NFL doesnt pay musicians, or its taxes.

[Radiowar]

OCR and the NFL are two distinctly different organizations, if for no other reason than one is a non-profit volunteer organization and the other is decidedly not. i do think it is more than a little outrageous that the NFL doesnt pay musicians - perhaps somewhat less so for reasons people have mentioned, but still in principle - while making exorbitant amounts of money themselves. that doesnt mean i think OCR is taking advantage of me because i submit music for free. i volunteered it.

[DaMonz]

Whew, I was starting to think I was the one overreacting. Glad to know that it's not just me

Although, I still can hardly understand how people in this thread still think we're upset because poor Bruno Mars won't be able to eat for a week because he didn't get his paycheck. That's not the problem at all.

I think Will and Pete pretty much nailed it here. A musician performing on stage is not promoting. He is working. He is doing his job that he's been training to do for God knows how long. That's what's irritating. If we encourage the thought that a musician on stage is not actually doing his job but simply showing off to people so they get to know him, I think that's a way to endanger the profession of musician. And additionally, with albums being pirated all the time and music being streamed for free or very cheap, concerts seem to me as one of the most reliable ways to make money as a musician (aside from contracts, or if you're lucky enough to become the in-house composer of whatever company). So if shows can't get musicians money, I'd honestly fear for the worst.

So yeah, in my books, the promotion that you get from performing at a concert or whatnot should be considered a side-effect, and not the main objective of it.

Edited February 4, 2014 by DaMonz
typo

[Cash]

Although, I still can hardly understand how people in this thread still think we're upset because poor Bruno Mars won't be able to eat for a week because he didn't get his paycheck. That's not the problem at all.

I haven't read anything (maybe I missed it) to suggest people think you guys are upset because of Bruno Mars. From my perspective, pretty much everyone in this thread understands the concern from your side, and have been addressing those specific points.

I think Will and Pete pretty much nailed it here. A musician performing on stage is not promoting. He is working. He is doing his job that he's been training to do for God knows how long.

As Meteo mentioned, the musicians perform for a fraction of the time they would perform in a standard show. It's a huge promotion opportunity with less work involved (or so I would imagine) than their day to day career. It's a big win for any artist performing at half time.

To try and rephrase my point - if the Super Bowl, who will give you the biggest exposure, won't pay the biggest artists, why should smaller venues pay for smaller artists? It creates a negative business modal that suggests our art isn't worth paying for... and we allow it.

For smaller venues, live music attracts customers. If the venue pays artists too little or not at all, artists will no longer come to play at that venue. In turn causing the establishment to lose customers, something they don't want. It's in a venue's best interest to pay artists enough money so that artists want to play at the venue. Now, I'm not saying venues always provide fair compensation, but they certainly want to keep artists coming back.

What the Joker meant by his quote is irrelevant because I was using his quote to emphasis my own meaning. I probably should have been more clear about that, sorry. I believe OCR is exempt from the rule because of the copyright laws.

If the meaning of the quote is irrelevant, how can it be used to emphasize your own meaning? Doesn't that imply the Joker's meaning is relevant? It doesn't work to separate the original meaning of the quote and then apply to a specific point, not in my opinion anyway.

The broad statement "if you're good at something, never do it for free" applies to literally every activity that one could conceivably be good at, there can't be any exemptions. It says that not just arranging copyrighted music (like OCR) or original music, but literally anything that you could be good at, should never be done for free.

The quote doesn't really emphasize your point, so much as make it seem like you're saying things that you're good at should only be pursued if money is involved. That notion, to me, goes against the spirit of art in general. I know you weren't trying to give off that impression, but that's how it came across to me.

Sorry to make such a point about it, but I just wanted to explain myself better.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Cash

[Palpable]

Maybe I am going after the wrong target, and maybe the exposure is worth a fortune. Again, I ask about everyone else who gets paid. Are they exempt from the exposure they get from the NFL? The NFL Players for example. Why is it ok for musicians but not for the players? No one has actually answered that yet. Doesn't seem fair to me.

