What does it cost to play?

[David Loving]

How many of us keep track of what it costs to gig? How many of us really make a profit? I wondered about this reading 80s-LZ post about quitting the band. He had 80 mile trips to rehearsal and trips out of town for gigs. Do you keep track of costs? I know I don't but I may start after reading the "Quit the Band" thread!

[SpaceNorman]

The answer all depends on what you factor into your "cost" model. For example - do you attach a $$ value to the time you spend at rehearsal? Do you attach a $$ value to the time you spend practicing at home? Do you differentiate between practicing for "personal development" vs "learning band songs"? Etc.

 

These days, I'm a weekend warrior type who plays out 2-3 nights a month. I keep a detailed record of what revenues I generate with music. I'm careful to ensure that my gigging covers any any "out of pocket" expenses that are directly related to it. For me, that means I cover the gas I spend driving to rehearsals and gigs, it covers my dry cleaning, etc. I factor in $$ for my time actually at a gig. I expect to earn $15-$20 an hour on top of any direct expenses. If a gig pays enough to cover my direct expenses and pay me for my time - it's worth playing.

 

However, there's a number of things I DON'T factor into the equation - including the following:

 

I don't factor money spent on food and/or drink into my expenses. (My reasoning is that I'm gonna eat and drink whether I'm gigging or not - therefore it's not a direct expense attributeable to a gig.)

 

I do not factor in time associated with rehearsals.

 

I do not factor in equipment costs as part of the expense equation. Obviously playing makes a contribution to my collection of toys - but, I'm not making my purchasing decisions based solely on ROI calculations.

[nickd]

I keep records of all associated costs (as I can offset them against income tax).

 

I also work out an hourly rate. It's OK for my more profitable gigs, scarily low (and below minimum wage) for some of the others once I factor in rehearsal time.

 

But, like most of you I expect, I don't always make decisions of which projects to do based solely on profitability.

[Outkaster]

You can only right off half of the food and lodging. I always take the mileage, never the gas in NYS.

[Bill H.]

Do I keep track of my costs? You bet! It's the only way I can deduct them.

 

In order to pull that trick off, you need to make more than your expenses though - which I've never failed to do in in close to 40 years at this. I try to keep my equipment purchases at 10% of my gross, but that will sometimes creep up to around 15%.

[Synthoid]

He had 80 mile trips to rehearsal

 

 

That would be a deal breaker for me. I can't imagine packing up my gear and lugging it on an 80-mile trek for a rehearsal.

[J. Dan]

He had 80 mile trips to rehearsal

 

 

That would be a deal breaker for me. I can't imagine packing up my gear and lugging it on an 80-mile trek for a rehearsal.

 

That wasn't me - somebody else said that. We rarely practice and when we do, it's a 25 min drive for me. I keep track of all expenses including mileage and deduct it on my taxes. Tax burden is significant with self employment and local earnings tax factored in, but in my case, net income from the band was still significant.

[JeffLearman]

Um, ... if you're making enough money to pay taxes on it, you'd be foolish not to track your expenses and deduct them.

 

My costs are easier to calculate, since my income from gigs is chump change. All I'd have to do is add up the cost of drinks I wouldn't have bought, gas I wouldn't have burned, and look around at the gear I own. That covers most of it.

 

If I spend $2000 on a keyboard, I expect to get 10 years of service from it. (Yeah, I'm cheap, and I tend to hold on to stuff rather than turn it over.) I probably average about $400 or so per year on big ticket items, and at least another $100 or $200 on incidentals (guitar strings, cables, widgets, etc.)

 

So, for me it's $600/yr plus gas and whiskey. Figure $20/week for that, and whaddya know, I spend more on gas & whiskey than on instruments! My hobby would be cheaper if I stayed at home.

[Adan]

From a financial standpoint, music, for me, is more of a recreational pursuit than a way of making a living. I guess that makes a "hobbyist." So, if you think of music as a hobby, then, financially-speaking, you should compare it to other hobbies in terms of what it costs you. Sure, you could compare gigging to sitting at home while drinking water and eating crackers and staring at a wall, but realistically, that's not how most of us would spend our time.

 

Let's say your passion is golf. Golf isn't cheap. Aside from equipment, you have to pay for every minute you spend on the course. Tennis is cheaper. Running is cheaper still.

 

But those generally aren't things you do to entertain yourself at night and on weekends. Usually, for me, a Friday or Saturday gig = a night when I didn't have to figure out how to entertain myself and my girfriend. It's so easy to rack up hundred bucks on a date night. When I gig, I'm already $100 ahead of the game.

 

 

[solpincus]

Since I live in the SF Bay Area (a decent gigger's town) & I consider myself primarily a Jazz player,I have to contend with the fact that in this area, Jazz has more & more provided diminishing returns money wise (if i'm wrong, somebody hip me to the facts.) I certainly don't consider money when i get home from the square day slave, & rush downstairs to turn on the keyboards, let the tube pre amps warm up, & resume practise & play just to get the mediocrity of the day out of my system. Jazz gigs around here do exist, but i find myself detaching myself more & more from the 'scene', & give more consideration to fullfilling my own make on music, (piano, organ, arranging for ensembles, most of which never get played.) i would NOT call Music a 'hobby'i would call it something more in the line of a passion or a need to incarnate something that lies un-manifest within my own evolving biography. It's the same with my fantasy art : it's Art ( & Music) for for LIFE"S sake, but it certainly is not contingent on making money ( like it was back in the 70's,80's,90's & just across the Millenial threshold. there are numerous 'quiet' players like myself who long ago relinqueshed any need to play with 'cost' involved. Conversely, however, if I do play at some function, & the 'event coordinator' denigrates the music or art as something superfluous, & way behind any consideration of the caterer's needs, I won't hesitate to pack my gear up, give the Host a taste of my more temperamental side (in full view of everybody attending) & storm off in a huff.

