Performers fees (% or flat fee?)

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:59 PM

it's time the countess shut up

It's never time for stupid guests to tell anyone what to do.

does the countess really want folk clubs to disappear?

The crap ones that haven't a clue what they're doing in the current industry climate and thus prejudice artists' livelihoods, yes.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Rasener
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM

>>Call the venue what you like except a 'f*lk cl*b'. They've had their day, their purpose has long since been served, they're bad old news. Get a decent venue. Run it professionally. Put on good music. Just don't tell your punters it's 'f*lk' till after they've realised they like it<<

Now there I have to agree. We changed the name of Market Rasen Folk Club to Faldingworth Live and we hope that the locals will decide to turn up in bigger numbers. :-)

Seemingly, if the word Folk was mentioned to the villagers, it was a big turn off. So we will have to see what happens now.

Incidentally Falidingworth Live is concert style and I think that it complements other clubs who are singaround such as Gainsborough Folk Club.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,chris
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:49 PM

it's time the countess shut up - as it says, it's no longer a performer, nor an organiser.
leave it to the experts - the performers and the organisers who negotiate acceptable deals each week - based on a knowledge of how many the performer might draw, and what the local audience(s) will accommodate.

does the countess really want folk clubs to disappear?
perhaps the countess is involved in working for one of the theatres or arts centres? and thinks that audiences will turn to that type of venue if folk clubs do not exist?

by the way, festivals may pay a flat fee........ but how do the artists enjoy those flat fees? i've heard too many artists comments about the miserable fees paid at one major festival.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:38 PM

No I bloody wouldn't Dick. You're the second person that's accused me of being an advocate of concert clubs and I never said any such thing. I'm merely pointing out that WLD is off-topic for this thread and George has kindly provided another where Al's remarks would be more apposite.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:26 PM

countess, w.l.d ,s comments are relevant.
I suspect you would like to see large concert venues only,charging high door fees.
the trouble with this is, it rules out people on low incomes.
I would like to see flourishing folk clubs[that are clubs]coexisting with larger art centre type venues.
performers like Martin Carthy have in the past played both types of venue,long may that continue.http://www.dickmiles.com

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:25 PM

. . . and, Al, pay the performers the rate for the job. That's what this thread is about, not the entire ethic of who plays what where, and why.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:23 PM

Right, the other thread is up. If you want to talk about artist's fees, stay here - for the rest, go here.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:21 PM

Tom, the 'tradition' I can deal with, I've already defined it and, unusually, most peeps agreed with me. But of those words which need urgent expunging from vocabulary, top priority goes to 'f*lk' and 'club'.

Put the two together and its the most disastrous no-no turnoff in the biz. Call the venue what you like except a 'f*lk cl*b'. They've had their day, their purpose has long since been served, they're bad old news. Get a decent venue. Run it professionally. Put on good music. Just don't tell your punters it's 'f*lk' till after they've realised they like it.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:19 PM

Really, it seemed to me , it did.

the folkscene is great when it works.
it can be pretty damn good when it only nearly works.
its still worth having a go, when it only works to the satisfaction of a few people.
I've had pretty decent nights in places, when it really wasn't working on any level.

if you reduce the folk scene to the bits that work like a well oiled machine - you will do for the folkscene, what Mrs Thatcher did for the coal and steel industry.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:10 PM

But the artist doesn't have your local knowledge and contacts. The responsibility for promoting suely lies with promoters and artists. If the promoter is going to say "not my job, mate" they can't moan ehen nobody turns up.

Let me share my experience of a folk club promoter:

For our festival, we wanted to work with a local folk club. We offered to subsidise a gig for them, so they could aim a bit higher than normal and take on an artist they couldn't normally afford.

Well, after lots of umming and aahing, the organisers decided who they wanted, an artist that would cost around £500. Because of the complexity of ticketing, we decided to pay for the whole gig for them. We were also putting the artist up. There was never any offer from the club to pass on any money they might make from the raffle or the few tickets they might sell on the night (a tiny amount, I'm sure, but it is the principle of the thing) to the festival.

