MUSIC - VALUE/COST

Subject: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Stewart
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 01:01 AM

I'd like to explore the question of the value and cost of music. This is prompted by the following. Our open mic/concert venue at a restaurant was sponsored by a local non-profit acoustic music organization. It was a beautiful restaurant, with good acoustics and fine food. For the weekly open mic, a $3 cover charge was requested of all but the musicians who were exempt; the cover charge went entirely to the music organization. The monthly concert had a $8 cover charge and the total door was split 70/30 between the performers and the organization. The restaurant received no money from the organization, but benefited by increased business.

This was fine for about a year. But then the restaurant found they were losing money on open mic nights, when they would stay open an extra two hours and many of the musicians would just come to perform and listen, but not order anything. Few would even volunteer to help run the open mic or join the organization. On concert nights, some people would come and sit at tables without ordering and, when the house was full, this kept other paying customers from sitting and ordering.

The restaurant then instituted a $5 minimum food order. The reaction of the organization was to end the venue immediately since the minimum food order was seen as an extra cover charge. They maintained that performers at the open mic should not have to pay for performing (after all, they were excempt from the cover charge), and people should not have to pay an extra charge to enjoy the concert. In other words, folk music should available at a minimum cost to the people, and no one should have to pay to play. Is this a carryover from the '60s when folkmusic (for the folks) was considered free? Should it be free?

This was the best open mic/concert venue ever for the organization, and was in large part due to the beautiful space, comfortable atmosphere, and fine food. It attracted some of the best musicians and provided a listening audience. This was an added value for which not everyone was willing to pay. I realize that this is a classic conflict between a restaurant venue and a music organization.

To what extent should people, who benefit by the beautiful space in which to perform and listen to music, be obliged to pay for that added value? No one is asking them to come and perform at an open mic for free - they do that because they obtain something of value from the experience. And is $8 cover + $5 minimum food order too much to pay for a concert in a beautiful environment? Is there something of added value that people are not obliged to pay for? Or should the restaurant be obligated to provide this free even if it is costing them money? Perhaps the restaurant does not value the music for its own sake.

Musicians should not have to (or be asked to) play for free unless they choose to do so. Musicians who choose to play at an open mic do so either because they enjoy playing and listening to others play, or because they have a new CD or gig to promote. In either case they are getting something of value, or else they would not be there.

In this particular case, the whole issue came to a head when some life-members, long-time supporters, came to a concert 15 min early without reservations, and had to wait while others with dinner reservations were seated. They were finally seated, after the concert had begun, at a table that they considered less than satisfactory (the house was full). They did not want to order anything, and left in a huff after they were told about the minimum order. They then complained to the organization. Were they justified in their reaction?

There are many issues raised here. I would be interested in hearing your responses.

S.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 01:10 AM

Side me with the restaurant. Profit is NOT a dirty word when you're in business and to have what sounds to an obviously nice venue at your disposal would seem to warrant a few bucks. If I'm the restaurant, I'm damn well going to seat someone who's spending money faster than someone who is going to nurse an ice water on the rocks all night!

BTW, was that a 4 door Huff they left in or one of the hatchbacks?

Spaw

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Sorcha
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 01:21 AM

Side me with the restaurant, too. I consider it extremely rude to go to a restaurant just to listen to music and not order food.

There is a Mexican restaurant near me that sometimes has a Veracruz harper come from Veracruz and play. Not only do I order food and beer, but I tip the harper too!

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: GUEST,SeanM, Cookie gone a-wander
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 05:05 AM

Definitely side me with the restaurant.

Of course, this CAN get a bit overdone...

There's a venue out here in CA that I won't go to anymore, due to the ENORMOUS amount of fees that attach to the door charge.

First off, this place charges an average $25 a head entry anyway. It's a mid-to-upper name draw kind of a place, so that is not out of line.

However...

If you just want to watch the show, there's a $10 parking fee, plus a two drink minimum, at $5 a pop.