"...now THAT is an exit."

So there is still a cost of some kind, but for me , the 'costs' have metamorphised into something different.

I still have serious bouts of GAS, though. they difinetly cost.

[David Loving]

I do not gig for a living. I quit work this year and started drawing social security, so I am living on a lot less income. The playing is something I have always had to do, even if it doesn't pay squat. I have a daily practice regimen I follow, and am serious about piano. I love playing gigs. I do not care about doing it as a business, but I would. The bands charge very little. I don't factor in an hourly rate. I only consider actual out of pocket expenses. So for me it's basically mileage and equipment. I buy equipment only out of money earned with the bands, and try to cover the gas, etc at the IRS rate - $0.555 ? I'm going to keep track.

[Adan]

I realize we are all passionate about music, and that it is, for most of us, a very essential expression of ourselves, which perhaps could not come out any other way. But recognize that someone who golfs might say something very similar -- that the zen-like experience of hitting a golf ball perfectly and watching it travel 300 yards is their most authentic expression of self. OK, that sounds like BS to me, but then, I suck at golf. I can relate more to surfing, and to people who say they cannot live without it. And, unless you're on the pro circuit, you've probably never made a penny surfing.

 

I took the point of this thread to be that, if we take the "essential expression of myself" stuff out of the equation, does playing music make sense from a financial standpoint? If you put that "essential expression" stuff back in the equation, then it's a different discussion.

[Dave Ferris]

does playing music make sense from a financial standpoint?

 

I can honestly say that most of the guys that I used to play with 20-30 years ago, when the scene in LA was really hopping, that put $$$s before music- very few, if any are still playing on a regular basis. Most have moved away or changed careers or sadly, even died.

[Josh Paxton]

if we take the "essential expression of myself" stuff out of the equation, does playing music make sense from a financial standpoint?

 

If it didn't, I'd be homeless.

[solpincus]

I think that we're living in an evolving culture where the person's talent (or gift) & what the person does for a living are are almost completely divided (at least in the larger, urban areas)In other words, the person's talent & the person's occupation coincide less & less. In the provincial Middle Ages, the small town carpenter was allegdly called 'carpenter', the baker was called "baker'. People identified with their 'trade' in a more devotional, selfless way. Nowadays, in the big cities, a person can be more of a 'chameleon;.' In a more crass situation, consider the Hillside Stranglers. In city built on illusion like LA, (nothing illusionary about the bucks)the younger killer could pass himself off as a cop, a shrink, a doctor, etc. When the older killer told him to leave town & move to a rural coastside town in Washington state, everybody knew everybody's business there (for the most part.) the moment Kenny tried to off a girl in that town, he was made immediately.

What is my point ? The person nowadays, a person can devote himself in all freedom (except when his nagging spouse is present) towards an Art, Craft,a Passion, that does not have to be qualified by a price, or quantified by a Social Standing, or celebrity status. even spend hours a day, year after year, to perfect an art or passion that has little apparent importance to anyone around him or her. Not much different than body builders who work out hours a day, for years, who only achieve a 200 lb bench press, or 14 inch arms. A lession in priorities.

That's off my chest....i think i need medication.

[JeffLearman]

if we take the "essential expression of myself" stuff out of the equation, does playing music make sense from a financial standpoint?

 

If it didn't, I'd be homeless.

I thought that's what happens if you break up with your girlfriend.

 

Seriously, the person who makes more money at music than they could at something else is very rare. However, the person who is happier as a musician than doing something else is not.

 

I'm happier not being a pro musician. I'd hate the lifestyle of the moderately successful muso, or the income of a less successful one. And the worst case for me would be hitting it big.

 

Well, hitting it big enough to retire early, and reaping all the fringe benefits ... never mind, I'm dreaming now.

 

Seriously though, I would enjoy how much better my playing would be, if I were full time at it. But I don't think I'm quite addicted enough for that.

 

That's off my chest....i think i need medication.

I think most of us do, but we come here instead.

[solpincus]

I do think that many of us are not constituted to either be a full time musician for a lifetime (on a moderate pay scale) & maintain a fresh outlook , or even be a very successful one for a long period of time & be able to deal with the demands of nightly performing , or the rigors of the road.

Being a one-hit wonder, on the other hand, could be intolerable

for anyone except that person who is grateful for little, & takes his earnings towards a small business that is successful (if only moderately.)

I know I'm happier not being a full time pro. I definetly wasn't happy when i was. But... to each his own. it's still good to put something out there, be it an occasional live appearance, or even a cd , even if you know it won't be any hit. It's the DOING of it that i find important. And ther's always someone out there that may appreciate what you put out,& even use that for a source of personal inspiration. For me, that would be the biggest pay off.

[spazzkey]

no profit - just some pocket change to offset some gear costs... but priceless fun!!!

[jeff7b9]

I used to gig for a living. Now I run a business and I must say there are some distinct advantages to NOT playing for a living.

 

1- I play what I want to play, (I'm MD in a band I put together) not what I need to play for a gig to get paid... I can also get my rocks off in a wide variety of genres without having to play in 5-6 bands. To me this stuff is very important.

 

2- Stress level is way lower. I can control when all the gigs are booked and don't need to miss out on things because I have a gig I already committed to.

 

3- the band comes to my house, so no travel for rehearsal.

 

TBH it takes a lot of discipline to profit in the 'working musician' scene. As soon as I didn't need it to pay my bills I started putting money right back into gear- now I have a bunch of awesome gear!

 

 

[Musicale]

I agree with Solpincus...

 

I just work on the exercises he sent me and that's just fine. Some self medication occasionally I'm happy.

 

Regards,

Musicale