The problem with this thread is that Lizzie is conflating entirely different sets of circumstances. It is one thing to be critical of promoters who try to rip off musicians by offering them little or no payment for what is a commercial performance. However it is quite wrong to confuse this with a situation where musicians choose to perform at a not-for-profit event, for their own enjoyment as well as the audience's. As others have pointed out, there are other rewards from playing music besides the financial ones, and these are sometimes more valuable.

It is also quite wrong to compare the musicians with those providing support services to the event. The musicians are choosing to participate because they will get enjoyment from the event. Even when they are being paid to perform, they will probably also be playing informally as well, for no extra. The after-hours performers-only sessions at some festivals are quite something, I can tell you. Whereas for the service providers it is simply a job of work - no one flushes out portaloos for the fun of it. Of course they get paid. That doesn't devalue the musicians.

Playing without being paid does not equate to exploitation. The floor-singer in a folk club is gaining a valuable apprenticeship in performance in front of a live audience, often effectively as a support act to prominent performers. In many other genres this kind of opportunity doesn't exist. As well as this intangible benefit of gaining experience, and the not unimportant fact that they enjoy doing it, they often get into the club free or at a reduced rate, so there is a financial benefit (not at MU rates, admittedly.

Thank you for your concern, Lizzie, but I can assure you that we musicians can look after ourselves. Where payment is due, you can be sure we will charge what the market will bear and what our own talents can justify. Allow us to be the judge of when and where we should play without seeking payment.