If you want to watch the show from within 50-70 feet of the stage, you have to buy dinner, $25 a pop. Plus parking and two drink min.

If you want to sit NEXT to the stage, you must buy tickets, reserve seating (not that you get to pick a seat, but you'll be given 'preferred seating' for the show), pay for parking, buy dinner, buy two drinks, AND pay the minimum mandatory %20 gratuity.

For a show by Robyn Hitchcock (quirky alternative college-rock kinda guy), my seats for myself and my date wound up costing me roughly $120.

I do fully realize that this is the exception (at least I hope to whatever gods of venues that this is the exception). I've been to a couple smaller shows with either low door or no door who've been dependant on the exposure that having the show would get them.

Those places, I always try to support.

M

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Branwen23
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 12:52 PM

I'll have to side with the venue, also. It costs venues money to have live music. There are at least three organizations which require annual fees from venue owners.
I have a good friend who owns a very small pub in Fort Worth, TX who has had to stop having live music in part because of these fees. In my friend's situation, the place is so small that he can't get many people in; there's limited table space; there are multiple entrances which make it difficult to charge a cover. So in his case, after the fees, paying the performers, and not being able to get as many patrons in, he ends up losing money when he has live music.
If he were able to charge a cover, it would be possible for him to continue to have live music. It's a loss, because it's a great venue, with a great atmosphere, and there are several musicians in the area who would love to play there, myself included. But everbody misses out when the venue can't recoup the cost of having live music.


-Branwen-

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 02:07 PM

Well I think this is a case of looking at the wrong issue. To choose sides is to endorse an unfortunate we-they peception that seems to have been present already.

MY first question would be: How come no one sat down to talk this over BEFORE everyone got so upset that a lovely opportunity got wrecked? What got in the way of solving a problem that could have been solved?

And I'm tired of threads where people just choose up sides, though I dearly love most of the people I know who get caught up in them. (Hi guys!) So when I see a thread like this, that I don't think was meant to result in that, I try to think like this: What would have been the win-win view of this-- so maybe someone could avoid this problem in future?

~S~

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Naemanson
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 03:54 PM

I have been working open mike coffeehouses for the last five years. We always charge everyone who walks through the door. People will pay to perform. At the Side Door in Brunswick, Maine, they pay $5 to get in, $1 for a bottomless cup of coffee, and there are goodies for a variety of prices. At the Mocha Cafe admission is by donation, $5 is suggested but not required or looked for. We have coffee and some kind of jiuce for $1, goodies for $1 each, and a light meal, soup or a sandwich for $5 - $6. AND WE GET MORE PERFORMERS THAN WE CAN PUT ON THE STAGE!

Music has value. People are willing to pay to listen and to play. Of the two venues above, the Side Door has the nicer space but that doesn't keep people away from Mocha. A nice space is OK but people come out for the music and the atmosphere. If you can provide that your venue is almost unimportant.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 03:58 PM

So how much do you get per 1/8 note, and how much goes into overhead for each 1/8 note (and what's the time averaged tempo)

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Stewart
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 04:10 PM

Dear ~S~ , I'm sorry, I didn't mean this as a thread for people to choose sides, but rather to elicit discussion. I tried to present both sides as accurately as I could. There are probably good points to be made on both sides, and also things to criticize. You are right, this should have been resolved by getting both sides together to talk before everyone got upset. But, unfortunately, that didn't happen.

To try to tip the scale more towards the organization, I will quote from their newsletter: [regarding the open mic] "The venue provides the space, the musicians fill it with people, and that is a fair trade. Musicians are doing their job when they bring people into an otherwise empty room. You cannot ask them to pay. Anything. Ever. Pay to play? No way. In this instance, it is not the five dollars that is the problem. Most patrons and musicians spend that much anyway. The tipping point is the requirement to do so. It reveals a fundamental disregard for the value of what the musicians bring to the table. And that is why we must leave." To the organization, this was a non-negotiable matter of policy. To the restaurant, once they made their decision there was no going back.

