Bands & Musicians feedback thread AKA The Larsen effect thread

I thought with the publishing of the new charter, the expansion of bands and musicians available subforum settling down (ish - There's still around 10 posts a day that I have to move over there - I dunno, if I see a forum called bands and musicians community and no wanted/available ads in it, I'd ask if I'm in the right place) - Anyway, we've taken a harder stance on promoters with the following now added to the charter:

No offering bands pay to play gigs. (This includes minimum ticket selling, minimum audience turn-up or cash) Feel free to PM myself (Pappa Dolla), rcaz or Malice if you’re unsure your event comes under this.

And:

It is strongly suggested you do not look here for bands to play for free. Exposure, experience, promoting their work or sell merchandise are all excuses to get musicians to work for free. You wouldn’t work for free, so why should a musician? We would recommend you contribute towards petrol or at least offer a round or two to the band.

So, I'll leave this thread here so we can discuss the new charter.
Are you happy with it?
Did I leave anything out?
And any other feedback would be most welcome. We're mostly grown ups here :P, so lets have a nice civilised discussion

Edited to add: I've been thinking we could do with an off topic thread, any ideas for a name for such a thread?

viadah

Bum Notes!

viadah

viadah wrote: »

Bum Notes!

I had absolutely no idea what you are on about!
I presume you mean call the off topic chat thread Bum Notes?

unclebill98

While I understand your stance about the two new additions to the charter they are both fundamental parts of the Irish music scene for donkeys years.

Your first one.

Like anything some are cowboys and others are very well run etc. Maybe it would be better to have anyone looking to post something like this to be pre approved or something but obviously the extra work might not warrant it.

I myself have been exposed to both extremes of these type of gigs but they form part of my journey and looking back I'd not change a thing about them.

As long as anyone wishing to take up the offer knows what they are getting themselves in for then I see no reason to impose this. Clearly those completely taken the piss can be locked.

2nd one.

As always a touchy subject but one that I'm sure every band on these forum have done at some point. Like with any business you have to do certain things to establish yourself and the odd free gig is just one of those things. While you do say that they could throw the band some beer or fuel expenses which is good however if the act wishes to get involved for free then why can't they just do so?

Both above cases have appeared over the last while and it ends up with an attack on the op.

Any how, my 2 cents.

Hey unclebill,

I thought I'd get back to you and explain why straight away.

First of all, just because something has been a fundamental part of something for donkeys years doesn't mean it's right.

Boards.ie is a pretty big site in Irish terms, so by taking this stance hopefully we can encourage a fairer attitude to bands starting out. I went over this with Malice, Rcaz and Dav as it is a stance, and I wanted to make sure boards.ie were behind it.

I like your point about it being "part of [your] journey and looking back [you'd] not change a thing about them." These moments are important and definitely help you as a working professional. My problem with them is a really simple one though. Just because we had a hard time playing in a band when we first starting out doesn't mean new bands have to. We've had a few successful, "pass the advice" threads and I want more of them. We (players who've been around the scene a little longer) have a duty to help bands that are starting out now imo.

Second one:

I think it's important to note we haven't banned gig offerings where you don't get paid. We are strongly advising people to look after the band. In tough times like these, if a band gets at least their petrol paid for because of this new rule, well, happy days.

I hope that this could be a small part in insuring fairer conditions for bands and musicians out there.

Thanks for posting,

Pappa

unclebill98

Well yes, if we can make it better then fine. I'm all for that. In that case we should allow these posts as per amendment one and allow more established muso to push the op and weed out the crap offers.

As for the 2nd I note there's still allow, I over looked that but if it's clear there are no funds it should still be ok to post but yes, something small towards cost is nice but some events can't fund it.

Even with that said I still use the "you'll never be ideal if you play for free" with some folks I meet.

As an example there's one band I'm working with who are playing 4/5 gigs a week, with the vast majority of them for free. They know what they are getting themselves into but are ok with it. So while I said its part of it for donkeys years it still very clear it's around these days.