Now, this was supposed to be a partnership. So I asked if we could send out our leaflets in their next newsletter. Yes, came the answer - if we payed for the postage. So we ended up stickering their envelopes and franking their whole mailout.

Next came the phone call loftily demanding six free full weekend tickets for the festival. What for? What on earth had they done to deserve them? Still wanting the partnership to develop, we offered them 2 free tickets, and suggested their other friends/club helpers might want to steward. They grudgingly accepted the free tickets, but their friends were not the stewarding type, apparently.

After the festival, we got an earful about how we hadn't tried hard enough to promote their gig as it wasn't absolutely heaving. Well, it was in our festival programme, as was a map and directions to their club. It was on the website and in all of the flyers. Surely they bore some responsibility for promotion, too?

The arrogance, meanness and lack of professionalism we experienced made us reluctant to repeat the experience. I don't know how common our experience was, but I confess I did think at the time, "If this is what the promoters are like, no wonder the club network is in trouble."

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST, Tom Bliss
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:03 PM

Once again it seems to be a matter of the folk world not having enough words to go round.

Just as the word 'tradition' is used in various often very different ways - causing confusion and stress (as we've seen over the awards issue), so the word 'club' does too.

It's applied to everything frm places like the Red Lion in Brum - which only has top main and support acts, to the singaroundy sessiony thingy that I went to in Leeds last night.

And yet, and yet.. there is so much that is the same, and yet more that is completely different! And of course 'clubs' exist in every shade and hue between the two.

Some Clubs really ARE clubs (whether technically or not doesn't matter). At such places I'm happy to be welcomed in, and as long as we've agreed a figure I can live with (large or small, percentage or fee) I'll be content. Others are run almost like a theatre (though I think the number of promoters who make any money from folk music is miniscule) and there I'd expect to share any 'profit' with the promoter - who is effectively my partner in a business venture.

In the former case I would not expect the club to do any real promotion (though it helps if they remember to put up a poster and mention me in the previous perish notices)! In the latter I'd be pretty miffed if the gig had not been in the paper and on the local radio etc. etc.

Our problem is that we don't usually know with which type of event we are dealing. The extremes we can spot, but the middle ground is just suck it and see.

So forgive us if we ask for a percentage when that's not appropriate - or make any other faux pas!

The one thing I can say is that if you do want to book someone who is doing it for a living (and many don't and that's fine) it helps if people do understand how many hours go into getting us to that point where we walk on and say hi - and what the real costs are. Not necessarily to pay more money - that's up to us to accept or not - but just so that our job can find parity with other people's.

I think most folk acts are worth two drinks frm anybody's mug.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:48 PM

That's all very well, Al, and you may or may not be right.
It's just that it has sod all to do with the topic.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Dreadnought
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:45 PM

Actually I realise I didn't put that very clearly. I meant that comment to be in the context of maximizing payments to artists.

Obviously we want as many people as possible to come to the club and we do our best to spread the word as much as we can but at the end of the day if that still leads to artist being paid insultingly low fees there is a limit on how much we can do about it and remain viable as a club.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:45 PM

Dear countess
I've been around a long time. I just know that the smaller and more rationalised the scene gets, the less chance there is for the small time guys like myself, who will never win an award from anywhere, get a major album review in any of the 'FOLK' world proper, get a track played on folk radio.

The larger the more diverse the scene, the more interstices there are for us to crawl into, screw a living from the dull earth. the more reflective it is of society, the more chance of this music raising itself above the level of being a load of middle class hooey.

the world you are advocating seems to be what they have in the states already, and just read mudcat and you will soon see how envious they are of our folk club scene - even though, god knows its a very sad remnant of the legacy the 1960's handed on.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Dreadnought
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:37 PM

We're doing fine so far, thanks.

We work as hard as we can to provide a nice space, decent sound, a varied line up and as much publicity as we can. So what more am I supposed to do without a decent promotions budget and a secretary?

