NFL doesnt pay musicians, or its taxes.

[The Derrit]

If only it wasn't so difficult to unionize art...

yeah let's unionize art so average musicians will NEVER get paid because no one wants to hire their average ability for the price that is required.

that's literally the worst thought that's come out of this entire thread, and there have been several bad thoughts

[Patrick Burns]

Why are we framing it as if Bruno Mars was working for the NFL? Because it's the NFL's event. The NFL decides who plays. The NFL approached him about performing at their event (most likely. I'll admit I don't know how this works but it seems more logical than auditions or something of the sort). It's totally different from playing a tour.

In the case of a tour, the event IS Bruno Mars' performance. He (or his agent, manager, record label, whatever) organized everything about it and therefore, foots the bill. That being said, he is still getting directly paid from ticket sales to make up for the expense. If there were other performing acts, you can bet they'd get a portion of the earnings too.

Compare that to the Super Bowl. The event is the game. The NFL organizes everything about it (including the halftime act) and foots the bill. The NFL is getting directly paid a portion of ticket sales to make up for the expense. The performing acts get nothing.

That being said, I am not too upset about this particular situation. It's been said that the exposure more than makes up for the lack of a paycheck in this case and I think I agree. The principle, however, bothers me to no end and is quite common practice, unfortunately. If only it wasn't so difficult to unionize art…

I admit that I'm not much of an activist -- I usually trust that the 'right' will manifest on its own eventually. And, honestly, thank god not everyone takes that point of view. It's noble to stand up for musicians, so don't stop. I'm sure the digital age will offer creative avenues of unionization that can offer some protection of interests -- the trick is and always has been protecting the interests of the quality producers and without simultaneously proliferating the poor quality producers.

The way I think of this disagreement is that I feel that the narrative "NFL doesn't pay musicians" sets off an entire story/worldview that dismisses many avenues of success and influence that musicians actually have -- the rest of this post is just me trying to argue for that perspective.

You're partially right about the narrative from the NFL's and CBS's perspective -- they are a wealthy organization, the event is "theirs" to some extent, and they've got some negotiating power over smaller parties. But you're forcing that into a single-narrative, hierarchical paradigm: elevating the NFL/CBS as established powers getting off scot-free, and relegating musicians as a working class eating the big boy's table scraps.

The musicians are who I want to focus on -- but another word on the Super Bowl real quick. Who knows how much the production for the half time show cost. But let's just imagine the airtime. The half time show was about 14 minutes. That's about $85,000,000 in ad revenue lost. That's not a small thing for the NFL/CBS to give up, and what they need desperately in return is pop culture, crossover, live performance gold to elevate the value of the remaining airtime. That kind of content doesn't grow on trees. They saw that potential in the Bruno Mars package, so they gave him the equivalent, in airtime, of a fortune greater than he'll probably ever make in his lifetime. There is no hierarchy here -- just two massive entities making a deal and sharing some bandwidth.

Now about this from the perspective of the general musician. My thoughts also apply to what you say here:

You must be talking about getting paid specifically for your music such as album sales and the like. It's a bit different when talking about performance. You're not paying for the music, you're paying for the performance, just like any other performing art: stand up comedians, acrobats, clowns or magicians, you name it. You're not paying for the content itself, it's the performer putting on a show. Otherwise, why not just pop a CD in and play it over the PA? Or in the case of the others, look up youtube videos and play them on a projector or something?

I think you're conceptualizing this way too strictly and as a result devaluing what kind of economic value musicians have. You can't just divorce a performance from content. There are different kinds of content, but the performance is just another manifestation of that content. But that's not the important idea -- what's important is that the performance is part of a constellation of assets a musician can develop, and the different assets support the other ones.

People don't often think about it this way, but economically speaking, musicians are developing highly specialized intellectual capital. They aren't the laboring class, not by a long shot. Just last night a friend was telling me we had to go to a specific bar because a specific trio might be playing there -- and if they weren't playing there, we were going to go find a different bar. That's not labor -- that's not just paying someone for a performance -- that's renting someone else's branded content. Regardless of the fact that it's delivered through that night's performance, it is cultivated through many different channels over time.

The gist of what I'm saying is that musicians are more than they calories they burn on stage -- both economically and artistically.

The irony of this whole discussion, though, is that live performance is probably the healthiest part of the music industry these days, and it's growing -- for performers and techs alike.

(As a side note, the guy who plays covers and a couple originals his whole life in the same bars, for owners who pay him as part of the atmosphere could be construed as a laborer. And if you want to be that guy, more power to you, I love you, I'll listen while I eat my french fries and be very, very happy -- but in this discussion I'm thinking of musicians who try to develop an identity that abstracts out of the venues in which they perform.)

[Theory of N]

The way I think of this disagreement is that I feel that the narrative "NFL doesn't pay musicians" sets off an entire story/worldview that dismisses many avenues of success and influence that musicians actually have -- the rest of this post is just me trying to argue for that perspective.

