Should the Artist Bring the Audience?

I've stopped using Blogger. All blogs are posted on my website instead. You can view this one at: http://www.vidwarren.com/should-the-artist-bring-the-audience/

---

Do you think that it is fair for artists to be expected to bring the audience to their gigs? Who should handle the promotion and how much of it?

I get job postings all the time from promoters putting on gigs in London. These nearly always come with a minimum audience requirement. I.e. you must guarantee that you can and will bring a specified number of people (usually around twenty-five for small venues). If you don't, you don't get booked again.

Sometimes promoters will pay you for each attendee after 'x' of your guests. I.e. You have the chance to make money only from your tickets, and only after the threshold.

This brings up a number of issues:

Artists have been moving towards a DIY approach more and more, particularly since the Internet took off. If you're a small, unsigned artist, you're able to handle almost all of your graphic design, online presence, tour booking, career direction, production, marketing etc. but now you're expected to promote as well? What is the 'promoter' doing if you are responsible for promoting the gig? He may have put the cash up upfront for booking the venue but that doesn't mean he should sit back and not do any work while you earn him money.

From the promoter's point of view, the ideal may be that your name is big enough that the promoter can use it to handle selling your tickets. This isn't always the case with smaller acts. The artist has his website, Facebook, mailing list, and phone-book and, the smaller the artist's fan-base, the more likely that it is contained within these databases. To whom is the promoter going to sell tickets if the artist can already contact everybody that knows his name?! Perhaps there is a solution that isn't as ludicrously far off as London's music scene would have you think. What if the promoter were to develop his own name and a following by consistently putting on fantastic music events? Then, the venue could develop their own name by consistently hiring high quality promoters. This method has always been a recipie for success. If you don't believe me, think of a venue/festival stage/event that is always at full capacity and has a reputation for great music. Why else could it have this level of success?

Money isn't the only benefit. Personally, I'd say that it ticks all of the 'idealistic boxes' for 'why we got into promotion' as well as all of the 'realistic boxes' that are crucial to survival. If you're a promoter, consider the following benefits of this method:

• The quality of the music is always the bottom line; you'll never have to turn away a high quality act because you're unsure about what numbers they'll bring.
• On any night, an audience will consist of: The artists' following, the promoter's following, and anybody who has decided to go to the venue however spontaneously. Personally, if I want to spontaneously drag a group of people to a venue, I choose somewhere that I trust to have good music.
• Promoting to your own following means that you can build a relationship with your followers. That's pretty refreshing when you compare it to spamming a load of people, most of whom have 'liked' your Facebook Page because they're artists looking for gigs themselves!
• Reputation always leads to opportunity. You're always on the lookout for musicians with a strong reputation, right? You're always saying that word of mouth is the best promotion, right? What about your reputation? What are people saying about you?

This approach all too often is not considered. The artist often ends up doing a large chunk of what is conventionally supposed to be the promoters job. Of course, promoters for small gigs are usually doing several different jobs not to mention all of the organisation and curation but this is a different issue.

It is important to consider the promoter's point of view. If nobody turns up, it is him (and probably the venue) that will lose money. Do you expect that the promoter should be responsible for all the audience? Maybe you are confident that you can bring the numbers required and don't have a problem with doing so. The important thing is that you are both clear about what you expect from each other. Working with flat fees (not door splits) can instantly make it clear that the risk is down to the promoter. Personally, I stopped taking gigs offering door splits because, if I was going to take the risk of losing money on a gig, I'd want to put it on myself.

The best way of looking at it is by being aware of the value of what you already have and how much time and effort you are willing and able to put in. If you can fill a 250 capacity venue in a particular city once every three months, you'll be able to charge a little more because there is less risk to the promoter. If a promoter demands that you bring at least twenty-five people you should only accept if you are confident that you can. Then, you should consider charging more than you would for a gig that you wouldn't need to promote as hard; you're being asked to do more work and those twenty-five fans aren't going to come to see you tomorrow night.

Gigs with minimum audience requirements take from gigs that don't

If you had two gigs in the same venue, in the same week, but only one had a minimum audience requirement, would you put more effort into promoting the one that did? How about putting less effort into promoting the one that didn't? (Neither of them add up). Is the solution to this really that you shouldn't gig in the same venue/city twice within a certain space of time? I've seen gigs with a 'three-week rule'. Perhaps it depends on the size of your name. However, I've gigged twice in the same weekend, in the same city, to packed venues many times. I remember once having a great evening with four gigs in the same night. It would be a real shame to sacrifice several great gigs for the sake of one. I'd say that it's fair to rely on someone else to draw the audience if this is understood by both sides. There are plenty of gigs with an almost guaranteed turnout: birthday parties, street parties, festivals etc.