One of the reasons behind the banning of pay to play adverts is the hostility towards the promoters. We can be quite a savage bunch in here

Moving forward, there's no more discussion. Pay to play is disgusting. Sorry, strong words, but it's how I feel. You shell out for your gear, rehearsals, travel, food etc. The last thing a band should pay for is their stage time.

I've left it open so people can pm the mods to see if their event is suitable.

Devore once said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "This is our turf and if people want to get involved, they play by our rules here."

viadah

I had a problem with pay-to-play gigs when I was in bands and I still do now. While I think it should still be up to the band themselves how they conduct themselves, I still don't agree with the promotion of an idea that does take advantage of a lot of people's naivety. You can't protect people from being taken advantage of, but it is right to take a stand that says 'I will not provide the medium for that potential outcome'. Sorry about the rashness of 'Bum Notes' by the way.....

roast

Deleted User wrote: »

You shell out for your gear, rehearsals, travel, food etc. The last thing a band should pay for is their stage time.

viadah wrote: »

You can't protect people from being taken advantage of, but it is right to take a stand that says 'I will not provide the medium for that potential outcome'.

That sums it all up, in my opinion. As a forum built for members to learn and share information, we shouldn't condone poor business practices. Too many young 'uns rely on the advice and opinions of the long-standing members here, may as well nip naive decisions in the bud for them.

unclebill98

Just wondering then,

What if your band was asked to pay to play a large festival? Yes slightly scaled up from being asked to pay to play the button factory but the practice is the same.

Would you do it?

If a band is asked to pay to play the festival, then yes, that is douchebaggery of the highest form and a) I wouldn't play it and b) I wouldn't allow them advertise here.

If there was no pay, but other benefits e.g. tickets for the band for the festival then I would play. You usually get the full weekend pass if you're a performer. In the case of E.P. (where most Irish acts wouldn't get paid) they get tickets for the festival worth <200 euro.

As I said, only pay to play has been banned, not freeplay. Hopefully freeplay will be reduced.

roast

unclebill98 wrote: »

Just wondering then,

What if your band was asked to pay to play a large festival? Yes slightly scaled up from being asked to pay to play the button factory but the practice is the same.

Would you do it?

Personally, I wouldn't. I reckon there would be bands who would, but I doubt the situation arises very often. If it does, for shame on the promoters.

First off, large festival promoters probably wouldn't be looking for bands to play their events through boards.ie. (Of course it's possible, but not very likely.)

Secondly, large festival promoters wouldn't approach bands who still have a naive view of playing gigs.

Thirdly, bands who really want to play such an event, would probably have made their decision before asking members on boards.

The main thing is, in some cases, promoters can't afford to pay lower-billed bands a full fee outright, but asking the band to pay to fill their own bill (for the promoters profit) is scummy IMO.

unclebill98

Sorry to clarify it was more of a general statement. I agree its unlikely that the EP, Glasto or Reading would be using boards to get bands, cool if they did.

Its a question asked of bands that are at that level or indeed those who have this stance now but in the future they may well be placed into this situation.

For example. A certain band had to pay to play the RDS with a "Big international Artist". Its very common throughout Europe for mini festivals. One band I used to work with are currently on tour in Europe and have paid to play a few festivals.

So while I say its part of the Irish music scene for donkeys years its still a very very common practice. Does it make it right, well I suppose we can agree that for some bands it is and for others its not.

As pointed out its no longer up for discussion to have it reversed but want i trying to see is what boards users actually think of it. The Mods have made there feelings very clear on it and I for one will respect that, Pappa Dolla gave a great quote for that :-)

raindog.promo

unclebill98 wrote: »

As pointed out its no longer up for discussion to have it reversed but want i trying to see is what boards users actually think of it. The Mods have made there feelings very clear on it and I for one will respect that, Pappa Dolla gave a great quote for that :-)

Personally, I don't think actual (ie, earning a regular income from) promoters use boards.ie anyway.