I'll say it again - the artist is in a much stronger position to promote themselves beyond that than I am as hobbiest booker.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Folkiedave
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:28 PM

So when negotiating with an artist I'll try to guarantee them about what I judge the door will cover for their fans plus our regulars. I absolutely reject the notion that it's the promoters job to get the punters in. That may well be the case in a commercial setting but absolutely not in the context of a folk club.

Good luck to you I do hope it works.

It answers all the questions that the countess richard has been banging on about for the whole of this thread.

And it tells George what's wrong with folk clubs.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Bernard
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:09 PM

Yes, George. The number attending is a strange one... I honestly don't believe there is a formula, answer or whatever.

As I mentioned before, the Railway Folk Club has regular attendances in excess of forty, often double. Yet 'Songs in the Snug' in the same building, but on a different night, rarely attracts more than a dozen - one of whom is none other than Ted Edwards, writer of such songs as 'Coal Hole Cavalry', 'The Coal and Albert Berry' and many others).

RFC charges on the door - a pound on a Singers Night, and varying amounts on Guest Nights. There is no door charge (or need for one) for SitS.

It's very odd.

Memberships schemes are not as prevalent as they used to be. Neither the Railway nor the Open Door use one, but Northwich and Westhoughton both do. There was a thread about just this a month or so ago... the original post on this thread was from a club organiser with a membership scheme that seems, with respect, to be working against him.

Completely off thread, but somehow related...

When people find that I work with computers as part of my job, they seem to think I should fix their computer for free when I'm a visitor in their house.

Comments?

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:08 PM

here is another angle,folk festivals in my own experience always pay a flat fee,so why should folk clubs be any different.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Dreadnought
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:03 PM

I know I'll probably regret sticking my nose into this particular bun fight but I do think the discussion has overlooked a few things that seem quite obvious to me.

When booking for or club my thinking is as follows:

We aren't in this to make money and out venue doesn't charge so all we need to do is cover the artists costs plus a few extra quid to cover additional costs like publicity and making sure we have at least some liquidity to cover unexpected problems.

So when negotiating with an artist I'll try to guarantee them about what I judge the door will cover for their fans plus our regulars. I absolutely reject the notion that it's the promoters job to get the punters in. That may well be the case in a commercial setting but absolutely not in the context of a folk club.

I reckon that even a semi-pro or amateur artist has much more time and motivation to do additional publicity than I do as an amateur club booker with a day job so if the artist is more popular than I realised or does extra work publicising themselves then it's only right and fair that they should reap the benefits so they get the 80% or 90% extra. We get more too so everyone is happy. But unless they are really big names there are some days when for whatever reason the punters just don't want to know and we end up taking a hit. Nothing wrong with that but that's why we need to be realistic about pricing so we have the funds to cover it when it happens.

I really detest the fact that I have to haggle over a few quid with people who have dedicated their lives to making such wonderful music when often their starting price is less than I would get out of bed for but unless there is a dramatic upsurge of interest in the music I don't have an alternative. At least they have a minimum idea of what they can budget towards. And if they want more they have every opportunity to generate it themselves.

There has to be some level of risk on the clubs side but if the club is viable it should be easy enough to offset this over the medium term. If interest drops you can always pitch in a few big names to stoke up interest and generate some funds if necessary. People like Martin Carthy and Martin Simpson are godsends in this situation since they appreciate the cultural value of the club scene and will cut a deal accordingly. I agree with the comments earlier that it would be good if some of the new generation big names would take a leaf from their books.

We actually only have a very few regulars who will come every week and week in and week out and we can have problems when a less well known artist wants to use the club to get exposure for themselves where I am thinking in terms of how many people they think they will bring. In these cases we may well agree on a straight 90% deal and it's then the artists responsibility to drum up as much interest as they can beyond the usual channels we provide.

Nobody has perfect knowledge – big names can draw unexpectedly small gates and a local newbie can fill the place out (we've had both instances this year) It's not great but this side of the revolution I think it's a reasonably strong model from the artists point of view.