Respectfully, S.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 04:48 PM

Obviously though, the organization was mistaken in thinking they were BRINGING business to the restaurant.
The Restaurant had the figures to compare its income with and without music. If the music was really attracting paying business isn't it obvious that they would have continued to be accomodating?

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 07:03 PM

The folk club needs a venue. The restaurant needs to make profits in order to continue providing the venue. It seems like $3 is reasonable, but I wouldn't pay a total of $8 for an open mic, although $5 for food isn't that much unless the prices are through the roof if people want to eat.

If someone allows the use of their establishment, they get to call the shots, and that includes seating those with reservations first and having a minimum order.

I wonder why the restaurant instituted the minimum charge if people were already paying that willingly, as your newsletter stated. Of course, there could be something else going on. They could be trying to guarantee a certain amount of money, or they may just want more money than they already make. In any case, it's their option.

As far as musicians playing for free and listening to all the others for free, it's also their option to make that rule. What many fail to realise (and this may not apply to your situation) is that music organizations that support them also require their support. If most of the folks involved in these organizations are musicians, and if musicians don't feel like they ever have to pay or volunteer to help, the organization isn't going to last very long. It's a bit like the Little Red Hen, where everybody is willing to eat the bread, but no one wants to help make it.

It sounds like your club simply needs to fine a volunteer venue that doesn't need to make as much profit as the restaurant.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Susan of DT
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 08:03 PM

(dick greenhaus) Seems to me the question resolved itself: the added value of the muic to the patrons was something less than five bucks.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: reggie miles
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 09:18 PM

Music and entertainment has value. It seems the question here is whether it should be taxed by fees of various kinds for the right to engage in the activity in certain places of business. There's no question that an establishment has the right to operate their venue as they see fit. While I understand that there are those who can afford to pay to play and do so. I find it perplexing that a venue or anyone would want to force someone who has something valuable to offer for free to pay for the right to do so.

Do you ask your plumber to pay for the right to work on YOUR plumbing? How about your dentist, must he pay for the right to play around inside YOUR mouth? These guys offer a service as does any entertainer. Why should an entertainer be any different than any other skilled laborer in asking to be paid for their services? If a singer or songwriter or player offers their service for free then to be taxed for their effort is a slap in the face. The entertainer offers what skills they have, entertainment. If you don't like their style for one reason or another then by all means explain why you'd just as soon not have them as guests anymore. Just as you would explain to a mechanic why his repair job did not fix your car problem. Now if you never paid for the labor in the first place but was relying on the goodly nature of this repairman to help you out for free, it seems to me, asking this laborer to then pay you for the right to service your vehicle is more than a little rude. Especially if the service offered provides what is needed. Offering someone a glass of tap water for driving to your place of business and providing a service that has taken years of effort to maintain and develop is nothing more than being cheap. Excuse me, a few cents worth of carbonated water with some sort of sugar flavored solution in it is not going to break anyone. I am continually amazed at how many venues with open stages choose to not compensate a thirsty musician, who gets up on their stage and sweats out fifteen or twenty minutes of musical entertainment, with more than a glass of tap water. Okay, if the guy gets up and is generally obnoxious, show him the door but if, on the other hand, there is value provided, rewarding it is the only proper thing to do. How else are you going to attract those whose talents can benefit your business?


You shall reap what you sow. End of rant.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Sorcha
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 09:48 PM

"The venue provides the space, the musicians fill it with people, and that is a fair trade. Musicians are doing their job when they bring people into an otherwise empty room."

Apparently the room was NOT otherwise empty, and the musicians were filling it up with people who did not want to buy food, which is after all, a restaruants primary business...........

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Naemanson
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 12:41 AM

"Do you ask your plumber to pay for the right to work on YOUR plumbing? How about your dentist, must he pay for the right to play around inside YOUR mouth? These guys offer a service as does any entertainer."