I put some thoughts up here on the whole band Vs promoter thing:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056781055

Wouldn't mind hearing some feedback on the post linked to, I didn't get much in the way of replies first time round and then it took a bit of a weird turn

I would honestly like to hear what others have to say.


Also, is Pay to Play defined as being "minimum ticket selling, minimum audience turn-up or cash".
What would this be classed as?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056758724

Nervous Wreck

Just popping my head in to support the new "no pay-to-play threads" rule. I read this forum regularly (though very seldom post) and the very worst part of it, as with the scene in general, has always been seeing promoters ask bands to pay for the 'privilege' of playing a set. I don't ask a barman to pay me for serving me a pint, I'm not gonna ask a musician to pay me to play me a song. Great addendum to the charter!

raindog.promo

raindog.promo wrote: »

Personally, I don't think actual (ie, earning a regular income from) promoters use boards.ie anyway.

Some do, and I hope there'll be more

raindog.promo wrote: »

Also, is Pay to Play defined as being "minimum ticket selling, minimum audience turn-up or cash".
What would this be classed as?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056758724

It would be classed as pay to play. However, it would be a huge d*ckhead manoeuvre to act on threads retro-actively imo.

No new ads, but the ones that were there can stay.

raindog.promo

Deleted User wrote: »

Some do, and I hope there'll be more



It would be classed as pay to play. However, it would be a huge d*ckhead manoeuvre to act on threads retro-actively imo.

No new ads, but the ones that were there can stay.

I wouldn't class it as Pay to Play, and I think denying them on this board will cut off opportunities for some bands to get started. However, if the charter says so then the charter says so.

With that thread in mind:

The venue hire was €50 per band (3 bands)
The band would get paid if they brought in 10 people at a fiver a head.
If they brought in 11 they would get paid a fiver.

That to me is simply wrong.

Not to mention the OP of that thread stated

I work in a bar that is on its last legs.

At the end of the day, if only 20 people turn up, it will be better than the 8 people who were in the bar last weekend!

Now, the pub brings in 8 people on a weekend night. It makes absolutely no sense to me why bands should pay a rental fee for that room. If anything, the bar should be doing all they can to get people in. Including providing somewhere free for a band to play, and give them a few pints for bringing their mates in.

raindog.promo

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, the pub brings in 8 people on a weekend night. It makes absolutely no sense to me why bands should pay a rental fee for that room. If anything, the bar should be doing all they can to get people in. Including providing somewhere free for a band to play, and give them a few pints for bringing their mates in.

The alternative is no gig at all for the band.
No one forces the band to do the gig, they are always free not to avail of it. And prohibiting this kind of thing won't make a pub change its policy.

If you have a function in a pub you pay for the room and you don't split the take on the bar or receive money in any other way.

Ideally it should be different for musicians but in reality it isn't. Having ideals is great but if it kills the thing outright what's the point?

I went into more detail on this on the other thread I posted giving what I think are valid arguments. There wasn't one reply on the topic itself and the banning of those sort of gigs on here seems to me to be just one opinion holding sway even when there's good arguments against it. I wouldn't mind seeing a pole taken (but recognize the autonomy of the mods).

I applaud the idealism but don't think it does any favours to people trying to get gigs. I really wish it did, but doing business is seldom fair.
If it gets more bands out there organizing their own gigs, then great.

Anyway, if that's what the charter says, fine. I'll leave it at that.

galwaybabe

The pay to play situation is never going to change unless a strong unified stance is taken against it by all professional musicians. I think a ban on here of posts promoting these events is a good start.

raindog.promo

raindog.promo wrote: »

The alternative is no gig at all for the band.
No one forces the band to do the gig, they are always free not to avail of it. And prohibiting this kind of thing won't make a pub change its policy.