One point that I think should be made is that in my experience folk club audiences are very sensitive to admissions fees. I'm afraid I think this is largely to do with the aging profile of most club audiences. Fifty pence is neither here nor there to me but a price rise by that amount will put our prices (currently £6) out of some of our audiences reach.

Do folk clubs have a future? George, we could relocate to the Albert Hall every week if I could only find a way to convert the vast amounts of hot air expanded on the subject on forums like this into people who actually get off their arses and come to support the resource.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,HW
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:00 PM

If this has been said earlier in the tread, I apologise, but reading the last few entries, then it's been lost in the discussion.

I don't think performers should have a problem with a low entry fee for a particular night if the club can still pay the fee they ask for, be that £100, £200 or £500. The term 'club' implies an organisation with members and if those members care to pay for three singers nights to one guest night (or however the ratio works out), then that should be their choice. Not all club members feel that being able to have more, or more expensive, guests would be an advantage, and the existence of a bigger, concert style club nearby does not mean that the small club should follow their example. For a start, the audience may be totally different and followers of one type may not care for the format of the other. It is a free country, after all, and there is nothing wrong with enjoying the company of your friends, and the pleasure of making music yourself rather than the different pleasure of listening to othe performers. And I'm sure many people like both types of club, but maybe value each and wish to have the option of attending each on separate occasions.

Where I do agree with Countess Richard (but would not choose to use her language to express the point) is that Performers should be paid a fair fee. That may mean clubs that are principally singers clubs having less frequent guests, or increasing fees a little for guest nights, or by raising money in other ways. But I don't think it is up to the performer to dictate anything other than the fee they are prepared to accept. Clubs can make their own minds up how to raise the fee.

The inevitable conclusion for me, therefore, is that Flat fees is the best arrangement. Everyone knows where they are. Performers can accept a lower fee if it fills a hole in their schedule or they particularly like the venue. Clubs can choose not to book that artist, or save up for a bit longer, or increase entry charges to cover the fee if they want. Go down the percentage path and the performer can (with good reason) resent a badly publicised venue, or a club which promises and audience of 100 and provides 20, and organisers can feel either embarrassed if their club night coincides with the world cup final, or intimidated if they are forced into charging ticket prices beyond their club members pockets.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:41 AM

Just noticed WLD's post to me above.
The thread is about professional performers and how that are remunerated.
So I'm at a loss to understand your concern about what I think (or what you think I might think) about these people you call 'enthusiasts'.
Except that if they are 'enthusiastic' about a performance why assume they are not so keen on paying for it accordingly?
Or is it your assumption that the performer can extract tokens from an applause meter and use these as currency at Tesco?

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:35 AM

OK, leaving invective and insults aside, and having danced around what I believe to be the real issue, I think the thread has at last begun to touch on it: Numbers of punters. Bums on seats. And the "folk club scene as we know it" and the undoubted changes taking place trust me on this, they are, and I don't even know the half of it myself.

Because the problem is not about fees for artists versus club survival. Neither is it as simple a choice between 20 people at £10 or 50 people at £4 or 80 people at £2.50 - this implies a straight and exclusive correlation between entry cost and number of people, which we know it isn't true. How do we know it? I can name clubs within 15 miles of each other where one has consistently 70-80 people (and sometimes 100 or more) at £10 and the other struggles to bring in 15 punters at £2.50. Clearly there are other factors involved also.

Behind the bristling and the language, I believe countess richard has actually a very decent grasp of what is happening and the forces at play - she is well-placed to know that through her numerous contacts and her experience in the folk scene as a reviewer and researcher. One may argue that she may throw shit around higgledy-piggledy sometimes, but she does not talk crap (and I am not being condescending, countess, hand on heart I just want people to pay attention to some of your points that I believe to be very valid).

So what are those other factors? And what are the changes to the folk scene that are taking place? Some time ago I started a thread on this, called The Future of Folk Clubs or something like that, but it inevitably lost its way amidst people's backs getting rubbed up the wrong way and people's wish to simply state what they know from their 30 mile-radius experience. What is needed is some thinking, putting facts together rather than comparing them to each other, in an attempt to identify the patterns. And then each club, organiser and artist can make up their own minds as to where in this new scene they wish to play a part.