Agreed but...

If I hire a plumber I expect to get someone with experience and expertise, someone who has made plumbing their life's work. Thus I expect to pay for that. I believe the same thing applies here. The venue was an open mike in a restaurant. By definition an open mike is a venue for amateurs, not professionals. The show can be just as good but these are not people who make their living with the music. The impetus is there, the talent may be there but they still have a day job. As such, I think they should expect to pay to play. Not much, but enough to support the venue and keep the open mike concept alive. It is similar to self publishing.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From:
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 12:53 AM

I take the side of the restaurant. It is not a question of whether the music is free or not. It is a question of who is paying for it.

Murray

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: campfire
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 02:09 AM

When I go to see music in a place that also serves food, I usually plan to eat there. It helps support the venue, as the food is generally where they make the profit, not the music.

However, I'm not everybody. One of our best little coffeehouses closed down a year ago because many patrons came for the music, bought a (bottomless) cup of coffee or a soft drink, and stayed all night. The cover charge (when there was one) went to the musicians, so the only money the coffeehouse got was the profits off the food/drink.

Not enough profits; coffeehouse closed. No more music, either, of course.

campfire

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 02:32 AM

A "bottom less" cup of anything is the venues' problem. Where I am living, "bottomless" is only operative if you buy a meal. Otherwise, first refill is free, second re fill is full price again.....etc.

FOOD, not music, is the restaurant business. Beverages,(and finger food maybe) not music, are a Coffee Houses' business. Both should charge enough for their wares to cover their own costs, so that any musicians involved either get the cover charge or split it with the venue.

Both have a right to expect customers to pay for the wares offerd, and both have a right to do a Cover Charge if there is music involved on a particular night.

Waaay back in the '60s I frequented a Coffee House that had NO cover, and provided an Open Mic every night they were open. Musicians PAID for their comestibles just like everybody else. Hot water was free, a tea bag was a buck.

How long your tea bag lasted was up to you, but when you wanted a new one, it was a buck. Period. Coffee was one refill, then another buck. (This was way before lattes and cappucino)

Gods, how I miss Coffee Houses. I would start one here, but I know it would not fly..........(Redneck Kuntry, ya know?) We do have a coffee house of sorts......very Yuppie, open 5 AM to 3 PM 5 days a week......lattes with bagels and cream cheese........it's a "Housewife" thing. My kind of music just wouldn't go over well there.

Hell, I don't even have a St. Pat's Day gig.........

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: reggie miles
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 05:08 AM

Naemanson, I don't know where you are from but around here there are some very talented folks that end up at open stages for one reason or another, both professional and not. An open stage is not by definition strictly amateur night. It is just open, open to all, pro or not. You can limit your open stage to nonprofessionals only, or do just about any kind of a restriction you wish with your event. Some stages have many fine and talented performers show up because they wish to advertise an up and coming concert event in the area or a new recording release. Musicians may wish to use the venue to test some new material out before a live audience, like a rehearsal. Open stages can be a venue's way of finding qualified talent to perform at their place of business, like an audition. I'm not sure if you can easily distinguish whether a particular entertainer is or isn't making their living that way by just watching them at an open stage. Assuming they are there and therefore they are amateurs for participating is a bit presumptuous. I go because there are many venues who will hire performers if they enjoy your performance at their open stage. Most stages will have a limited time that they alot you to show off your skills. It can be quite a challenge to work within those constraints. Again, there are probably as many different reasons for appearing at an open stage as there are different types of open stages to enjoy. Some will offer you a drink on the house for playing and some won't. Some places will recognize you as an entertainer and buy you a drink when you walk in the door just because they like your music. Some venues offer dinner and drinks while you perform some will only offer thanks.

I don't understand your comparison to self publishing as I am not one of those who is involved in that sort of activity. I don't think I am anyway.