I'd like to think that the alternative would be to go to Saucy Sundays, King Kong Club, Sunday Roast, Dimestore in Sweeneys etc as opposed to no gig. If enough bands stopped paying, the practice of getting bands to pay for venues would stop, imo.

raindog.promo wrote: »

If you have a function in a pub you pay for the room and you don't split the take on the bar or receive money in any other way.

Very true. You are paying for somewhere for your friends and family to meet up, and generally, celebrate something like a birthday, wedding engagement party etc. You are not paying for a room that you work in. Being on stage is work for a musician. You are also paying for the room because it would probably be invite only, putting a limit on how many customers you bring in to the room. A band does (or should do anyway!) the opposite to this as they advertise the venue and try and bring in as many people as they can!

raindog.promo wrote: »

Ideally it should be different for musicians but in reality it isn't. Having ideals is great but if it kills the thing outright what's the point?

As I've said before, just because something is common, doesn't make it right. If it kills venues operating on a pay to play basis, then fantastic. Bands and music will ALWAYS be heard. Look at how big the live BYOB scene has gotten recently. (I'll admit it's not huge at the mo, but it's a trend moving in the right direction.) Bands need to show pubs that the pubs need the bands more than bands need the pubs.

I went into more detail on this on the other thread I posted giving what I think are valid arguments. There wasn't one reply on the topic itself and the banning of those sort of gigs on here seems to me to be just one opinion holding sway even when there's good arguments against it. I wouldn't mind seeing a pole taken (but recognize the autonomy of the mods).

I chatted to Malice, rcaz and Dav about this as it's a pretty contentious issue. I don't understand the need for a poll to be honest, this site never has been a democracy, but I like to think we're pretty open on this forum to guidance and feedback from the members. I haven't seen enough counter arguments to this stand we're taking to make me change my mind on it.

I applaud the idealism but don't think it does any favours to people trying to get gigs. I really wish it did, but doing business is seldom fair.
If it gets more bands out there organizing their own gigs, then great.

Thank you, I think? I don't understand how it would hold people back from getting gigs though? If the word gets out that we won't put up with dubious promoters, we get more bands talking on the forum (now, there's a bit of idealism!). When we have more bands on this forum talking, decent promoters will know where to look for bands (I hope)

Anyway, if that's what the charter says, fine. I'll leave it at that.

We have feedback threads for a reason. You're a solid, respected poster and I do respect your opinion. If I didn't, I wouldn't keep answering you!

To everyone else,

Thanks for the positive words so far. Any feedback at all (positive/negative) regarding this forum is welcome, it doesn't just have to be about the pay to play issue.

Rigsby

I'm with Pappa Dolla and the Mods (great name for a band !! ) on this issue. For me, it boils down to the simple example that Pappa Dolla gave earlier, which when even trying to look at it as a devil's advocate, I find it hard to come up with a counter arguement.

Papa Dolla's scenario is where a room has maybe six or ten patrons on a week end night. A band plays there and brings in multiples of that number. It is safe to assume these people will buy a few drinks each. So the venue makes a profit on the night, which it otherwise would not have done, and the band gets to play for their friends.

Is this not a win, win situation for both sides ?? I have yet to read a strong convincing counter arguement to this.

slavetothegrind

In full agreement with pappa and rigsby
There's a venue in Wicklow that operates exactly as rigsby says
Midweek bands are welcome to play for their friends, they won't be paid but they
Are given an opportunity to play, most are young bands gaining valuable on stage experience.
Weekends they are selective, to ensure some bodies in the pub and that the band are good enough not to empty the place but they pay the band and no conditions about it, if you have no draw you probably won't get asked back but that's only expected!

I am against pay to play totally , it's even more disgusting in festival and large band support slots.
Where's the integrity and indeed memory of these bands?
They were all there once, do they just not care now.?

Ideals are aspiratinal sure but also worth striving for.

raindog.promo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd like to think that the alternative would be to go to Saucy Sundays, King Kong Club, Sunday Roast, Dimestore in Sweeneys etc as opposed to no gig. If enough bands stopped paying, the practice of getting bands to pay for venues would stop, imo.