Promoters and venues are sacrificing their reputation for a quick buck...but it never adds up

Your friends and family will probably support you and come to your first gig even if they wouldn't normally listen to your music. They might see it as 'doing you a favour'. Even if they like your music, they will never build you up to be the demi-gods that they consider their favourite artists to be. This can make it really difficult to get numbers down after the initial stages where everyone is enthusiastic but before the later stages when you are established and successful. This leaves a lot of talented bands out in the cold.

The attitude of many promoters has created big problems for artists, venues, gigging scenes and the promoters themselves. I see so much crap from inexperienced bands and, while I advocate that they should continue performing and develop their act, perhaps open-mics would be a bit more suited to them until they're ready. When I see this crap, it's usually because I've stumbled across it. It's not the kind of thing that will encourage me to come back to that night next time it's on. The promoters probably don't care too much; next month, they'll have a new set of bands that can bring a new set of mates to the gig to hear their crap music. Maybe the audience will even spend more on drink because it's so awkward!

Capacity is not necessarily conducive to talent. If you place capacity above talent, you will suffer in the long run.

There's a pub in central Bristol called The Old Duke, also known as 'The Jazz Pub'. They only ever have a door charge on New Year's Eve. Their bands have residencies and there is music every night of the week. By 10pm each night, the place is nearly always packed. The Old Duke works by having it's own reputation. Bands know that people love the pub and that it will be packed. The pub knows that people love the pub because the music is always good. How can anybody on either side not view this as a million times better than booking a crap band and both the band and the promoter working ten times as hard to fill the capacity through Facebook spam, worrying that it won't pack-out, and then seeing the audience slip through their fingers so they have to do it all again next week? The Old Duke could put on any amazing band from anywhere in the world and people would be there and enjoy it.

Minimum-Audience-Requirement gigs aren't a sure fire way for the promoters to make money either

A new band may genuinely believe they can draw numbers that they can't. It's easy to see how this mistake is a common one to make when a hundred people turned up to their very first gig!

Whether or not you bring numbers, you're still working

Performance is work. Composing is work. You handle writing killer material that got you noticed in the first place, you handle delivering killer performances. Some artists, even 'small names' prefer to spend as much time as possible focusing on that and then to let the promoters handle getting the numbers down. Why shouldn't this be an option? Isn't that the point of giving somebody else a chunk of the money from ticket sales?

The more people that you can bring, the better, but is it really fair to expect it of you? The answer to this is probably yes and no: Yes it's fair if that's the deal that is on the table. If you don't agree, don't take the gig. Yes it's fair that part of the effort should come from you if you're in a good position to promote effectively. No it's not fair that so many venues put too much responsibility for numbers on the artist; this will only burn bridges as, even if you don't take these gigs, somebody else will and it's the scene and the viability of making a living as a performer that suffers.

Gigging to 'your own audience' means that you're not making new fans

You'll probably agree that there are some gigs where a fanbase is crucial, e.g. your album launch. Once you become more established, it's more beneficial to use your 'big name' and more reasonable to expect you to do so; you are fulfilling more roles than just 'an entertainer' when you progress beyond a certain size.

Minimum audience requirements for smaller bands and artists mean that more of the audience already know you. This can also make progress slow and hard to find a strong foundation to begin. This can work both ways; if you don't bring people, you aren't introducing your fans to the venue, to the night, etc.

The promoter may have more expectations of you than you have of him

Say you need to bring at least twenty-five people, how many does he have to bring minimum? He may be just a middleman. What's his value? Maybe it's just that he's offering you a gig. Artists are often in a good position to bring numbers to a gig but I don't think that you should be expected to bring a minimum amount. Generally, if you can't bring an audience, it should be up to the promoter to figure this out by communicating with you. If he's not convinced, he can book somebody who can.

Conclusion

Make sure, through communication, that you both know what you expect from each other. If the promoter is just a middleman, you might as well rent out the venue yourself. You can really help yourself out by putting effort into promoting your gigs but, ultimately, however many turn up, turn up.

Promoting your gigs is not just about getting numbers down; it exposes your name and possibly your music to more people. You could get your name out to 300,000 people from the marketing campaign of one small gig. I find that, when I get booked, it helps if the promoter has already seen my name about.