A friend once told me that if they pay you $25 for playing, they treat you like you're worth $25. If they pay you $250, you get treated like $250 and if they pay you $2500 you get treated accordingly. It is sadly therefore understandable that if you get paid nothing....

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Naemanson
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 09:26 AM

Reggie, I don't think you understand what I am saying. We don't limit the open mike to amateurs. Pros are welcome. But look at what you said. "Musicians may wish to use the venue to test some new material out before a live audience, like a rehearsal." Why shouldn't they pay a minimal fee to experiment on their audience?

What I was saying is that the open mike is one of the few ways an amateur will be able to perform before a live audience. Why shouldn't they pay for the chance.

Plus, the performer's stage time is limited to a few songs/tunes. The rest of the time they are audience. Shouldn't they pay for the privelege of seeing the rest of the show?

And you are right, the open mike is a way for a venue to audition for talented individuals to be featured acts in the future. We have used it that way for years. How else would talented amateurs get to be semi pros? Once again, they should pay for that opportunity, not because it is an opportunity but because it will keep the venue going for others as well.

Look at the opening post on this thread. The end result is that they lost their venue. At this stage in the game it no longer matters who should or shouldn't pay because no one can play at the open mike. I get the sense that there is no other venue in that area. Who loses? Everyone.

Finally you wrote, "A friend once told me that if they pay you $25 for playing, they treat you like you're worth $25. If they pay you $250, you get treated like $250 and if they pay you $2500 you get treated accordingly. It is sadly therefore understandable that if you get paid nothing...."

Sadly, that is true. I have been on the receiving end of that. But keep in mind that the atmosphere and treatment of people is everyone's personal responsibility. In my coffeehouse I treat everyone as though they are special. I don't care if they are professional quality or can't carry a tune in a bucket, they are all equal in my coffeehouse. Why?

They are the reason my coffehouse exists. All of them. They support the venue and it is theirs. I only set out chairs and tables and lay out the sound system. I only make it available but without them I wouldn't be there doing it. And I wouldn't feel the joy of knowing that everyone in the audience is enjoying themselves. I know it becuae they paid to be there and thereby made the conscious choice to participate.

My profit comes when people thank me for doing the work. My profit comes from the feeling I get when I see the smile on their faces. My profit comes from seeing a teenager on stage, scared, mouth dry, strumming his new guitar and trying to remember the chords while the audience listens in rapt silence. Damn, I love doing that work!

Sorry to go on like that but this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 05:50 PM

Sorcha-- take your fiddle over there AND GO PLAY FOR THEM. I double dawg dare ya, try it ONCE. Just sit there having a coffee and see if someone donesn;t ask you to whip out the axe and wail away. Klezmerize them. Good GOD, don't you think they NEED it?????

Soon you will be giving lessons, have a steady income, and can buy a hotel.

My new venue is a flea market becoming a used bookstore. (I wrote about it in the Performing with Family thread.) Concrete, dust, and and mildew everywhere. Till WE set up our stuff, and ripped a couple of tunes into the air, that's all you'd think the place has. WRONG!

~S~

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Gary T
Date: 12 Mar 01 - 10:24 AM

I think there's a fundamental flaw in thinking about the musicians "paying to play." They aren't paying to play. They're paying to get inside the building. If all they wanted to do was play, they could stand outside on a street corner or in the park (or wherever it's legal) and play to their heart's content.

Just give a moment's thought to the overhead involved in having a venue. There's rent or mortgage, furnishings, staff, insurance, utilities, etc. If the musicians find paying a cover charge to get in unacceptable, they're free to provide their own venue. See how the expense of doing that compares to paying a cover charge and/or minimum order in the restaurant.

