could be on the hook for a lot of money out of their own pockets if they don’t fill up the hall.
For rock bands you are often put in a position of what are called “pay to play venues” where they will issue a certain amount of tickets and require you to sell them. If you can’t sell all the tickets you still owe them the money so often times bands will need to shell out hundreds of dollars to perform. Most of the times venues will do little or minimal promotion for an event and the bands will be stuck marketing their own shows as well – so if you don’t sell any tickets or bring an audience you could be playing in front of an empty room (which happens more than you would think).
Getting back to the question at hand, should you perform for free? It’s something you must decide yourself but you should also look at the situation in which the performance takes place. How much is there to gain in playing for free? Sometimes it can be worth your while to get yourself in front of a new audience.
For example, if you were offered to play at a charity event somewhere and there was a guarantee of a good sized crowd, this could be something beneficial to you for the exposure. Not only would you get to perform in front of a lot of people but many of them see you performing in support of a noble cause and will be much more interested in what you are doing. Sometimes there are opportunities of collaborating with great musicians which can make performing a benefit concert worthwhile. Prospects of getting audio or video recordings of events which you can share in your marketing efforts may also make things worthwhile.
You must be careful with any opportunity to perform for free. Even though you might not be paying to play, you will be paying with time and work on your part. You will most likely be responsible for your own transportation to and from the venue and you will have to take into account the time you will need to dedicate to the performance – both the actual performance and practicing. Is this going to be worthwhile for you? You have to ask yourself that question; you shouldn’t put yourself in a position of being exploited.
An example of a bad non-paying gig would be something like playing at a party. If it’s not for a benefit and nobody will be specifically listening to your music, is it worth playing for free? Most of the time it won’t be; in some rare cases you might want to anyway because you can gain benefit from the networking opportunity. As a musician you really should value your talents and hard work and you should not let people take advantage of you.
Thanks again for joining me Robert Estrin Robert@LivingPianos.com
3 thoughts on “Should you Perform Music for Free?”
I have often been asked to play for free. I often ask, is the bartender or caterer working for free? If not, then I won’t either.
The volume on this one is a lot lower than the other one about crossed hands.
— J.S.
I’m curious about what professional musicians think about amateurs doing free gigs. Just twenty years ago, even amateurs could supplement their incomes significantly by playing in a band at bars or coffee houses. Professionals could develop a career in live gigs, achieving the better paying gigs. Those days and those venues are all but gone now. Most towns seem to have less than half as many regularly scheduled venues for live music as they had 15-20 years ago. The culture has changed and there just isn’t much of an audience for bands any more, at least not ones that support the venue by buying alcohol. Oddly enough, this seems to have reduced the competition for gigs, since none of them pay much anyway. The pros have moved on to teaching, or have gotten day jobs and become amateurs themselves.
None the less, an accomplished amateur taking a free gig for fun or experience is indeed competing with any professional musicians in the area, who have to be payed and make a living at it. Does the musician’s union still enforce “union scale”?. It was there for a reason: to protect pros from being exploited, and to keep the competition from amateurs down.
So do the pros resent it when an amateur “lowers the bar” by playing for free? In a sense, someone playing for free cheapens the product for everybody.