I don't think it is different for anyone. If you feel a job is worth not taking money for, it's your prerogative to decide. I did some music for a friend's wedding for free. I've also done small software tasks for friends for free. Plenty of photographers do free work or reduced price work when starting out, to build their portfolio. There's many reasons why someone might decide to do free work, and I think it's a bad idea to put a blanket condemnation on work without pay. We don't have a good idea of whether Bruno Mars is happy with the deal he got (I suspect he's overjoyed, considering they usually go for more established acts), but would you be ok with him offering to play for free on Super Bowl, rather than him being offered the same deal by the Super Bowl producers?

Exposure is a red herring when talking about the problem of devaluing work, at least as it applies to most people. Even if the Super Bowl paid their musicians well, we would still hear the same excuses from clients. It's because it's not the issue - the issue is that clients continually try to pay lower prices and will use ANY EXCUSE, including exposure, to get contractors to buy into it.

[Garrett Williamson]

guys.

NFL didn't pay Bruno effing Mars and Bruno performed there anyway and he seems to still be alive and not in horrific poverty.

the end.

[DaMonz]

Although, I still can hardly understand how people in this thread still think we're upset because poor Bruno Mars won't be able to eat for a week because he didn't get his paycheck. That's not the problem at all.

NFL didn't pay Bruno effing Mars and Bruno performed there anyway and he seems to still be alive and not in horrific poverty.

the end.

/tenchar

[DarkeSword]

guys.

NFL didn't pay Bruno effing Mars and Bruno performed there anyway and he seems to still be alive and not in horrific poverty.

the end.

Try to actually take part in the discussion happening rather than trying to "end" it with a patently inaccurate over-simplification of the issue at hand.

[Garrett Williamson]

Try to actually take part in the discussion happening rather than trying to "end" it with a patently inaccurate over-simplification of the issue at hand.

why does everyone take me seriously

[The Derrit]

Hahahaha, touche bro! Its a good question, but lets see... I've paid to do exposure on the internet as an experiment (I actually think this is ok because it requires no time or effort on my part at all) and i've received pretty much little to no buys of my music from this, so via the internet, I'm standing to lose more money the more I promote myself.

i hate to be the one to say this because i think your music is pretty good, but this means your music doesn't interest enough people. promotion is not bad or ineffective because it didn't work for you.

when someone hears 'well the NFL doesn't pay musicians why should we' let me know. until then this is a dumb conversation

[WillRock]

I don't think it is different for anyone. If you feel a job is worth not taking money for, it's your prerogative to decide. I did some music for a friend's wedding for free. I've also done small software tasks for friends for free. Plenty of photographers do free work or reduced price work when starting out, to build their portfolio. There's many reasons why someone might decide to do free work, and I think it's a bad idea to put a blanket condemnation on work without pay. We don't have a good idea of whether Bruno Mars is happy with the deal he got (I suspect he's overjoyed, considering they usually go for more established acts), but would you be ok with him offering to play for free on Super Bowl, rather than him being offered the same deal by the Super Bowl producers?

Exposure is a red herring when talking about the problem of devaluing work, at least as it applies to most people. Even if the Super Bowl paid their musicians well, we would still hear the same excuses from clients. It's because it's not the issue - the issue is that clients continually try to pay lower prices and will use ANY EXCUSE, including exposure, to get contractors to buy into it.

Great post, I can definitely see your points. Makes a lot of sense

[Esperado]

I think Will and Pete pretty much nailed it here. A musician performing on stage is not promoting. He is working.

So yeah, in my books, the promotion that you get from performing at a concert or whatnot should be considered a side-effect, and not the main objective of it.