I think there's also a supply and demand issue here. People are willing to pay to hear music, depending on who's playing, what they're playing, etc. But not all people are willing to pay, or pay much, to hear all music. How many volunteer plumbers or auto mechanics are fighting for the chance to fix your pipes or repair your car? How badly do you need those things taken care of? Now, how badly do you NEED to hear this music, and how many performers are scrambling for the chance to provide it? In most markets, people playing the type of music we're discussing get paid little or nothing because, ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, it's worth little or nothing. It's probably doing well to get the patrons to pay the cover. There's simply much more of this music available than there is willingness to pay a lot to hear it.

Bottom line, if the musicians in question are providing such a valuable service, why aren't they actually being hired and paid well to do so? That probably sounds harsher than I mean it, but I think it's valid question. To get into a snit about paying a nominal fee to participate in an open mic venue is, in my opinion, demonstrating a failure to see the realities of the situation.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 12 Mar 01 - 06:43 PM

I don't think getting into a snit is what's going on here, just a discussion about whether music has a value in an open mic situation, how much and should musicians be asked to pay for the right to freely share their talent at such events.

My assertion is that, when those who operate venues hang an advertisment that reads "open stage" in front of their establishment, seeking musicians to come and share their abilities and not expect to be paid for their efforts, that the attitude from the proprietors should be one of gratitude, not greed. The musicians are already doing their part, showing up prepared to give of their talent, freely. Many of you apparently feel this ability is worthless and therefore think the house should feel good about asking for minimums from those who have already "paid" to play with their musical offering. I am not saying that a venue hasn't the right to do whatever they wish with cover charges and minimums. Should your club have a client base that is particularly valuable for performers, then there may be an incentive for charging those who play there for the right to be seen on your stage. I have not found that club yet, though it may exist somewhere. Using a venue, that does not intend to offer a fee for services rendered, as an audition, a rehearsal, for announcements or whatever, has always been the venue's part of the entertainment-for-access barter. Some will even offer a free drink for your efforts. Perhaps your event is of particular value to those who perform there. The decision to choose to support it with more than their talent is something that should be left up to the individual and not forced upon them.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Mar 01 - 07:56 PM

What somehing is worth is what someone else is willing to pay for it.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Naemanson
Date: 12 Mar 01 - 09:48 PM

It is a very simple equation. Musician A has talent, an instrument and wants to play for people.

Venue X has a stage, sound system, and a number of other expenses. Venue X also has advertising and publicity people. Venue X is where people know to accumulate for music.

If Musician A is only interested getting up in front of people s/he should practice, work hard, and make a name for him/herself. Then s/he will be paid to perform. If Musician A wants to go someplace where there are others who like music, where s/he can enjoy a show, and be part (albeit a small part) of that show, where s/he can get some mike time and experiment with new material and hear others doing the same thing then s/he should expect to pay for the privilege. In a two and a half hour evening of entertainment Musician A only makes up about 10 to 15 minutes of the show. the rest of the time s/he is a member of the audience and like them, has to pay to see the show.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: reggie miles
Date: 12 Mar 01 - 11:16 PM

Certainly there are places that cannot afford to offer anything but the opportunity to perform, to performers, in exchange for their participation in an open stage. Is it therefore unfathomable that there are performers who cannot afford to offer anything but their performance to the venue?

Perhaps the owner/operator of the venue never having had the experience of trying to make a living as a performer and visa versa, it's understandable that it would be difficult for one to see the other's perspective. Both have expenses not just the venue.

There was a small club in New York that had a pay to play rule. You paid $16 to get up and play, superstar or unknown. I think it was called the Lone Star Cafe. A friend of mine told me Dylan would sometimes drop in to play and others of note. Certainly being able to rub elbows with Bobby would be worth the price of admission. I understand it's no longer open. Venues fail for many reasons. Some say the most important of these is location.

It's difficult for me to grasp what the operator of a club or coffee house might have to face just to survive. I have my hands full just trying to get to the next chord or remembering the next line in the song. Trying to come to grips with why I can't support myself doing this sort of stuff nags at my soul and feeds my disillusion.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Kim C
Date: 13 Mar 01 - 03:09 PM

well, people will eat and drink at a restaurant if the food and service are good. We once went to a place to see a friend's band play, and planned to eat supper, but the waitress never came, even though we repeatedly requested it. An hour later when she finally did come I didn't order anything because I didn't want to wait another hour for it.