I've been thinking about this the last few days and the example above.
So if the above were to come into effect (ie - no bands ever paid to rent out a venue and instead played the nights above) the option of paying some money up front with the possibility of making more money back has been replaced by paying no money and not making any either (ie - playing for free).

The winner in both cases is the pub but in the second scenario it's only the pub and the band are denied any chance of making money.

It's kind of like saying "No, you are no longer allowed to speculate and invest your money in something that can be successful or fail, but here, in your best interests we'll allow you to take an unpaid internship".

Also:
Do artists pay to rent out a place to exhibit their work?
Do acting groups pay to rent out a theatre?

By the same argument you could say these people should actually be paid to do so instead of paying to rent out a place.

I'm not arguing just for the sake of it. I think coming up with something that will actually work in the real world instead of saying "ideally this should be the case" is more important and I'm well aware I won't gain any friends for saying so. I am sincerely interested in seeing what will come from banning "pay to play" posts. I don't think it's ever been done before so who knows?

unclebill98

raindog.promo wrote: »

.
Also:
Do artists pay to rent out a place to exhibit their work?
Do acting groups pay to rent out a theatre?

That.....

It's in all walks of professions, it not just an artistic thing.

I'm debating whether we should have a separate thread for this argument!

Galleries: Artists pay a commission. I'm cool with that. If a pub charged a tenner in an the fee was split equally between bands and pub (i.e. 3 band bash, door split 4 ways, 5 if you hire a promoter)

Acting groups: Sure do and it's not cheap! HOWEVER...You get a whole PR and Marketing team (A lot of people go to shows based on going to a regular theatre), insurance, stagelights, soundmixer, ladders etc. from your fee (If the theatres anyuse!) Also the place is clean, front of house is supplied and most importantly: there is mostly not a bar in theatre spaces. People are pretty much confined to sitting down during the performance and have no way to spend money at the show. It's kind of a different argument as we are talking purely pay-to-play in a venue that is already making money OR has the ability to make money outside of bands using the room.

My major problem lies in places that ARE making profit abusing bands by asking them to rent out rooms to play.

If you're a music bar, you should have a dedicated booker who's job it is to seek out new bands, not have a booker that does the job of a receptionist and just takes bookings for bands. Little differences there.

So, how do bands make money then?

At the above gigs, people sell merch. CD's, Patches, stickers. They might make a little bit. It definitely is not perfect, at all.

Get creative. Book a BYOB party, they'll probably get a few more pople as we're all skint these days and a BYOB party that charges a tenner in, means you'll only need c.€30 for the night.

Busk.


I appreciate this, but does it deserve it's own thread? The feedback for the forum seems to be, "Eh, yeah. It's all good" so far!

raindog.promo

Deleted User wrote: »

Galleries: Artists pay a commission. I'm cool with that. If a pub charged a tenner in an the fee was split equally between bands and pub (i.e. 3 band bash, door split 4 ways, 5 if you hire a promoter)

You can't say for definite that each and every gallery works that way.
The initial premise was 1 way is bad, the other is good and now more and more excuses are being brought in to try and back this up which just don't add up.
If everything is split equally, does that include the soundman? the equipment used? the promoter? Should the pub be expected to pay for these? Seeing as the reasoning behind allowing one way and not the other is based on fairness as opposed to doing business, how is expecting that fair?

Acting groups: Sure do and it's not cheap! HOWEVER...You get a whole PR and Marketing team (A lot of people go to shows based on going to a regular theatre),

A lot of people go to venues regularly too for the same reason. The Ballroom of Romance would be an example that first jumps into my head, you went because of their reputation at putting on decent gigs and it was a good chance the bands would be decent whether you knew them or not.

there is mostly not a bar in theatre spaces.

There's plenty of bars or shops selling refreshments of some sort in theatres.

