So I'm reading my facebook feed and see that Andy McKee has posted something. He usually has good things to say, so I took a look:
http://www.theleadingevents.com/?p=6538
As some of you might know, the Olympics are sometime soon. That's about all I know; I've been too busy to bother with actual dates and all of the hoopla that is associated with big sporting events.
But this article touches on the music of the Olympics. I do music stuff sometimes, so that interests me. And if you think back to when they were in Beijing, China, there was a lot going on with music, especially for the opening ceremonies. It was pretty neat and will be a hard act to follow. So it does beg to question what London has planned??
Well, the plan is to not pay the musicians. It's for "exposure."
One word of the article sticks out: ethics.
As a charitable event? Sure, "exposure." As an audition for a bigger, paying gig? Maybe. As an unestablished act at a small local venue? Maybe. But at an event where everyone else is fairly compensated and even getting to the event could cost thousands? Ethics?
And they're being written off as "volunteers?" When is a professional service a job for a volunteer? Volunteering generally requires no skill. A volunteer is a body with basic functions. A volunteer doesn't do something for "exposure."
So ultimately, despite calling them volunteers, you have professionals paying their way for a chance at some exposure. Not a garage band trying to hit it big, mind you. These are professionals who do this for a living. They will be providing a value-added service for free, to the benefit of all those who are getting paid for their value-added, professional services.
To the core, this is unethical. The worst part is that this will most likely not be stopped. Actually, no, the worst part is that people don't see a problem with this. They see playing music as "fun" and novel, but not as a job. It's a silly thing that grown men do to prevent themselves from growing up and facing the real world. But let's say that all of those people weren't in music because all music, musical services, etc. were free? Our airwaves would be filled with Justin Bieber and similar children who don't have to make a living.
Which is why you pay musicians. "Steal" my music all you want, but my services - the services of musicians everywhere - should be compensated.
Think about a sweat shop. Can we agree that they are unethical; people working for pennies a day? Well, take those pennies away. And then endorse it by the global community.
http://www.theleadingevents.com/?p=6538
As some of you might know, the Olympics are sometime soon. That's about all I know; I've been too busy to bother with actual dates and all of the hoopla that is associated with big sporting events.
But this article touches on the music of the Olympics. I do music stuff sometimes, so that interests me. And if you think back to when they were in Beijing, China, there was a lot going on with music, especially for the opening ceremonies. It was pretty neat and will be a hard act to follow. So it does beg to question what London has planned??
Well, the plan is to not pay the musicians. It's for "exposure."
One word of the article sticks out: ethics.
As a charitable event? Sure, "exposure." As an audition for a bigger, paying gig? Maybe. As an unestablished act at a small local venue? Maybe. But at an event where everyone else is fairly compensated and even getting to the event could cost thousands? Ethics?
And they're being written off as "volunteers?" When is a professional service a job for a volunteer? Volunteering generally requires no skill. A volunteer is a body with basic functions. A volunteer doesn't do something for "exposure."
So ultimately, despite calling them volunteers, you have professionals paying their way for a chance at some exposure. Not a garage band trying to hit it big, mind you. These are professionals who do this for a living. They will be providing a value-added service for free, to the benefit of all those who are getting paid for their value-added, professional services.
To the core, this is unethical. The worst part is that this will most likely not be stopped. Actually, no, the worst part is that people don't see a problem with this. They see playing music as "fun" and novel, but not as a job. It's a silly thing that grown men do to prevent themselves from growing up and facing the real world. But let's say that all of those people weren't in music because all music, musical services, etc. were free? Our airwaves would be filled with Justin Bieber and similar children who don't have to make a living.
Which is why you pay musicians. "Steal" my music all you want, but my services - the services of musicians everywhere - should be compensated.
Think about a sweat shop. Can we agree that they are unethical; people working for pennies a day? Well, take those pennies away. And then endorse it by the global community.