In my humble opinion, all artistes involved should receive a normal fee. My reasoning is as follows: the cost of hiring the hall is the same, whether for charity or no. The printer charges full fees for printing leaflets and other publicity. If food is provided, the caterers charge full fees. If a bar is provided, the licensee makes full profits. Why should the musicians lose out when no one else does? It appears to me that a lot of people make profit out of charity events, and it seems totally unfair that only the musicians are expected to work for a reduced fee, or even no fee. And, of course, they are made to feel guilty if they don't. They shouldn't - it's the people who are shamelessly profiteering who should be made to feel guilty.

I realise the above makes me sound as though I've a chip on my shoulder. And I can't deny that I've done charity gigs where hundreds of pounds has been raised, and I've been given nothing or a pittance, when a normal fee would hardly have dented the profits. I will also admit to happily doing some charity gigs for nothing when I can see what my time and effort, and the money raised, is going towards - in these cases, small local fundraisers where every penny raised goes towards the cause. I resent helping to raise money, or making a donation, for a mega-charity where a huge chunk of the proceeds goes to the cost of administration and salaries.

No doubt others will disagree, we've all had different experiences, and it's good that you've had no bad ones so far, Jeremiah. Whatever you decide, I hope all goes well with your project.

Joan