Pay To Play
Has Musicians Union Sold It's Soul?

"The MU recognises that it's really tough out there. Unless you are an established artist, you're going to need to do deals in order to get the gigs to build up your fan base and launch your career. The MU will still oppose deals which leave musicians out of pocket, but we are now advising members to have a look at what is being offered - some pay to play gigs result in the artist making a decent sum of money."

This was the statement made by Horace Trubridge, Musicians Union Assistant General Secretary to announce its new position on 'Pay To Play'. Trubridge chaired a panel at the In The City conference in Manchester on 13 October and featured Guy Garvey (Elbow), Helienne Lindvall (Guardian journalist), Chris Long (BBC Introducing, Manchester) and Jay Taylor (promoter, Ruby Lounge, Manchester) where this was the main topic.

I understand the MU's position on giving its members the best advice it can and I also accept that Pay To Play gigs can earn money for an artist but I still find this new stance surprising. Firstly is the acknowledgement of the term 'Pay To Play'. Promoters have generally shunned this term, preferring to call the practice pre ticket sales (or variations thereof).

As a condition of the band playing the gig they will have to buy a set amount of tickets from the promoter, the band will then sell the tickets to their fans making money by marking up the tickets (of course they could discount the tickets if they wanted). Promoters tend to justify this by offering a better venue than a band would play other conditions, the sound, the lighting, the stage would all be louder, brighter and bigger but, if you do not feel you can muster sufficient fans, the deal would not be for you. I have seen this work successfully. The band did a big push through its mailing list, its myspace, its facebook. They didn't play for a month beforehand pulling another gig in the process, and agreed not to play in town for a month after the gig as well. It was a Friday night gig, in the centre of town. They sold their tickets (plus a few more on top) and made a little money. The promoters were as good as their word; the venue was as described and everybody was happy.

The flip side to this came a month later when the band played another gig for the same promoters. It was at a different venue (south of the Thames rather than central London) but of a similar size. The big push was not as effective the second time and the band ended up selling less than half the minimum number. The sound in the venue was so poor that anyone who went to see another band stayed in the bar area. Any profit made at the previous gig was lost but, significantly it marked the beginning of the end for the band. They quit about a year later, not due to musical differences but because they had got so disillusioned with playing live for nothing.

This is why I find the Musicians Union having anything to do with Pay To Play strange. I can see how, as a one off, bands could benefit, but in the long term I believe it will harm them and the MU should not associate with it.

The Jacket