makepeace wrote
singemonkey wrote
makepeace wrote
in my opinion, and that's what it is so take it with a glass of salt, a concept like this has no place in music - especially in south africa.
Why not? You reckon the gigging situation is quite fine, so it can just go on as it is?
there is a sympathetic relationship between venues/event organisers and artists that is in my view self regulatory.
Incorrect. The control of access to audiences means that venues are able to charge way less than the value added. They take unreasonable profits. This is exploitation. Additionally, by attracting bands that pay for peanuts, they drive more dedicated musicians out of the business. Their time and effort is unrewarded. Venues then complain that the acts they pay for peanuts don't bring in, or hold audiences, and justify the peanuts. This is, of course through lack of competition - no one who takes music seriously (certainly full time) will possibly play for these income levels, and consequently the standard is low, audiences have equivocal experiences with live music, and a vicious circle is created.
also, as much as music is seen today as a money making scheme - its primary functions are that of any art form. expression, culture, philosophy, entertainment. referring to bob's example - the Blue Notes it seems were enjoyed and found a way to create that enjoyment - they also added value to the venues that they played at. when you shut them down, you're not only taking from them, you're taking away from the people that enjoy them and the clubs that hire them. that's destructive, both to the public (customer) and the economy of the industry. and in a way it is also a form of censorship, you are telling the majority of people who they should be watching and you're telling venues who they should be hiring. if there was no union in this situation, the musicians being pushed out of the gap that the Blue Notes filled would be forced to come up with something better - thus improving quality and by doing so benefiting themselves, their customers and the venues.
Again. No one benefits from a system that only the least dedicated can afford to participate in. Audiences lose out when good musicians (who must put in much time) cannot afford to perform, and only those who spend little time working on music find it worth doing "hobby shows." Rubbish music, leading to receding interest from the public, leading to reduced profits for all venues. This system creates a cycle of poor quality product due to it being impossible for musicians to be reasonably compensated for their efforts. It's analogous to photography, in which the happiness to hire a friend with a dslr to shoot your wedding means that you get poor quality wedding pics, which devalues the role of wedding pics, which further makes it impossible for those pros who could do magical things to get hired at a reasonable rate to do the job.
looking at it from a sheer quantity perspective, the music industry in south africa is comprised largely of groups of people that have full time occupations other than music, and where music is a part time thing for them that they do for enjoyment as well as a supplementary income. as soon as something like a union is imposed on this, these people will be deterred by having to pay union fees, and to fall in with whatever regulations the unions see fit to impose. they will then only be allowed to play at places that do not add to their product and fall into obscurity - which is a negative as far as i'm concerned. as i see it, regarding a concept such as art in an environment such as south africa, statistically - quantity breeds quality.
People who are not sufficiently invested will not pay fees, and will be unable to play the fair pay union gigs. These people are also not putting effort into their playing - feeling that it's good enough to just be up there for their wife and two mates to watch - and hence bring the quality of the product to rock bottom. Allowing them to fall by the wayside, while dedicated musicians compete for gigs, will raise the quality of performance, and hence the impression of live music, and hence the profits to be made, to the point where other venues may begin to see the benefit of paying union rates.
This is analogous to sports, in which South Africans are fiercely competitive in paying sports (rugby, cricket, golf, boxing) but not nearly so competitive in sports with no money attached such as Fencing. The money attracts competitors and keeps them going in the long run. Then spectators see better matches leading to more popularity, more money, and more fierce competitors.
I can tell you as a gigging musician that, while I always give it all I've got when I'm on stage, the pressure to get the band together for multiple practises (time out from people's necessary other work), and to maintain adequate sobriety pre-show, is enhanced enormously by the knowledge of the payment at the end. Despondency creeps in when you know that you won't earn a bean out of the show you're doing. When the venue doesn't treat you professionally, your will to be professional is sapped. Obviously, as I say, once you're up there you give it hell for the one barfly who's enjoying it. But you sure as hell aren't going to make special allowances, or rock up at 16h30 for soundcheck, at that venue again. This may not be a big deal however, if you see yourself as an amateur who picks up the instrument once a week and regards the gig as a fun way of sharing your hobby with your mates. If you intend to become good enough to consistently entertain people, you want to feel like everyone's taking it seriously.
maybe i'm blind, and it would be great for my future if someone could point this out and why, but i think its fine the way it. just can't see it as being anything other than an obstruction.
It's certainly not fine. The quality of bands getting up there is appalling, and it's in direct proportion to the lack of remuneration in the business. Venues are shooting themselves in the foot by taking on these bands who are happy to play for nothing, and don't deliver, and then the bands don't attract drinking customers. Pay the ones who can deliver, and watch the profit margins rise. But the system needs to be forced. And a strong union could do that.