There's another place downtown that has a minimum food & drink charge - it's not very high and can be easily met with coffee and dessert for two.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, yes, restaurant owners need to make money if they're going to stay in business. But if they're losing money, they need to take a good look at why... there may be a really good reason why people don't want to eat there.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Naemanson
Date: 13 Mar 01 - 03:52 PM

I don't think we need to get into places with poor service. There are plenty of them that do not offer entertainment.

I am surprised to think that some place would charge $16 for someone to play. That is excessive and uncalled for unless the person is getting a full set. That sounds risky. The nice thing about the coffeehouse setting is that the unknown person is only up there for a few minutes and the audience is polite and patient enough to wait for a poor performer to finish.

This takes me to the first statement you made, Reggie, that some performers cannot afford to pay to play. I have been in that position and I know others who have been there too. It boils down to the sacrifices you make for your music. Of course, if the venue is charging an exorbitant amount then you would have to ask what is that venue's intent. The Side Door is a fundraiser for the Unitarian Universalist Church in Brunswick, Maine. The admission is $5 at the door. The Mocha Cafe is intended more for the benefit of the people who want an open mike format for their performances. As such the admission is by donation. We don't check to make sure everyone contributes but we do point out the bucket at the beginning of the show.

Somewhere in this discussion we've lost sight of one overarching consideration. THERE AIN'T NO MONEY OR GLAMOR IN FOLK MUSIC. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't tried to raise a family on the power of his/her guitar strings. The money is in country and rock. Folk music is about the music, not the musician. Those musicians who think they deserve special consideration because they can perform are just plain wrong.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 13 Mar 01 - 04:42 PM

"For the weekly open mic, a $3 cover charge was requested of all but the musicians who were exempt; the cover charge went entirely to the music organization.

The monthly concert had a $8 cover charge and the total door was split 70/30 between the performers and the organization.

The restaurant received no money from the organization, but benefited by increased business. "

If the restaurant saw no increased paying business than they need to find a way to resolve the problem or stop the concert. From their point of view the music organization is renting their space for free. However, I would be upset at paying a cover and having a minimum as well...how about charging EVERYONE a $4 cover and sharing it with the restaurant.

p.s. Although I am glad to hear live bands and order food and drink (see the performers drinking thread) I am loath to pay a cover charge on open mike night...actually I generally dislike cover charges but will pay it for a specific band I want to see...I can see the cover driving away the regular restaurant business.

Subject: RE: MUSIC - VALUE/COST
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 14 Mar 01 - 03:06 PM

I hate when amatuerism and business get all mixed up together without some understanding of what the arrangement is. Musical performances that take place in a business setting require a business agreement, even when people are contributing their services. This goes for open mics, charity events, fund raisers or whatever.

Performers, promoters and the owners of the venue must all know in advance how money will be made, who will be charged (who gets to bring guests?), how the money will be distributed, and who absorbs the loss if no money is generated. If the venue is absorbing all the operating costs, the owner has the right to set the charges that are necessary. If the organization wants to pay for the use of the facilities, then they get to call the shots.

When the terms of the agreement between the promoter and the venue are set, the terms under which people perform and under which people will attend can be set. If money is going to be charged - even if it's only to cover "expenses" - the source of the revenue needs to be set and advertised in advance. Cover charge, drink/food minimum, pass the hat - as long as everyone walking in the door knows what the deal is from the beginning no one should complain. They can then decide if the value gained byt attending is worth the cost.

It can also be a good idea to let people know where the money goes. I don't mind kicking in a buck or two when the money goes to an organization that supports music, even if I'm showing up to play for free. I won't show up for free and then be expected to shell out to support somebody's business, though. Spending or not should be my choice.