Musicians expected to work for nothing at the Olympics?

It has been announced by the great and the good who are running the Olympics in London this summer that a policy decision has been made not to pay musicians who have been asked to play at various ceremonies and events during the Games (see link in 'Additional Details'). I wonder what how followers of other professions (not least the organisers themselves) would react to the suggestion that THEY should work for nothing "for the exposure" it will give them? I don't think they would like it, do you (nor would their bank managers)?
This once again throws into focus this exasperating attitude held by so many that musicians somehow don't deserve to be paid for their work. They train for YEARS (more than any doctor), incurring great expense and hardship. In fact, a musician NEVER stops 'training'.
Why is it that so many people think musicians are fair game to be swindled, defrauded and stolen from? Do they think musicians somehow have a 'free pass' to life and don't have to pay the same bills as everyone else?
Of course, my professional advice to musicians in London: No fee, no play, no way!
Would people tell me they think about this development in particular and the poor attitude towards musicians in general?

2012-04-18T11:04:21Z

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=4290

2012-04-18T11:41:10Z

Thanks, Malcolm. Of course, I am aware of the funding system in the USA. Now remind me how many American orchestras have gone bust in the last 2-3 years...? Is that a good thing for a 'civilised' country?

2012-04-19T03:52:52Z

Alberich: My main grip here is that no other professional connected with the Olympics has been so disrespected in this way. No architects, engineers, construction workers, electricians, plumbers, landscapers or office personnel have been asked to give their services 'for free'; it is somehow understood that THESE jobs should be remunerated (and the workers have mortgages and bills to pay, of course), but not that musicians have the same liabilities as everyone else. Only musicians have been singled out.

petr b2012-04-18T14:55:25Z

Favorite Answer

The best thing that could happen is for even the most hungry of musicians eager for 'exposure' to "Just Say No." and leave the Olympics with canned music, for which they will have to pay a royalty.

That is an ideal world - no decent pay, no music.

One can always dream, can't one?

The competitors, while 'working for nothing' have tons of money funneled into them, sponsorships, training, and more: what their 'exposure' means to them, if they win, is several decades of lucrative commercial endorsing of products, the fame where they can become, later, teachers and charge a healthy fee because they were Olympic champions, etc.

There is no such thing for the musicians, so any 'reward' must be immediate, one-time, and paid for the gig.

I would still love to see all musicians, professional or amateur, "Just Say No" to this one, and leave the damned enterprise in the lurch for the musical pomp that usually goes with these spectacles.

Best regards.

Anonymous2016-05-17T06:43:44Z

Rob Halford Kurt Cobain Michael Akerfeldt- Beatles Michael Akerfeldt- The Zombies

puckrock20002012-04-19T07:12:33Z

There's another way to avoid paying professional musicians; just recruit a bunch of high school kids, who will be so thrilled by the "opportunity" that they'll gladly cough up $4000 apiece to pay their own way: http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-19/west/31360128_1_olympic-moment-chorus-e-mail-last-summer

?2012-04-18T22:49:54Z

Despite that I support free music sheets (after death of the composer), I have to agree that this "volunteer" policy in return for non-monetary compensations (ie; the "exposure", "experience gained") is absurd.

2 reasons:

1. Organiser have the financial means to pay allowances and salaries. They have the budget yet they do not want to compensate workers (musicians) slogging day and night for the event with salary. They want to save for themselves.

2. The economy will not grow if everyone keep working for free. I have to point out that profits and money make the world go round. Without monetary compensation, people will not have salary, jobs. Without salary, without jobs, they have no spending power. When consumers have no spending power, there will be no sales for corporate companies. And in the end, we have a poor economy that is not growing. It is a vicious cycle that snaps back itself.

Hence, for every job in this world, it MUST be paid and paid reasonably.

lainiebsky2012-04-18T13:18:59Z

We just went through something similar with artists being expected to donate paintings and sculpture for a new public building. Those in charge of the project couldn't seem to understand why local artists weren't jumping at the chance to give away their work for free.

Apparently artists and musicians are supposed to be on a plane above monetary concerns. I'm not sure how we're supposed to pay the rent and buy groceries on "love of the art," but that's the prevailing attitude. A friend of mine who was a high school orchestra director asked to be paid for the Saturdays he spent taking students to auditions and festivals, the way athletic coaches were compensated for weekend time, and the principal's response was a confused, "But you do it because you love it!"

I think musicians should band together and tell the Olympic committee that there are probably plenty of students and amateurs who would love the exposure, but if they want professionals they need to understand that professionals get paid.

Show more answers (6)