Anyway, this thread is not the right one for the discussion I haqve in mind. I will start another one, titled "UK folk scene - do clubs have a future, and how to secure it". Bit it will have a LONG preamble, so gimme a little time to compose it.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Rasener
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM

For concerts which are held on a Saturday evening I charge £5 and just occasionally (once) I have charged £7. I generally book single performers for that like Allan Taylor, Bob Fox, Martyn Whyndham-Read, Derek Brimstone, Pete Coe and soforth. I never book an A Capella singer and won't (at least I am honest about that).

For my normal Friday, variety evening I charge £3.

I get more people on the Friday evening from the Village than Saturday. The village people wouldn't know any of the performers on a Saturday night, including Vin Garbutt :-)

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,Ex-semi pro
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:12 AM

Villan,
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - I am not a performer these days. I am therefore in the same position as the Countess, with no vested interest, other than an empathy with performers.

I'd like to see you have a full house paying at least a fiver a head - that way you could think about having more than one guest, a larger combo or possibly a Big Name.

On the other hand, as someone else has said, if you can satisfy your members and the musicians at £2.50 a head good luck to you, although I think that's a short term position.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Rasener
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 10:38 AM

May I add, I would be very grateful and proud to have top performers at my club, if teher wasn't the slightest risk on my part.

pm me if you don't want to go public.

I will ring you and have a chat.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Rasener
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 10:34 AM

What would you have Ex-semi pro

Your fee covered with an audinec in excess of 50, but paying the cost of a pint to get in

or

Your fee covered with an audience of say 20 who have paid say £10 each to get in.

I would rather have 50 people watching a performer than 20, and I would imagine most performers would prefer that as well.

I think the whole point here, is, are you as a performer getting what you think is an acceptable fee. Surely thats what you should be interested in.

How the organsier gets those 50 odd people in is their responsibilty.

Maybe the best bet, is if a performer knows they are good enough, that they hire the venue and do the publicity and take all the profit.

There are a lot of performers that should ask themselves if they are good enough to handle the last paragraph.

As a test, I am willing to help any performer who thinks they can pull in an audience based on their name at Faldingworth Live, providing they bear all the costs and the loss if that happens. They can also state the door price. They would take all income, less costs.
As long as there is no liability on my part. Ticket sales would be handled through the performer or performers agent.

OK any takers ?

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Scrump
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 10:29 AM

I haven't had time to read and digest all of this thread, which seems to have appeared over the weekend.

But it seems that some clubs only charge £2.50 on guest nights, which seems to me remarkably good value for the punters, at being around the price of a pint of ale. Hats off to the organisers if they are able to do it at that price and still pay the performers what they want.

The clubs I go to usually charge considerably more than that (typically £8 or £10, but sometimes even more for really big name acts).

But I can see the problem, if people are used to paying so little, to get them in every week at higher prices. I admit I've recently missed a couple of nights at one club I belong to, through a combination of cash-flow problems (OK, I was skint!), and the acts not being of great interest to me; whereas I normally go every week, unless it's an unavoidable absence. So I can appreciate the balancing act between getting regular attendees at a lower price and a less frequent attendance at a higher price.

I wouldn't presume to tell anyone how to run their clubs, but to charge such a low fee in this day and age seems going a bit too far. Are these people really so impoverished that a fiver a week (roughly two pints of beer) would be too much for a whole evening's entertainment?

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 10:24 AM

Oh, you mean like not telling anyone to go and fuck themselves, as you did to me?

By 'outdated corner' I mean that it is no longer the early revival when anyone (including me) who thought they could perform went out and did it for fun, very little money and no business sense. Today, music IS a business, artists' careers and livelihoods are at stake and it is wholly anachronistic and misguided to muddle on in an amateurish way in unsuitable venues, insufficiently thought out means of funding and unprofessional or non-existent promotion. 'F*lk clubs' as we knew them are finished.