Minimum audience requirements have been killing the potential for medium sized bands to do medium sized gigs for a long time. It has also been exploiting naïve artists for a long time. I once saw a post for an open-mic night with a minimum audience requirement of fifteen people! 'For the potential of getting paid gigs'. I couldn't believe it. That must be a poor venue if they can't even attract audiences to an open-mic night. You know that the atmosphere there is going to be sour.

Although London is famous for having this kind of stingy music scene, there are still plenty of places in London that work without requiring numbers from the artist. They have to have a great reputation for talent. These places should be rewarded and you would probably rather bring your fans to a night where all the acts are good rather than one where it's you and a load of noobs.

Is this a fair take on it? I'm sure a lot of places in London are backed into a corner with high costs and it's a shame. The simple rules for me are, keep it clear, don't be lazy and, if it's unfair, just don't do it!


Blog by Vid Warren - http://www.vidwarren.com

Spamming

I've stopped using Blogger. All blogs are posted on my website instead. You can view this one at: http://www.vidwarren.com/spamming

---

Dear Viewer:

You may have been directed here from a link posted directly to you as a comment on a social network. This is probably an ironic, 'automatic' response to an unsolicited link to your music/work or an innappropriate tag to a promotional image.
The article argues a fair point. Beyond this, it is designed to be nothing more than a light-hearted taste of your own medicine and an innovative method of spreading an article that I advocate. Please don't take it personally.

Regards,
Your referrer

Please don't spam me!

There are varying degrees and some very fine lines and grey areas. However, if you stop and think about it, it shouldn't be too hard to tell whether what you're doing is dignified promotion or spam.

What makes an action 'spam' is not what it is; it's the context in which you find it. You may have created a new track, of which you're very proud. If you then post it as an unsolicited link to my Facebook Wall, you've just fallen somewhere between 'me stumbling upon it organically' and 'me having context for the link through an ongoing private conversation', without getting the benefits of either.

The best way of sharing song without looking desperate and intrusive is to perform it live. The best way of sharing a link is to either post it on your own Wall and let your viewers choose to share it for you or to bring it up in a private conversation when relevant. Both ways allow for an organic discovery of what may be a great track. Neither have anything that is too 'out of the blue'.

You care more about your art than you do spreading it, right?

Facebook in particular have worked very hard to create 'designated spamming areas' like groups and Pages. For the most part, they do not leak into other areas and this is probably a big key to their success. Stick to these areas for your promotion. If somebody has consented to receiving your links in their news feed by clicking 'Like', that's the best place for the links to go.

Seeing the appeal of spamming is easy, if something reaches your inbox, you will see it. That's something that you can guarantee more so than with advertising. If enough people see your spam, then there will be people that follow that link to your Website.

Seeing the problem with spam should be equally easy but it seems to go over a lot of heads.

Firstly, spam is intrusive. The (sometimes first) impression you are creating is done through pissing someone off by wasting their time. There's a queue of people trying to promote themselves but they're often damging their reputation.

Secondly, there are so many people doing it that the chances of it leading to a new customers are tiny. Your time should be worth more than to spam. If you spent that time making music, you would have less need to spam people.

Thirdly, spam looks a bit desperate. It definitely connotes that you don't have enough fans to support you and that you still have too much time on your hands and that your still near to amateur level.

Consider that even massively successful bands can't get away with spamming (depending on your definition). If they can't and don't, what makes you think that you can? 'Would my favourite band absolutely not do this?' is a fairly good question to consider if you are unsure about promotion. You'll have to make your own decisions but it might uncover the 'why'.

Finally, spamming devalues music. If it did work, music would never be chosen on it's value; only on the power of its 'spampaign'. In my opinion, people shouldn't sit back and wait for music to find them. Do you really want your fanbase to consist of people that like whatever is shoved in front of them regardless of its merit?

My least favourite type of spam is the kind that pretends not to be spam - Smalltalk that is obviously there because the person posting it is too embarrassed to post just spam. You cannot polish a turd. Why make up some bullshit conversation? This is blatantly obvious in every one of these situations. Are you going to write comment after comment that looks like a desperate cry for attention and popularity? Really? On the Internet? Everybody can see it! It can damage anybody's view of you, more so with the people that already know you. Yes, it can even cost you your existing contacts or at least a portion of their respect.