EXACTLY. no sane person would ask the NFL to make the game for free because they might sell more team merch. you wouldnt ask for free groceries under the premise that youll spread the word about how good the food is. Performance is work, and as such it requires direct compensation. period.

i would also like to see someone argue why it is that the nfl can continue to break boundaries of greediness. lets not forget the biggest issue aside from the already ridiculous tax issue, which is the stadium issue. I make less than 20000 a year, and i pay my taxes like anyone else. where do my taxes go? among other places, to a new VIKINGS STADIUM. guess who didnt pay for it? the NFL. guess who didnt pay for it in tax money? the NFL. Guess who doesnt pay its musicians and makes up excuses for why?( which everyone defends) the NFL. theres a pattern here, and it has nothing to do with politics or small print. its called GREED.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Esperado

[Theory of N]

when someone hears 'well the NFL doesn't pay musicians why should we' let me know. until then this is a dumb conversation

That's not how it works. When business practices are established, people generally don't attribute outside sources to their establishment. If someone tried to get you to play for exposure alone and you ask why, they're not going to tell you "oh, because that's how the Super Bowl does it."

[Hyperion5182]

it was brought to my attention that the NFL doesnt pay performers during halftime, saying that it compensates them in exposure. who else is utterly disgusted by this, and is there anything that can be done about it?

i think that if the musicians are exempt from pay, so are the players, and all nfl employees for the duration of the superbowl. surely the exposure compensates all the costs right?

To salt the wound, theyre tax exempt.

not sure if this is community or off topic since it does involve music.

Well in general the NFL has crossed the Rubicon on several social issues i disagree with. This is just one more. I boycotted the playoffs and i WILL boycott next season if Goodell is still the commish.

[The Derrit]

That's not how it works. When business practices are established, people generally don't attribute outside sources to their establishment. If someone tried to get you to play for exposure alone and you ask why, they're not going to tell you "oh, because that's how the Super Bowl does it."

if someone tried to get you to play for exposure alone you're not going to ask why you're going to say 'HELL NO SCREW YOU' and they're going to have an empty venue

[Theory of N]

if someone tried to get you to play for exposure alone you're not going to ask why you're going to say 'HELL NO SCREW YOU' and they're going to have an empty venue

Unfortunately, that's not how it works either. There are always people that jump at the opportunity to play for free because they don't realize it's a shit deal and the venues won't be empty because of these people.

[Cash]

Unfortunately, that's not how it works either. There are always people that jump at the opportunity to play for free because they don't realize it's a shit deal and the venues won't be empty because of these people.

In that case, it's the musician's fault agreeing to play for free. Still, I would imagine at least some of the people who play free are doing it for fun. It's not a shit deal if you aren't looking to get paid. Not everyone is trying to make a living on music, some do it as a hobby. Though I generally don't support a venue's decision to not pay musicians (the Super Bowl obviously being an exception).

EDIT:

Do musicians get paid to play at MAGFest and other cons? If the answer is no, I don't have any problem with that.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Cash

[Argle]

If this was exploitive, you would think these world famous musicians very expensive managers and PR people would have cautioned them against doing it. And yet there they are every year.

[The Derrit]

The issue here is that some people are correctly saying 'it doesn't matter they don't get paid by the NFL because they make ridiculous bank from doing it anyways' and some people are incorrectly saying 'IT SETS A BAD PRECEDENT BECAUSE IF THE BIGGEST EVENT IN THE WORLD DOES IT SO WILL EVERY OTHER EVENT, AND THEN EVERYONE'S GONNA PICK ON MUSICIANS, AND WE'LL ALL GO HUNGRY. ITS NOT FAIRRRR'

NO other reputable event in the world does it. EVERY event that has tried, and I have heard of quite a few that have in the past few years, gets flamed into oblivion, with both fans and performers boycotting said events.

Musicians who think they're worth nothing play for free at shitty venues. Everyone else doesn't. The NFL isn't going to change that dynamic, especially since they've already been doing this FOR WELL OVER A DECADE. Not to mention they DO pay for all of the performer's expenses, meaning performers aren't losing a dime to do it!

Business practices established my ass.