For anyone who takes this critical analysis as a 'personal insult', it may be that 'cap' and fit' may apply. As for your venue, Les Worrall, I haven't a clue whether it may or not because I haven't seen it. Now go and fuck yourself. It will do less damage than screwing artists.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 10:22 AM

Dear Countess (and I speak here as someone whose cousin once got mistaken for Lord Lucan)

I'm sure there is much nobility in your desire to see folksingers get paid a decent screw. However if you had engaged in the nuts and bolts that hold the live music scene together in England, I think maybe you would have a more generous of view of people you have been talking to, and their motives.

The folk music scene is a movement. The places in the movement occupied by professionals - music instrument makers, performers, journalists - still leave a lot of room for other people - shall we call them enthusiasts.

Many of the enthusiasts are quite as accomplished as the professionals, but they don't want to live the life of self employed small businessman - which is basically what we are, when we decide to make this our pricipal source of revenue.

the bigger the movement, the more all embracing - the more chance of artistic sucess, because there will be more chance of attaining or re-establishing a living folk culture. Even if you don't like an aspect of the folk revival - try not to seek its diminishment.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,Ex-semi pro.
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 10:13 AM

I used to make a useful supplemental wage as a musician, often playing pubs where conditions ranged from the fairly good to the downright appalling. I've been there, done it etc.

Two things occur to me on reading this thread.
Firstly that the English folk club scene is probably doomed. The sort of piddling sums of money that people seem to be prepared to pay to watch quality entertainment is derisory in some cases. You, and you know who you are, value the experience at less than the price of a pint, two hour's parking in any town centre, a video rental, a Chinese takeaway and so on. It's time to wake up to the fact that we're in 2007 and not 1807 and, as is said in Yorkshire "tha nivver gets owt for nowt". I reckon that many folk club members have little or no perception of the costs involved in being a travelling musician. So my advice would be, be be prepared to dig deeper in your pockets and recognise the superb talent that is out there, otherwise you may find that the 'scene' that you value so little will disappear.

Did I say two things? I've forgotten what the second one was.

By the way I do recognise that there are organisers out there who are doing a splendid job at grass roots level.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Rasener
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 10:07 AM

Incidentally Countess, I don't think you have come back and suggested what to you is a valid fee for a performer.I need to get my head round that one, becuase by the sounds of it, most oganisers do seem to pay the rate that the performer agrees on, not the other way round.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Rasener
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 10:03 AM

>>What I don't comprehend is why some are so keen to defend their outdated corner<<

Who would that be then ? and what do you mean by outdated corner ?

And please, no more ranting and raving. Just very simply explain what you mean without insulting anybody. :-)

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Girl Friday
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 08:53 AM

My club is both physically, (around 60 max) and actually, (12 -20 bums on seats) small. I need to negotiate with the performers themselves to get an affordable fee. Sometimes I can do that with agents, but that is rare. To this end, I always offer a minimum fee against the door. I can't be doing with the hassle of percentages.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:59 AM

our movement

. . . as seen through rose coloured specs.

It's an INDUSTRY. In which the 'workers', the performers, are being treated shabbily as a direct result of not recognising that but pretending that we're still living in the collecting days of the 19th century or the Revival of the mid 20th.

I draw your attention to #66 by Tom Bliss here on the BBC Message Board which, though not on this subject, impinges upon it.

What I don't comprehend is why some are so keen to defend their outdated corner and refuse to admit how times are so vastly changed, or to recognise that trying to dwell in the past under no longer acceptable conditions damages both artists and the music itself.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Bernard
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:58 AM

Sorry, WLD - our posts crossed.

You've summed it up quite succinctly...!

;o)

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Bernard
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:57 AM

No, Dave, I agree... the 'argument' (discussion?) here was initially about pricing structures in folk clubs.

People who depend upon the existence of folk clubs for a proportion of their income are feeling the pinch as the existence of such clubs continues to dwindle. For this reason a number of highly esteemed performers have had to revert to 'day jobs' to eke out their income.