You're partially right about the narrative from the NFL's and CBS's perspective -- they are a wealthy organization, the event is "theirs" to some extent, and they've got some negotiating power over smaller parties. But you're forcing that into a single-narrative, hierarchical paradigm: elevating the NFL/CBS as established powers getting off scot-free, and relegating musicians as a working class eating the big boy's table scraps.

The musicians are who I want to focus on -- but another word on the Super Bowl real quick. Who knows how much the production for the half time show cost. But let's just imagine the airtime. The half time show was about 14 minutes. That's about $85,000,000 in ad revenue lost. That's not a small thing for the NFL/CBS to give up, and what they need desperately in return is pop culture, crossover, live performance gold to elevate the value of the remaining airtime. That kind of content doesn't grow on trees. They saw that potential in the Bruno Mars package, so they gave him the equivalent, in airtime, of a fortune greater than he'll probably ever make in his lifetime. There is no hierarchy here -- just two massive entities making a deal and sharing some bandwidth.

Again, the specific dealings between the NFL/CBS and Bruno Mars aren't necessarily the issue here. I agree that the deal was mutually beneficial and I think both parties understood that but I don't believe for a minute that it was presented that way. There are TONS of artists clamoring for that spot in the halftime show. There is only one Superbowl. It's a privilege to play at it and the initial contact was likely from the NFL/CBS saying something along the lines of "We've selected YOU to play the halftime show!"

I'm not even saying that's necessarily a bad thing. Again, it was definitely a mutually beneficial agreement so I'm not too worried about it.

I think you're conceptualizing this way too strictly and as a result devaluing what kind of economic value musicians have. You can't just divorce a performance from content. There are different kinds of content, but the performance is just another manifestation of that content.

You CAN divorce performance from content. Yes, performance is just another manifestation of content. A recording would be another manifestation of that content without live performance.

People don't often think about it this way, but economically speaking, musicians are developing highly specialized intellectual capital. They aren't the laboring class, not by a long shot. Just last night a friend was telling me we had to go to a specific bar because a specific trio might be playing there -- and if they weren't playing there, we were going to go find a different bar. That's not labor -- that's not just paying someone for a performance -- that's renting someone else's branded content.

Sure. And you should pay for that. Most of the labor comes from preparation of that "branded content".

The gist of what I'm saying is that musicians are more than they calories they burn on stage -- both economically and artistically.

Of course we are. Hours and hours of practice that you don't see go into preparing a quality performance. The performance itself is the fruition of these hours of work and to have it paid for in "exposure" is an insult.

(except in very rare cases such as the superbowl, as we've established)

[Patrick Burns]

And you should pay for that. Most of the labor comes from preparation of that "branded content". . . Hours and hours of practice that you don't see go into preparing a quality performance. The performance itself is the fruition of these hours of work and to have it paid for in "exposure" is an insult. (except in very rare cases such as the superbowl, as we've established)

I'm not arguing that exposure is valuable compensation for every act. I'm suggesting 1) exposure is valuable for large scale acts -- which we all seem to agree on anyway -- and 2) acts of a smaller scale can and should be building a brand which makes them uniquely valuable to venues and gives them leverage to actually be paid. And if they're not offered that paying gig, it's not always an insult -- it's just that they haven't demonstrated their unique value in our music-saturated culture.

Yes, it would be better if all venue owners had art advocacy on their mind, but if they're more concerned with the bottom line that's their business. Acts of any size can get in on that business and require real payment by demonstrating an ability to draw a crowd to their brand.

If they're not getting paid, they either 1) have poor business practices, 2) lack sufficient musical ability, or 3) have very bad luck in connecting with the right audience. Selfish venues aren't to blame. Yes, they can and should lend a helping hand from time to time, but they're not selfish for not being charitable.

[Theory of N]

That's not really always the case. I've had people asking my college jazz fusion band to play at their event because they absolutely loved the music we play but didn't feel paying musicians in general was worth it. This has happened more than once and these aren't venues, these are private events where "exposure" isn't worth much if anything.

A little background on this band: it has two events a year that it does regularly and is mostly for educational purposes so its intent is not to make money. However, this band is really good and the spring concert consistently has the highest turnout of any campus event through the year. So these cases where people ask us to play for their events are not the band looking for work. These are people that have heard us perform, took the time to seek us out, and genuinely ask us to take time away from what we do to go play for them. For free.

Again, if you don't feel it's worth paying for the musicians' time, play recordings over the loudspeaker or something. If it's not worth anything to you, why have it in the first place?

[Patrick Burns]

In that case, yeah. On a case by case basis people are definitely inconsiderate. I just can't see a systemic unfairness for sufficiently enterprising musicians out there. The truth is that there just isn't a big market for jazz fusion, even if there's a high turnout in a campus setting. That's just cultural taste. You know, jazz exists in a weird state in our society, especially when it's supported by an academic setting. It's treated like historical reenactment or a labor of love to be revered -- and people appreciate it, but they really don't consume it on a sustainable level. (Which in turn reinforces the image of jazz as a labor of love.)

I had a similar experience to yours, though I was less involved. My jazz big band in college would always have a full house for the end-of-semester concerts. The director would also occasionally take a bare bones combo out to small places he knew -- but it was always for intangibles like free food or just a good experience. I never went, personally.