I know some people see musical performers as 'sacred cows' but I'll NEVER understand why some musicians don't see it as the actors and crew people see it.  They volunteer their time and talents as a way to practice their craft and express their creativity, all for the good of the public and the theatre.  I know when I post the musicians names on the web site I maintain for MY favorite community theatre, I place them on the same page as the actors, because they are all PERFORMERS.  Why should THEY get paid when no one else does?  People are going to kill off everything good about 'community' if they make greed, ego, or personal gain the priority.

I'm not sure what "the norm" is or should be, but within the last 12 months, I played for three shows (and two weeks of rehearsals) for a high school production of "Wizard of Oz" and was paid a total of $400.

I was told on a piano forum that this was VERY low pay for accompanying a high school musical; that typically pay at closer to a thousand dollars.

I also played for a community theatre production of "Godspell." The show was actually picked up by another theatre, so I was paid in two installments. It totaled nine performances and at least as many rehearsals. I was paid a total of $900 for all of it.

Redhead

Well, just to play devil's advocate ... I've never acted in CT, but I've played piano in one show, and also played for a couple musicals.

When I contacted for the CT show, a stranger had found me by doing a google search and finding my professional website -- a website I pay money for to advertise my services.

I would think it would have been very strange and awkward had she called me and said, "I found you through your website, and we would like to hire you, but we're not actually going to pay you for your work."

I can't even imagine myself contacting a professional via their website -- an electrician, a plumber, a consultant, whatever -- and saying, "Hi, I have a job I'd like you to do, but I'm not going to pay you."

And then to get offended or indignant because they expect to be paid if they take the job?!??

So, that's how it seems from my point of view.

I will say that I get paid MUCH MUCH less through CT than I normally charge.

Oh, I think in another thread somebody said that the musicians shouldn't get paid because they just show up the last week. Don't forget that they have probably been spending several weeks learning the music, even though you haven't actually seen them doing it.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument or anything. I am, however, a bit amused when people post that they can't believe the musicians would have the gall to expect to be paid! Um, why wouldn't I be expect to be paid for a job I performed??

Redhead
(ducking)

Originally posted by David McCall So, your point has been taken, but I just don't understand why you would think it to be so out of the realm of reality that a musician could come in and do his/her part for a CT show as an unpaid volunteer.

Oh, I don't think it's outside the realm of reality. Apparently many musicians do it. Perhaps most do? I don't have enough experience to know. If that's how a person wants to donate their time and services, they certainly have a right to.

But I do think it's slightly amusing/slightly aggravating when people think the idea of paying a musician is outrageous. Don't you normally pay trained professionals who provide services for you? I can't imagine someone saying, astounded, "That plumber who fixed my toilets wants to be paid!" as if that was some nerve of him.

I have never been asked to play for a musical for free. If I were asked, I would consider it, but probably decline. (When I was younger, I probably would have done it.) A show just takes too many hours away from my family -- and disrupts their lives too much -- for me to justify doing it for no compensation.

Also, I would be somewhat concerned that doing a project that huge on a  volunteer basis would give me an air of looking/seeming less professional. This is my field, and not something I do just because I'm bored or need to get out of the house or something. It's hard enough for people in general to realize that, so I would at least consider that aspect when making a decision of whether or not to do a show for free.

Your comment about actors sometimes paying to be in the show is an interesting one, and I think gives the reason why (sometimes, at least) musicians are paid, but actors are not.

When I was contacted for one show, in particular, the MD said that she had been on the phone with at least ten other pianists already, and NO ONE was available for the week of the show! I was hired for that show, and another, on the basis of the fact that I was able and willing. They had never met me and had never heard me play. A definite contrast between actors auditioning -- and perhaps even paying -- to hope for the privilege to be in the show. Just a supply and demand thing.

Thanks for letting me elaborate on that more.

Redhead

The CT I work with currently pays $25/rehearsal and $35/ show. Typical contract covers two orchestra-only rehearsals with the MD, four dress rehearsal with the cast, and 6 performances over two weekends. So, approximately $360 per musician. May seem a lot, but we only produce one musical a year.