There are alternative ways to promote effectively

Promotion is fiendishly difficult. I worry that a lot of people spam out of frustration because it's so difficult to find a way of doing it that is creative and effective. How frustrating it is to have finally finished an track/video/album and then find out that this is just the start of a whole new job. If that's where you're at, try this:

A good logo/motif can go a long way towards helping people to remember you. It's something that surprisingly few artists have 'gotten around to doing'. In fact, enough acts don't have one that having one from the start means that you can really stand out when you're starting out. This is just one of a million things that surprisingly few artists have 'gotten around to doing'. If you don't have your own website, a well customized and content rich Facebook Page, a PRS-For Music membership, a Musicians' Union membership, a well written biog, good promo-photography and an entire set of tight, brilliant music that is recorded and ready for live performance, why are you posting to three-hundred differnt Walls instead of getting all that done? If you do, why are you sharing it publicly with me instead of emailing promoters, venues, festivals, agencies, record labels, publishers, managers, radio stations, magazines and blogs‽

If you stay on the right side of promotion, a lot of your marketing should sort itself out. Leaving flyers in venues, giving them out after gigging, giving them to people that you think will already be interested and sending out e-mails to a mailing-list or a Facebook Update from an artist page are all fine in my books as they all involve the 'target market' having already volunteered their attention in some way; they always have the option of clicking 'Unlike' or 'Unfriend' without sacrificing their entire account. Posting a Facebook event invite to all of your contacts used to be OK but now they appear as notifications and it isn't. Save event invites for birthday parties and leaving dos.

Viral marketing is worth exploring if you don't want to piss people off. Briefly, viral marketing involves giving people something that they want as an incentive to accept your promotion. This can involve creating novel media that people choose to share or giving people free 'giveaways'. Just keep it real: I'm not writing this entire article to entice more viewers to my website. I genuinely believe that what I'm discussing is an important argument and that, if I can help to convince people to stop spamming, the world may become a slightly better place. If this article was written in order to attract more viewers to my website, it would be less effective at doing so!

Incidentally, the most successful marketing tends to have a purpose that is far greater than just a marketing campaign, which is one paradox that makes marketing so hard to quantify. How do you tackle marketing yourself when contriving a campaign is so often shallow and transparent? Perhaps the only solution is to be passionate about what you 'really' do, build a reputation for high quality music and let as much of the marketing as possible take care of itself. If you're going to explore viral marketing, make sure that there is a reason (or at least a very good 'give-away') alongside your campaign or you'll be wasting time and possibly money.

In some situations, not trying to promote yourself at all is the best promotion you can do. This can create a sense of mystery and dignity.

Having a backdrop of some kind with your name on it is a much more subtle way of promoting yourself on-stage than shouting your website out. People are more likely to remember it too. Nothing spoils the atmosphere quite like hearing: 'and, if you liked the music tonight, you can check out my website...' or worse 'Facebook/Youtube/etc.'

The music needs to come first. There's no point having excellent marketing campaigns, websites, photo-reels, logos, equipment and contacts if it's not at least working towards supporting brilliant music


Blog by Vid Warren - http://www.vidwarren.com

[HBB] Is Going to University a Smart Decision for Musicians?

I'm still choc-a-bloc so here's another one from HBB:

Originally posted on 29.06.2010 - LINK

Is Going to University a Smart Decision for Musicians?

---

When I was at secondary (high) school, we were told that university was the only option. I find this message quite bizarre and have certainly seen its effects on students that I meet.

When I started teaching in a secondary school, I got chatting to the careers adviser who made it clear that university was not the only option to recommend. I don't know whether this was because a difference in schools or a difference in time.

With top up fees, a UK degree is probably going to set you back £30-40k. I know that this debt doesn't have to be paid back until you can afford to do so but that's not the kind of cloud I'd put over my own head lightly. Despite this, I meet a lot of students that hate their course, don't go to their lectures and, when I ask why they chose that subject in the first place, they say: 'Because I got offered a place' or 'I went to an open day and ended up doing that' or 'I don't know; I just did' or even 'I didn't know what else to do' i.e. avoiding the real world.

Personally, I would love to study music at degree level. I'd just need a way to freeze time and for somebody to pick up the bill. I'm really interested in the subject. I know that I would work hard and do well but there's no way that I would trade a full time job in music with all the experience and experiences that I'm getting for a ridiculous amount of debt and a load of twats getting pissed for the first time. After that I'd just be going back to doing what I already am, though I'd love to see what it would do to my music.

I've done quite a few student gigs, festivals and 'alternative-proms' (a really nice circuit to get on). I also have lots of student chums and have been to parties in halls. From a mixture of this and talking to people when weighing up doing a degree, I have come to these conclusions:

• University used to be for around the top one percent but now everybody has a way in and is going for it. This means that going to university would probably feel like going to school.
  
