Musicians expected to work for nothing at the Olympics?

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.

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

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/3136012...

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.

I can empathize with your feeling of outrage; so would really hesitate to deem it.....'inappropriate'?

But considering the global economic downturn, and the austerity measures (most unpopular I understand) that the UK government has set in place to try and deal with the situation, it's understandable I think that all and any 'cost cutting' would be implemented relating to the Olympics.

I may be 'Way Off Base', and really am not very familiar without how the Olympics in general, are customarily funded - regardless of the country sponsoring them. And it has always appeared to me that unless a musician whatever their area of expertise might be, is a SUPER STAR, their income expectations are generally much lower than that of comparable professions.

Not unlike the way the Western World views Education: while parents want their children taught by the very best, when it comes to paying them a commiserate salary........ .........!

Alberich

EDIT: I understand "del_": I just had meant to/hoped perhaps maybe to ease your anger (and pain-?), by offering an intended 'objective' perspective - I don't have to worry about/be concerned with 'working' for a living anymore: am retired, and all that.

Just blo*dy typical of the nonsense that is the Olympics - and how many of the athletes are appearing for nothing....

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.

Like you I find this absolutely baffling. If the musicians have any sense they'll band together and refuse to play without fair compensation. Hopefully the musicians union puts a stop to it. The Olympics may consider that their ideal of amateur athletes should extend to others participating, but this is again ridiculous as that notion for athletes has been dead for at least 50 years. I think it really comes down to the London Games running out of money and trying to find workarounds. In the long run what the London Games are doing hurts every, big name acts will refuse to play and the only groups they'll be able to get are young emerging artists

Is it because a lot of people assume that musicians are following music as a career because they just "love" it so much that they won't mind getting paid little to nothing?

I completely agree. These people have trained for years and need to support themselves. Yes, many are probably happy for this opportunity, but bills can't be paid with opportunities alone!

I must be honest... I don't think that would happen here in America. The bottom line is... will anybody be willing to do it for nothing? If that turns out to be the case, not much you can say - except such a practice effectively devalues the worth of musicians in general. It is the law of "supply and demand." It is all a question of what people (in this case the organizers) are willing to pay. Apparently, they aren't willing to pay anything. This principle applies to everyone... as soon as someone comes along willing to do the job for less, it downgrades the entire market.

Here is the USA there are few subsidies for the arts - at least State and Federal subsidies. There is no Arts Council willing to shell out public money for dubious artistic endeavors. (If there were there would be an outcry against the use of public money to pay a "minority interest." Most subsidies come from corporate sponsorship. It seems to work and nobody is crying "why are you spending my tax money on that (insert name of artform... opera, art exhibit,etc here) rubbish... I don't listen to it?"

It is up to the conscience of the musicians. With that the profession will rise or fall.

Edit: I guess one of the reasons that a number of American orchestras have gone "Out of Business" is supply and demand. From my perspective, no it certainly isn't a good thing. From the point of view of the tax payer who only listens to Rap music... who cares? I would not be supportive of my tax dollars being used to support rap though, so.........

How do you justify, to your local council worker, the use of public money to fund activities that he has no interest in?