It's also true that some have done this for different reasons - Steve Turner, for example, just got fed up of touring some 15 or so years ago, and concentrated his efforts on his musical instrument business. Fortunately for us he started touring again, albeit on a smaller scale, a couple of years ago.

However, we have to accept that what suits one person will not suit another. Folk clubs are a fact which cannot be ignored, and will probably continue to exist in some form or other, albeit in smaller numbers.

Perhaps we could substitute the term 'Concert Club' for 'Folk Club' in the context of this thread, as the two are different in many ways.

A concert club (I think!) is typically one where 'residents' do a 'warm up' before the main performer, and 'floor singers' are rarely, if ever, allowed to perform.

A folk club, on the other hand, uses floor singers as the warm-up, and may well not have any designated residents.

A singaround is irrelevant in this context, as a guest artiste would not be booked, but I include the term for the sake of completeness.
(It's quite bizarre that I am actively involved in the running of clubs which fit all three of the above 'categories'... though I must stress that I'm not in any way financially responsible, nor do I have any particular influence in the booking of guests.)
Festivals and other concert venues are typically 'one-off' concerts as opposed to regular venues, and it's highly likely that the 'gap' between the two will continue to widen.

Some performers will rarely be seen in folk clubs, which may or may not be a bad thing - it is insensitive to dismiss something you do not care for just on that basis, as other may care for it a lot.

I don't care for jazz music or jazz clubs, but I accept that others live for such things, and good luck to them!

Perhaps what I have just said would be more appropriately covered in a new thread - or maybe there is already an existing thread on the subject, I dont know.

However, I'm the type of performer who prefers the atmosphere of a 'folk club', or folk club style concert venue... and there are quite a few still thriving.

Some people in this thread, sadly, cannot live and let live, it seems. They would like to deprive people who they disparage from their main source of enjoyment.

If I, as an atheist, were to suggest all churches should be closed, I would rightly expect to have members of those churches taking me to task...

Each to their own...

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Rasener
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:52 AM

We'll drown em in the bath :-)

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:39 AM

sorry to hear you're packing it in, Les.

i've just read through the thread - can't make owt out of the arguments.

the whole point about the folk movement is that you start working from where you find yourself. whether an artist, or an audience member or a club orgaiser - you either do what is pragmatic or you don't stay in the business very long.

You may not comprehend why someone does something, but if it works for him or her - well you should be supportive because they are staying afloat on a what can be a quite treacherous sea of circumstance.

I think its this inability to be tolerant and mutually supportive that has holed our movement below the waterline time and time again.

I don't suppose what I'm saying will make any difference and these same characters will clawing each others eyes out on another thread within the week - saying that so and so isn't 'real' folk music, not like wot I do!

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: jonm
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:08 AM

I'm not going to offer any opinions - too many people have done that already - merely some information.

I tried to stage a non-folk gig recently where I knew I could guarantee about 50 people, plus what we could get through advertising. Not all of these have decent incomes and the event would not be of such significance that they could afford huge ticket prices, as they might with a "name" band. Any surplus made would go to charity.

Most of the venues I approached commented on legislation and its impact on their prices:

Pub one, £40 for an upstairs room with stage and its own toilets, plus another £30 if we wanted the bar in the room open.

Pub two, £35 for a room, no additional facilities (bar, loos etc. in the main pub).

Village hall one, £130 for a large room and a small room (which could be a changing room), plus toilet and kitchen facilities. No bar or licence, the cheapest we could get a local pub to provide a bar was £60.

Village hall two, £220 for large room with stage, plus kitchen and loos. Bar and staff available at extra cost.

Arts Centre, £650 for hall with stage, dressing rooms, loos, kitchen and bar facilities all in.

Hotel, £1000 for large room with bar and loo facilities. Discounted rates on accommodation rooms for changing or overnight.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,Black Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 06:42 AM

O.K. John - didn't take it as a 'pop'!