• Most pissed students are like fourteen year-olds.
  
• The first year of a degree is just about getting everybody up to the level of the smartest people in the class. This means that the whole first year benefits the smartest people the least.
  
• University is a good, essential option for anybody that wants to become a successful doctor, lawyer, headmaster, lecturerer etc. because of the piece of paper it gives you. If you're not in it for the piece of paper, there are cheaper ways of gaining the knowledge, though they will probably take more self-discipline.
  
• Most people that finish a degree, successfully or otherwise, go straight into working in bars, cafés and other jobs that have nothing to do with their subject.
  
• Eighteen is not an 'adult age' for the vast majority. Even physically most eighteen year olds still have some growing to do. In terms of maturity, it's probably wise to wait until you're ready.
  
• Debt is slavery. Although it's probably the best kind of debt you can have, a degree is not as valuable as it used to be. It's not like you'll have a house at the end of it.
  
• Many level three courses (E.g. A-levels) have scope to teach at degree level.
  
• Most jobs in teaching require a degree. Plenty don't.

On a train on the way to a gig, I decided to compare what £20k (the cost of a degree not including living costs) could buy me. In terms of education, I figured out that I could get around 1,000 hours of private tuition for that price.

That works out at five two-hour lessons per-week for 100 weeks (about three years if you take time off for Christmas and the festival season).

To reiterate, you could study five different kinds of music for three years for the same price as a degree. That means that you could do: Beatboxing, Singing, Piano, Music Theory and Music Production. You could choose your tutors too. The only downside is that you'd have to find the money upfront.

My point of view is fairly biased against going to university. There are plenty of situations where it is the best choice. The point of this thread is not to provide an argument against university; it is to state that, from a business point of view, it is a decision that you need to make. Don't let parents and teachers tell you what to do. It might not be the best option, especially if you want to go freelance.

[HBB] How to Deal with People Trying to Rip You Off

I thought I'd start this week with a particularly helpful post from HBB:

Originally posted on 15.07.2010 - LINK

How to Deal With People Trying to Rip You Off

---

'Ripping you off' can mean a lot of things. This might be anything from playful and innocent blagging from customers trying to haggle the price of your CD to a manager shoving a contract under your nose that will rob you blind.

Playful Blaggers

There's usually nothing malicious about this, the last thing you want is to turn a bit of fun into a big stress for both of you. The easiest way to deal with this is friendly sarcasm. If they're trying to get you to lower a price on something, you could tell them that, for them, the price has just gone up.

A lot of this comes down to the response they are getting. If they think you're getting uncomfortable or bored with their banter, they might continue to 'breaking point' because you might cave and give them what they want. If they know that the response is following a pattern that doesn't give them what they want, they will move on (and might even buy your CD at full price).

What's fair is up to you. Maybe you will give them a discount because you respect that they've had the balls to ask. Maybe it would be really unfair to let them bully you into giving them a discount where the more polite and friendly people have to pay more.

If you really get stuck, putting them on the spot can work well too. Tell them that they can get a discount if they can impress you with a talent - a short story, a musical interlude/serenade, challenge them to answer some quick fire questions on maths and general knowledge. At the very least, this will stop most other people from trying the same blag.

Deal Welchers

If somebody offers you something and then changes the terms last minute, it's pretty obvious that they're in the wrong. Sometimes, bringing them up on this can allow them to make you look brutish or stingy.

If you're booked to perform for a certain amount and they come to you at the end of the night saying: 'We didn't get enough people in, I can only give you X, is that OK?' you have pretty much got three viable options:

Staying firm - Saying no but staying relaxed can be difficult but it can be a very direct 'dead-end' to their blagging. It's probably best not to go into too much detail with this; you don't need a reason because they know that they're in the wrong anyway. Be blunt, if they push the issue, respond with short and simple dead-ends like 'that's not what we agreed' etc. Starting to justify why will only open the floor for debate. If you get stuck in a 'yes, no, yes, no' bringing in somebody else might help, e.g. 'Let's go sort this out with the venue owner.' Just make sure that it's relevant to them if you do this. Sometimes it helps just to have a witness but it is possible that you will be dragging them into something that is not their business.

The problem with this solution is that they might take that firmness as a reason to start a confrontation. It is not always the best option and depends on who you are dealing with.