[DaMonz]

some people are incorrectly saying 'IT SETS A BAD PRECEDENT BECAUSE IF THE BIGGEST EVENT IN THE WORLD DOES IT SO WILL EVERY OTHER EVENT, AND THEN EVERYONE'S GONNA PICK ON MUSICIANS, AND WE'LL ALL GO HUNGRY. ITS NOT FAIRRRR'

You terribly don't know what you're talking about.

Don't you know that A LOT of musicians (or people that would like to be musicians) can't do music for a living because they couldn't even fucking eat if they tried to? When someone offers your band of three people 100$ for a full show in their stupid bar (and he thinks he's being generous), you can't say no if that's the best you can get, and you can only hope that the tiny "exposure" that you got there will get you something better.

Think for a second before you tell everyone that they're wrong. It's not that simple.

[The Derrit]

You terribly don't know what you're talking about.

Don't you know that A LOT of musicians (or people that would like to be musicians) can't do music for a living because they couldn't even fucking eat if they tried to? When someone offers your band of three people 100$ for a full show in their stupid bar (and he thinks he's being generous), you can't say no if that's the best you can get, and you can only hope that the tiny "exposure" that you got there will get you something better.

Think for a second before you tell everyone that they're wrong. It's not that simple.

Then you either ride it out or you can't be a performance musician for a living.

It's no one's decision but yours. I'm not about to get mad because game tournaments don't pay enough money, and I can't be a professional gamer even though I REALLY REALLY want to (I don't in reality). If it doesn't pay and you're willing to keep up with it that's up to you. If you're not willing to, well, sucks. It's never been easy. The NFL isn't going to change whether or not your shitty bar owner thinks paying you 100 dollars is enough or not.

Edited February 7, 2014 by The Derrit

[Patrick Burns]

Here's another article on what the Super Bowl appearance might do for Bruno Mars earnings

But who decided we would even frame the question as though Bruno Mars was working for the NFL? Why isn't the NFL working for Bruno Mars in this situation? Bruno already had a tour set up and will have to foot a bill of ~$100,000 on each stop of the tour just to turn the lights on. Suddenly he gets to kick off that tour with a pre-sold-out stadium, world-class production, 100+ million watching on TV, and tons of press -- all without having to pay for it. Why aren't we asking why Bruno Mars isn't paying the NFL or CBS? Because we select a couple facts about the situation -- Bruno playing for no money -- and project our personal struggles on to it.

Nobody is 'working' for anyone here. They're independent entities entering into voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements. I know this is going to sound borderline fascist, but I can't stand this subjugated, working man mentality of us immediately identifying with the musician and assuming he's working for the man. We're better than that. I think it's insulting to view musicians like pack animals that should be paid because they work really hard. When people like your stuff -- whether that's record execs, preteen girls, music critics, radio program directors, or art foundations -- you'll get paid when you can communicate with those people and get on a platform in front of them.

When I was in school I mixed live sound for bands at a bar on campus. We had a bunch of different acts come through. I did sound for this one band who had been traveling all over the US for years playing dinky venues. I watched them play for a crowd of sometimes just 4 or 5 people (and still getting into it just as much). I even saw them ask for donations through their mailing list when their van got broken into and their instruments were stolen. After a couple home-recorded albums they sold out of a suitcase at their shows, they got out a more professionally recorded EP. A year or two later and that EP spawned

, they performed at the Grammy's, and they're touring the world. Of course, all the other bands I mixed for are still puttering around local venues or disbanded.

Employees sign up, show up, and do what they're told. They have a living wage, and this safety net comes with a ceiling. That mindset doesn't work with art. Art needs risk -- Prometheus and Icarus . . .

[SystemsReady]

Regarding paying musicians at Super Bowl, I think there is a lack of distinction between what it means on a practical level and what it means on an ethical one.

On an ethical level, IMO, it's crummy and a bit cheap of the NFL to not pay people for performing.

But on a practical level...yeah, these are people who can rake in thousands of dollars by merely blinking. So yeah, it's true that they don't need the money, and also that they probably have legal teams informing them of not really getting paid for it. So I don't have a strong opinion either way...it's not like these are naive newcomers getting used by this corporation.