Read it the way intended but it does prove your last statement - easily misunderstood.

peace

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,John Robinson
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 06:34 AM

Sorry BH - that was meant to be a jokey comment not a "pop" at an earlier post. Just goes to show how easy it is to be misunderstood!

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,Black Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 06:28 AM

Yeah John,

this forum is supposed to be about sharing views, not trading insults and I'm sorry I ever get to that stage, but some people .....

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,John Robinson
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 06:24 AM

Hey Black Hawk, did we just have a discussion without yelling at each other?

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,John Robinson
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 06:22 AM

One of my hobby horses is telling young bands not to do these deals but, to be honest, even old hands accept them and if a young band wants to play live they often don't have a choice.

That said, because I have done a lot of work on audience development for my main artist we have done door charge splits where we've given the venue more than £100. You could argue that "door less £100" would be better in those circumstances but in my experience guaranteeing a minimum income to the venue leaves them with no reason to promote. I'd rather give them a bigger piece of the pie in return for more work and comittment.

As you say, it's up to the two parties to reach a deal that they both feel happy with.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,Black Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 06:12 AM

John Robinson.

They ARE rip-offs !

If artistes dont accept bookings those venues will either fold (rightly) or change their ways.

Again, as has been repeated in this thread, its mutual agreement and if the two parties concerned are satisfied who are we to disagree?

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: GUEST,John Robinson
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 05:43 AM

Just to throw another spanner in the works ...

Outside of the folk world, the indie/rock/americana/et al scene is populated by venues offering "the door less £amount", where £amount varies between £60 to £100. If you take less than that on the door, you pay them the balance.

The worst deal I've seen is at a Scottish hotel that has established itself as a "proper venue". The deal? The hotel takes the first £100 through the door and 30% of the rest. Being a hotel they of course offer artists accomodation ... at a discounted rate!

And to think I gave up the day job to do this ......

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Folkiedave
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 05:38 AM

The argument is not that if folk clubs disappear there will be nowhere for people to perform.

Let's take that rising young star - Seth Lakeman. Whatever we think about his music and his success - hands up those that have seen him in a folk club. Ok I know there will be some and especially in his early years - but not much over the last five years. But he has an excellent folk background.

I was lucky enough to see Kate Rusby in a folk club - not many have. But I live locally to her.

There are all sorts of festivals these days at various levels and most people can get to them. It may mean the end of a lot of professional performers and whilst I would hate to see that - if the people who love this music want it cheaply then that is what happens.

50 people in a folk club at £6.00 each = £300.00. After expenses just about a living for a solo singer, but not much for a duo and very little for three.

I happen to think that folk clubs are a dying breed and at the moment good ones are few and far between.

It is not going to improve.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Bernard
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 04:53 AM

Countess...

Why is everybody else wrong and not you?

"I wonder why it continues to amaze me how some people draw an example from their own extremely limited experience and present it as a universal truth that couldn't possibly exist in a variant or contradictory form."

Has it escaped your notice that everyone, organisers and artistes alike (I'm speaking as an artiste who sees the running of clubs first hand, yet you persistently fail to acknowledge that!), seem to be saying much the same thing - which indicates that the example they draw is from similar experiences to everyone else?

Why has this thred become yet another example of Countess Richard slagging everyone else off who disagrees with her?

I'm not anally-retentive enough to be bothered going through your postings to cite such threads, but they are well into double figures.

Nobody wants to screw the artistes (erm... that came out rather unfortunately... I can thinks of some... hee hee!), but we all seem to agree that the artistes wouild be well-screwed if there was nowhere for them to perform...!

Rant away, but I will no longer be baited by someone who is a master at it...

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 03:42 AM

No chance.

As long as there is so much wrong in the musbiz as so many sitting on their arses saying 'but the status quo is fine we've always done things like this', I won't be shutting up.

Get used to it, or better still, do something to up the profile of English music and its exponents yourselves.

Subject: RE: Performers fees (% or flat fee?)
From: Dave Earl
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 02:33 AM

"Countess, I thought you had stopped ranting and raving!!!! "

If only she would.

Dave