Showing them how they're affecting you - Sometimes you can just describe the situation and it will expose what they are doing whilst avoiding any confrontation. You could say: 'Actually, it's not OK, I work really hard at what I do and I don't make very much but we agreed on a fee and you didn't say it would be less if not enough people came.' How are they going to respond? If they were gearing up for confrontation, you might have taken the wind out of their sales. If they were to shout at you now, it would look like bullying and wouldn't get them anywhere.

One of the advantages of this solution is that most people aren't pricks but sometimes they are thoughtless. If the promoter is being selfish because he just hasn't taken you into account, all he needs is a nudge. Being too blunt can make you seem unpleasant. Being 'reasonable' can let them think about it from your point of view and realize that they were asking too much.

The problem with this solution is that it's hard to keep the balance of looking firm and being reasonable. This solution relies a lot on them reconsidering from your point of view. Maybe they are purposefully trying to scam a little money out of you because they haven't done as well as they had hoped on the night. Maybe they have decided that you should have done more promotion even though it wasn't specified etc. It largely depends on their character.

Putting in a crafty blag of your own - If you think that you don't have much chance of getting the full amount, this is probably the best option. You can meet his: 'Is it alright if I just give you X?' with 'Well, that depends. When are you next going to book me for a gig?' You can follow this with more negotiation on fee or even other blags. E.g. maybe he has a studio or rehearsal space and you would benefit from a heavy discount on some time there. Maybe he's a really talented graphic designer and you need work done on a flier/logo/website/t-shirt/photograph/etc. Money is a really hard thing to argue about, especially when it's because there's not enough of it to go around. People can often use this as a way of saying 'I wish I could but I can't' when what they mean is 'I don't want to and I won't'.

The problem with this solution is that you might put more energy into chasing this blag than it's worth. He could easily say 'yeah, I'll book you for a gig in a month' and then 'change his mind' or the same problem could arise at the next gig. You could be negotiating over twenty quid and the problem could be that his nights aren't ever going to do that well.

Sometimes it's just worth getting whatever you can from that night and leaving it at that. It depends on the situation. A lot of this can be prevented with a contract but sometimes that's more hassle than it's worth too. This stuff can come up because of incompetence, malice or chance. That 'twenty quid' might seem insignificant but you don't know who will be there to witness him dropping that bombshell. If it happens in front of an important contact and you don't have a professional and mature way of dealing with it, it may cost you more than 'twenty quid'. The respect is worth more and you'll want to get the practise in on the pocket money rather than have to deal with it for the first time when it's an amount that's big enough to really make a difference.

Dodgy Contracts

When it comes to contracts, there are two simple rules.

One is the motto of the Musicians' Union: Get it in writing. If you want to make something concrete, get it in writing. A signature is nice but not always going to be feasible. However, if somebody refuses to put something in an e-mail, it's going to look more like sneakiness than laziness. People can say all kinds of shit on the phone, where's the record of your conversation? It's usually not a case of bringing up the e-mail and waving it in front of them and/or a courtroom; it's a case of them knowing that they have to stick to the agreement in the first place because they agreed in writing.

The other is get your contracts looked at. The Musicians' Union will give you one free hour of lawyer time per document. Most basic contracts are fairly self explanatory, if a little dense. If something is shoved under your nose, take it away and spend as much time as you need to make heads or tails of it. If you are under pressure to sign it straight away, there's probably something wrong. If there is no room for negotiation, there is probably something wrong. Some of the more complicated contracts are full of Latin terms so that you need to pay a lawyer top whack to look through it. Sometimes there will be a carefully worded clause in the 'small-print' designed to fuck you over. Sometimes it's what is missing that will fuck you over the most. How many times a year do you tick a box and agree to a million-word terms and conditions. Most of the time, contracts are just a mixture of data (how much you get paid, what time you turn up, that there is security on the door) and what happens if everything goes to shit. You should still get paid if the event cancels last minute because of problems on their end. You probably won't if they cancel because of a tornado etc.

You'd hope that a contract would contain a load of clauses that prevent either party from doing what they wouldn't do anyway. If somebody is really trying to shaft you with a contract, it should be fairly obvious when compared to a contract that is fair. Getting hold of a good template for each type is a great way of putting other contracts into context.

Why I Need a Blog

For the past two-and-a-half years, I've been on HumanBeatbox.com's content team writing articles for their magazine and threads in their forums. Most of the time, I share advice on how to run your own business as a musician. This is based on my own experience.

I know many people outside of HBB that would enjoy reading the threads I post. I'm sure that I'll gain a lot from this blogging community too.

So this will be a mixture of new material and reposting old threads from HBB when I'm busy (all the time).

This is going to be fun.

Vid