The Artist and the negotiation of his/her live show

Many times artists, in this case musicians, complain that their art is not valued or is not well paid. Every now and then we hear a band complaining because such a venue does not pay them a fee to play there, or even charges them for it. Or also some cultural instance in another city where they only offer tickets and accommodation, but no fees for the artist. 

Let's try to clarify the issue to avoid confusion.

When a musician is required as a sessionist, whether in a studio or live, his employer will be the music director or music producer. This employer will offer a certain amount of money for the musician's services, such as rehearsals, recordings, and live performances, among others, until the end of the project. The musician will then consider whether or not to accept the job, appealing to his or her resume, studies, experience, equipment, etc. All this operates under the same logic of the salaried worker in any work area.

However, when it comes to our own artistic project (either as a band or as a soloist), we are operating under the canons of entrepreneurship, with the same risks and benefits that this entails. And the essence of entrepreneurship means that potential clients are free to choose whether or not to buy what the project generates. Today we will refer to the live show.

Who are these "possible clients" of our artistic project when playing live? They are three: A private promoter, a government entity, or the direct audience. Let's break down each one of them.

A private promoter of concerts or live shows, is the person who is responsible for buying a show to the artist under the terms and conditions that both agree. If there is no agreement, then the business is not carried out. And if there is, then a mutual commitment is generated. Both parties (artist and promoter) agree on the roles that correspond to each one of them: normally the artist is in charge of preparing the best possible show, and the promoter is in charge of the logistics, advertising, management of the venue, management of sponsorships, payments to the artist, etc. Usually the artist also helps with their networks to promote the event, and the ideal is that everything is in writing, so that no conflicts occur during the development of the agreement. It is important to understand that the promoter, no matter how enthusiastic he is about music, is also a person who needs to make money, so he is not going to take a risk with an artist if he does not consider that the audience convocation is enough versus what he has to invest to make his business profitable.

A government entity is very similar to an agreement with a private promoter, with the only difference that in this case the money to carry out the project comes from public funds, in order to contribute with art in the community where it is located. There is a cultural manager who does a similar job to the promoter, and it is also important that everything is backed up in writing to avoid problems. In these cases, sometimes resources can be limited, and therefore the artist is free to choose whether to accept the agreement or not. 

The third option mentioned refers to the direct audience, this means that it is the artist himself who decides to organize the event and act as a promoter. He is the one who is in charge of the logistics, the diffusion, the coordination and, of course, the management of the place where the show is going to take place. Obviously, the artist bears all the expenses involved, with the intention of achieving the objective he has set.

This last point is very important, because apart from paying for a designer, transportation, equipment, network advertising (if they so decide), accommodation if the show is in another city, etc., there is a negotiation with the venue where the event is going to take place. And here we must take into account something fundamental:

The venue and its managers do not have the obligation to do charity with an artist, but they will look after their own interests, and that is something totally respectable.

There are many types of venues where events are held with artists, and they all have their own way of making agreements with them. Some charge for playing, others don't charge but don't pay either, and others pay a fixed fee. Usually the artist's profit is from the tickets sold. Some venues even charge a certain percentage of those tickets. Everything is variable at this point.

Let's put ourselves in a venue’s shoes, where live events are held. It can be a bar, a theater, a hall, an auditorium, etc. That place is also surely someone's enterprise, and he will want to have the highest possible profits. They also have expenses: employees, waiters, cleaners, administrative staff, etc., and they have several ways to finance themselves, one of them being to charge the artist a fixed fee. In the case of bars, usually their earnings come from the sale of alcohol and food, and in exchange they do not charge the artist for playing and he takes 100% of the tickets. For that reason, the bar can also choose which day of the week it offers. It all depends on each particular case.

In the same way and consequently, the artist is also entitled to choose or not if he makes an agreement with a place and its conditions.

Finally, it must be clear that when an artist is just starting, practically his only option to play is going to be the latter, that is, that the artist organizes his own show. As we have already seen, this costs money, and the most advisable thing is that this money is obtained from other instances (separate works, savings, etc.) and is considered as an investment for the artistic project. It will then be up to the artist's good management and planning to know if in the future that investment will have paid off.