To Pay or Not to Pay

I recently had an interesting discussion with a student, who has been paying performers to record some of her pieces. She is not in school at the moment, and I think it makes sense that she pay these performers for their time, since they would not otherwise be rehearsing or recording her music. However, I feel very differently about paying performers who are fellow students. When I was a student, trying to find performers for my first concert in graduate school, I didn't even think to pay the performers because we were all students. I assumed that if they were interested in pursuing graduate (or undergraduate) study in performance then they would jump at the opportunity to play new music, to work with a living composer, and that I wouldn't have to pay them to do what I thought was already their "job" (being a student). Perhaps that was a naive assumption.

I completely understand that everyone is busy and not all performers always have time for extra gigs; however, I wasn't forcing anyone to perform my music. All I did was ask. If a performer didn't have time, or didn't want to do it for some other reason, that was fine. But if a performer refused to perform simply because there was no money involved, that seemed insulting to me. We were all students together, and was anyone paying me to write music? Of course not, because a) I was a student, and b) I was in school to write music. Performers are in school to perform music. Should I pay them to do what they are already supposed to be doing?

Just to be clear- I'm not saying that I should have been paid to write music as a student composer. I understand that my career choice is probably not going to be very lucrative, and certainly won’t be right now as I’m just starting out. But here’s what I do wonder- why does it seem that even within the field of new music, there is an expectation that performers should be paid, but it’s not a given that composers should? We’re all artists- but how many student performers often get paid to perform at local restaurants, bars, etc.? How many student composers often get paid to… compose?

While it's one thing to expect payment for a performance in the community (presumably off campus, for a non-school related event), it seems strange to me to expect payment for performances that happen at school, during the course of pursuing one's degree. What should the expectation be for paying performers? Should composers always pay performers to perform in their recitals and composers concerts? Should payment be based on how difficult the piece is, or how much time it will take to rehearse? Or, as students, should we perhaps be more understanding of our fellow students' financial situations and recognize that paying performers is extremely taxing (and in some cases, impossible) for student composers, while also recognizing that performers shouldn't feel unduly burdened by performing extra pieces outside what is required for their degrees? These are not rhetorical questions- I'd love to hear what you think!

I recently completed a piece for a student performer. He did not pay me, which was fine because we had agreed on that beforehand, and at this point in my career I'm usually happy to write a piece in exchange for a guaranteed performance. I also understand that students generally do not have money to pay for commissions, which is also fine. And of course, I am not paying him to perform my work, either. But here's the thing- if composers are not expected to make money writing pieces for their student colleagues, why should we be expected to pay these same student colleagues to perform our work?

To play devil's advocate: When a performer asks for a piece, there is the assumption that he or she is implicitly offering a performance. When a composer asks a performer to play a piece she's already written, the composer doesn't really have anything to offer the performer. As a composer, it makes me cringe to write that, because I usually say something like, you get the benefit of working with a living composer, you get to give the world premiere of that work, isn't that cool, you get to influence a musical work, etc. Personally, I think all of those things are pretty great. But I'm not a performer- maybe all of those cool things really aren't worth your limited time and energy. So does that mean, then, that I should be offering performers payment? Of course it depends what kind of performer you are, meaning whether your goal is to be a first violinist in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra or if you're hoping to form your own new music ensemble. Obviously if the latter is the case the benefits to the performer playing my piece would increase exponentially.

On the flip side, here's a question to composers: what if a performer said to you, please compose a piece for me- I won't perform it, but you'll at least get to work on it with a living performer and know that you influenced the repertoire of that instrument or group of instruments. Would that be enough for you, or would you also want to be paid? I would have to think about it. Chances are at this stage in my career I might still do it, provided I thought highly of the performer, that it was an interesting ensemble, and that I could probably find someone else to premiere it. But it would definitely be nowhere near as appealing as a guaranteed performance. And depending on what else I was doing at the time, I might expect to be paid. Here's the catch, though- as a student, I never asked to be paid to compose, for a fellow student or anyone else.

We're all practicing our art, whether it's composing, performing, or anything else. Why can't we all help each other out, and think, maybe if I help this person by composing for them for free, maybe someday they'll perform for me for free? Alternatively, we can both pay each other to perform and compose- but to me it still seems strange when the expectation by society is that performers should get paid to create their art while composers shouldn't necessarily get paid to create their art.

What do you think?

Posted by Sarah