At the above gigs, people sell merch. CD's, Patches, stickers. They might make a little bit. It definitely is not perfect, at all.

You can sell stuff at any gig, no matter whether it's pay to play or not so that excuse doesn't work. In fact it's exactly the same as the "Play at my Restaurant for free but you can sell your CDs" scenario that had people here giving out not too long ago.

My major problem lies in places that ARE making profit abusing bands by asking them to rent out rooms to play.

I go back to other people such as artists renting out places, and theatre groups renting out places, or even self help gurus renting out a place that people pay into in order to hear what s/he has to say. The only difference there is that they speak instead of sing. Should they be getting the room for free?

I'm trying to understand your point, but could you clarify it for me?

Do you think bands should rent out venues to play gigs?
Do you think musicians should be charged to play to guarantee the soundman, the promoter etc?

raindog.promo

The point is that it doesn't matter what I think, this is how business is done over here.

If you're given 2 choices: rent somewhere out and have a chance of making money from it
or
spend no money and make no money

Which is better?
There's pros and cons to each and I'd say it's up to each band to choose, not have someone else choose for them.


Now choice 3, "be paid to play" is the best, but unfortunately isn't being offered and I get the feeling that people are denying this in an emperor's new clothes type of way.
EDIT* Actually, The Mezz pay bands to play, but it's something like a 120 - 150 minute set iirc.

Rigsby said above that he hasn't heard any decent counter arguments but I think it's more a case of not wanting to hear any. I'd love for it to be choice 3 all the way for everyone, but it isn't. And not just because of evil pubs, If people got out there and went to see local bands more regularly then there's probably a better chance of it coming to be a reality. If more local bands were played on radio it would help, again, if more local bands were shown on TV it would also help.

There was an argument going round that people piss and moan about having to pay €10 in to see a local band but happily go and spend 3 or 4 times that on a round of drinks. It's a case of everyone wanting someone to pay as long as it's someone else.


I've said before that I see nothing wrong in renting out somewhere and charging in whether it's to give a lecture, put on a theatre production or play music and I'd encourage bands to go out and do it themselves and experience what goes into setting up a gig.


To reiterate, I don't see how playing for free is much better than renting somewhere out and possibly making some cash. In both cases the pub wins so that needs to be accepted because it's not going to change and there's always the option of putting on a gig outside of a pub, but why don't most bands do it?

EDIT AGAIN *Also, if your band is a proven commodity regularly filling venues there's room then to negotiate and ask for payment from the venue or for the rental of venue to be waived. It's business.

raindog.promo

You're giving me lots of points, so loathe as I am to debate like this, I'm going to have to break it down point by point. Again, I'll reiterate. What we are discussing is not feedback for this forum but the pro's and con's with pay to play.

raindog.promo wrote: »

The point is that it doesn't matter what I think, this is how business is done over here.

No. It does matter what you think. If you are playing devil's advocate, that is one thing which I would consider borderline trolling. If you believe that "How business is done over here" is correct and are defending it, fine. However, if you believe that "How business is done over here" is wrong, your time would be spent better coming up with solutions rather than defending a point you don't agree with.

If you're given 2 choices: rent somewhere out and have a chance of making money from it
or
spend no money and make no money

Which is better?
There's pros and cons to each and I'd say it's up to each band to choose, not have someone else choose for them.

This was not about having to rent out a venue. This was about promoters operating pay-to-play. The exact wording in the charter is:

No offering bands pay to play gigs. (This includes minimum ticket selling, minimum audience turn-up or cash)

You have turned into it an argument about whether it's about renting a venue or not.

If a band rents a venue, they take on the role of promoter. For example Band A rents out a venue, they come on here looking for a support band. If they just want the band to play and bring a few mates, fine. If they come on saying they have to pay half the venue costs that's not fine. If they offer a support slot on the basis that the band has to sell a certain amount of tickets, that's also not fine. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

A promoters responsibility is to get as many people through the door as they can by promoting the event. The bands responsibility is to let their fanbase now they're playing a gig and play the gig in a professional manner.

