There are real down sides in paying musicians based on attendance. There are lots of factors: competing dances, birthday parties, weather and somethings that are even more flukey - a transit problem for example.
We do promise a guarantee that makes it almost worth while for the musicians to come to NYC. Many nights we come out behind on the dances. Once there is enough admissions to meet our expenses they get half. So it means that if they attract more of their friends and followers they get half. Many of our dances do not make enough for basic expenses. We have to have a rather major fund raising campaign at the end of each year to make up for our deficits. NYC is bigger in any way. We have more dances that many places. We probably pay more rent. We probably have more newcomers over a period of time. That means we have more people that do not come back. I hope our experience is helpful to others. One of the things that I think makes these dances difficult to run is the talent and committment of the musicians and callers. Most of them work hard practicing, rehearhising, and making arrangements and programs. There are musicians that have studied this stuff for years and want to make a living at it. I really appreciate it and all of us dance organizers need to. However, in the scheme of thing there are just not that many contra dancers. Those that do, want to dance weekly but still it is not unusual for there to be 60 dancers in the hall. if we have 200 it is a major feat. Dancers want to dance frequently so they do not want to pay much. I can get a ticket in the top row of madison square garden to hear sting sing for 181.00. If we charge 25 to hear Wild Asparagus, or Perpetual e motion there would be a revolution. We need to consider financial realities to keep the program alive. Merle On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Mac Mckeever <[email protected]> wrote: > I have always struggled with the concept of paying the band, caller and > sound tech a percent of the admissions. It penalizes them when attendance > is down for something out of their control ( a huge number of dancers went > to an out of town weekend or the weather was really bad) and, of course, > the opposite can be true for good nights. > > Instead, we have a standard pay schedule not tied to attendance and make > adjustments for special occasions as needed. We monitor it throughout the > year to be sure it is all evening out. If there is a problem over time, we > tweek our strategy to put us back where we need to be. We have close to > 100 events a year - so there is a big enough sample to keep any single > dance from causing a problem. > > Mac McKeever > St Louis > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Merle Mceldowney <[email protected]> > To: A list for dance organizers <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:24 PM > Subject: Re: [Organizers] Booking & treasury - (was: booking as a team?) > > > It can get really complicated. We pay the musicians a set amount with a 50 > percent cut of the gate. We need that 50 percent. Many of our dances do > not make the expenses, so the ones > that do well help out with the ones that > loose. We have a saturday night every week from September untill May; that > is a lot of dances. We have been doing this for 60 years. We also run a > weekly english dance. > > I have been involved for about 15 years. a long time. I think only three > of the board members have been around longer than me. One problem - and > this often involves payment of musicians is policies get lost over time. > There is a manual available that covers a lot of stuff but when there is a > question the people in charge of the dance do not realize there is a > description of that policy someplace in this large binder we have that has > that stuff. > > Merle > > > On > Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Dana Dwinell-Yardley <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Good heavens: that kind of miscommunication sounds like no fun at all to > > deal with. I'm grateful (especially now that I'm taking on booking > > responsibilities!) that we now have a very clear payment system figured > out > > in Montpelier. > > > > After we take out our overhead, and pay the sound guy, we split what's > left > > evenly between the folks on stage, with a limit on band size. So: > > 2-person band (3 people on stage) = 1/3 to caller, 2/3 to band > > 3-person band (4 on stage) = 1/4 to caller, 3/4 to band > > 4-or-more-person band (5+ on stage) = 1/5 to caller, 4/5 to band > > > > We also have a minimum guarantee if we have a lower turnout, which isn't > > all that often. We subsidized 7 of our 28 dances last year, but we had 4 > > dances with a huge turnout and well more than that with an above-average > > turnout, so it all comes out in the wash. > > > > We make special exceptions to this VERY rarely: for example, last time > our > > dance was on New Year's Eve, we paid the band and caller a little extra > to > > stay past midnight. > > > > It took us a while to iron all this out as a committee, but it was well > > worth it for the lack of confusion we have now! > > > > Dana Dwinell-Yardley > > Montpelier, VT > > > > > > On > Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > >Jerome Grisanti wrote: > > > > > > Make sure you let the treasurer know who is getting paid, and how much > > ... > > > I've been in the uncomfortable situation of handing someone money and > > > having them say, "this is not the agreed amount." I've also been the > > > caller when the person with the bank asked, "how much do we pay you?" > > > ... Of course, it's not about the money, but smooth relations. > > > > > > AMEN ! > > > > > > In my > experience, lack of clarity on money happens all-too-often. > > > It's usually not a big deal, but occasionally makes a mess. > > > > > > I still have uncomfortable feelings about a glitch like this -- from > > > over a decade ago. At the break, the treasurer came up to me and > > > began, "We should have talked about this in advance ..." It turned > > > out that instead of the standard payment (which I had been led to > > > expect), they wanted to apply a different formula (reducing my pay) > > > because of an unusual band situation. I didn't know what to say, but > > > observed that I had traveled hundreds of miles, which might also be > > > considered unusual ... We concluded the discussion (which occupied > > > the break, and > would have been more happily spent socializing, and > > > planning the 2nd half) with me saying "Just do whatever seems best to > > you." > > > > > > The organizer felt ruffled and grumpy, I felt ruffled and grumpy. I > > > suspect that whatever compromise was achieved was explained to the > > > band, so they felt that way, too. Ugh ! A lot of unnecessary > > > annoyance over $50 or so. > > > > > > As Jerome observes, "it's not about the money, but smooth relations." > > > It's really worth the extra communication to avoid putting performers > > > and volunteer organizers in awkward situations. > > > > > > (postscript: there was a blizzard on Sunday, and I totaled my car on > > > > the way home. Definitely not my favorite dance weekend of all time ...) > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > -------------------------------------------- > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.scotthiggs.com > > > > > > > -- > > Dana Dwinell-Yardley > > graphic design & layout > > Montpelier, Vermont > > 802-229-4008 > > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > > Organizers mailing > list > > [email protected] > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers > > > > > > -- > *Merle McEldowney* > *212-933-0290* > > _______________________________________________ > Organizers mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers > _______________________________________________ > Organizers mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers > -- *Merle McEldowney* *212-933-0290*