Now, the NFL not paying taxes is BS. I already have a problem with religious organizations not paying taxes (because a lot of them really do influence politics, which is illegal with their tax-exempt status), and I find it even more ridiculous that the NFL doesn't. What benefit does the NFL provide to society as a whole that, say, the music industry doesn't? Or the NHL? Or any other large entertainment corporation? There is literally no reason for them to not pay taxes.

[avaris]

But who decided we would even frame the question as though Bruno Mars was working for the NFL? Why isn't the NFL working for Bruno Mars in this situation? Bruno already had a tour set up and will have to foot a bill of ~$100,000 on each stop of the tour just to turn the lights on. Suddenly he gets to kick off that tour with a pre-sold-out stadium, world-class production, 100+ million watching on TV, and tons of press -- all without having to pay for it. Why aren't we asking why Bruno Mars isn't paying the NFL or CBS? Because we select a couple facts about the situation -- Bruno playing for no money -- and project our personal struggles on to it.

Excellent! Completely agree. Seriously top acts have been doing the super bowl voluntarily for decades. In any profession it is a matter of supply and demand. There is always a balance in value between performance and pay.

[Esperado]

Here's another article on what the Super Bowl appearance might do for Bruno Mars earnings

But who decided we would even frame the question as though Bruno Mars was working for the NFL? Why isn't the NFL working for Bruno Mars in this situation? Bruno already had a tour set up and will have to foot a bill of ~$100,000 on each stop of the tour just to turn the lights on. Suddenly he gets to kick off that tour with a pre-sold-out stadium, world-class production, 100+ million watching on TV, and tons of press -- all without having to pay for it. Why aren't we asking why Bruno Mars isn't paying the NFL or CBS? Because we select a couple facts about the situation -- Bruno playing for no money -- and project our personal struggles on to it.

Nobody is 'working' for anyone here. They're independent entities entering into voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements. I know this is going to sound borderline fascist, but I can't stand this subjugated, working man mentality of us immediately identifying with the musician and assuming he's working for the man. We're better than that. I think it's insulting to view musicians like pack animals that should be paid because they work really hard. When people like your stuff -- whether that's record execs, preteen girls, music critics, radio program directors, or art foundations -- you'll get paid when you can communicate with those people and get on a platform in front of them.

When I was in school I mixed live sound for bands at a bar on campus. We had a bunch of different acts come through. I did sound for this one band who had been traveling all over the US for years playing dinky venues. I watched them play for a crowd of sometimes just 4 or 5 people (and still getting into it just as much). I even saw them ask for donations through their mailing list when their van got broken into and their instruments were stolen. After a couple home-recorded albums they sold out of a suitcase at their shows, they got out a more professionally recorded EP. A year or two later and that EP spawned

, they performed at the Grammy's, and they're touring the world. Of course, all the other bands I mixed for are still puttering around local venues or disbanded.

Employees sign up, show up, and do what they're told. They have a living wage, and this safety net comes with a ceiling. That mindset doesn't work with art. Art needs risk -- Prometheus and Icarus . . .

Well spoken! I never saw it that way.

[Theory of N]

But who decided we would even frame the question as though Bruno Mars was working for the NFL? Why isn't the NFL working for Bruno Mars in this situation? Bruno already had a tour set up and will have to foot a bill of ~$100,000 on each stop of the tour just to turn the lights on. Suddenly he gets to kick off that tour with a pre-sold-out stadium, world-class production, 100+ million watching on TV, and tons of press -- all without having to pay for it. Why aren't we asking why Bruno Mars isn't paying the NFL or CBS? Because we select a couple facts about the situation -- Bruno playing for no money -- and project our personal struggles on to it.

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 think it's insulting to view musicians like pack animals that should be paid because they work really hard. When people like your stuff -- whether that's record execs, preteen girls, music critics, radio program directors, or art foundations -- you'll get paid when you can communicate with those people and get on a platform in front of them.

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?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Theory of N