Now choice 3, "be paid to play" is the best, but unfortunately isn't being offered and I get the feeling that people are denying this in an emperor's new clothes type of way.

I don't understand the emperors new clothes analogy.

Rigsby said above that he hasn't heard any decent counter arguments but I think it's more a case of not wanting to hear any. I'd love for it to be choice 3 all the way for everyone, but it isn't. And not just because of evil pubs, If people got out there and went to see local bands more regularly then there's probably a better chance of it coming to be a reality. If more local bands were played on radio it would help, again, if more local bands were shown on TV it would also help.

I honestly can't see the benefit for a musician to pay rent on a venue that makes money from the musicians work. I agree with local radio and TV, it's actually a disgrace how little the stations promote local music.

There was an argument going round that people piss and moan about having to pay €10 in to see a local band but happily go and spend 3 or 4 times that on a round of drinks. It's a case of everyone wanting someone to pay as long as it's someone else.

Again, I don't understand your argument.

I've said before that I see nothing wrong in renting out somewhere and charging in whether it's to give a lecture, put on a theatre production or play music and I'd encourage bands to go out and do it themselves and experience what goes into setting up a gig.

Lots and lots of different points in this paragraph. Are all venues equal? I have experience in theatre productions for example. You cannot put on a play just anywhere. You need a hell of a lot of "stuff" Lights, 3 phase power supplies, sound booths, lighting gels - all ridiculously expensive for example. That's what you pay for when you rent out their venue. Without a play going on, can the theatre make money? No is the short simple answer! So they invest (good ones at least!) in better lights, more gels, better backstage facilities etc.

Now, can a pub operate without bands being in? Yes. Of course they can. The proof is in the pubs that pipe music in or have none at all. Live music venues without bands however would probably close or adapt their business model. What do these live music venues provide? Do they provide backline? No (and most musicians wouldn't use it) Do they provide lights? Some, and mainly dreadful ones. Do they provide good backstage facilities? lol - sometimes, but more than likely not.

So to reiterate: I have no problem renting out a room. In fact, I'm trialling a new quiz in December and I have to rent out a room for that. I'm doing that as it's my choice. BUT if a pub is a LIVE MUSIC VENUE, then yes, I have problems renting out that room for live music.

To reiterate, I don't see how playing for free is much better than renting somewhere out and possibly making some cash. In both cases the pub wins so that needs to be accepted because it's not going to change and there's always the option of putting on a gig outside of a pub, but why don't most bands do it?

I never like people playing for free and have already stuck in the following into the charter

It is strongly suggested you do not look here for bands to play for free. Exposure, experience, promoting their work or sell merchandise are all excuses to get musicians to work for free. You wouldn’t work for free, so why should a musician? We would recommend you contribute towards petrol or at least offer a round or two to the band.

Why don't most bands put on gigs outside the pub?
A: To be honest, most bands don't think of it. The pub culture is pretty much ingrained into our psyche
B: BYOB venues are very new in Ireland. I'd hazard a guess and say the oldest one in Dublin is less than 10 years old? It's a growing movement, but still tiny.
C: It's not easy to put on a gig in a BYOB! You have to provide PA, Insurance and Security if your gig is big enough. But imo, the crack is so much better in a good BYOB


Now, it's a really nice day out there, so I'm going out!

ttfn

viadah

The stance on pay-to-play is a simple one - it has no place on this forum. It's up to the individual to play these gigs, but they will not be advertised here. I am baffled by the argument here, no one's free will is being imposed on. Gigs will be put on in their various means and musicians will choose whether or not to avail of them, regardless of stipulation, it's just that pay-to-play will no longer be advertised here, and the majority support this decision as far as I can see.

In the past I've been screwed by pay-to-play gigs, putting on gigs and showing up to play gigs. Chalk it up to personal experience, but only one of the three has the band take a certain amount of risk for someone else's benefit.