NFL Asks Musicians for Money to Play Super Bowl Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/n

Almost certainly true for some original bands, but not for the average to good weekend warriors bringing dubious Foo Fighters covers to the masses (including myself in that)!
We don't do Foo Fighters tracks ;)

Having read this thread, I have a foot in both camps. This is a business deal on the basis of effectively selling advertising space. No more, no less. That said, it has a different angle to it that causes disquiet in the lower music ranks (i.e. everyone on this forum). There's a "thin end of the wedge" aspect to the principal being established here though, & It has the potential to further diminish the value placed on the performing arts, especially trickling down to everyone other than the top tier. Under such circumstances, I believe it's right for top tier acts to take a stance on this.
 
. In contrast, it is always unethical to demand to gain from someone else's labor without appropriate compensation.

The question seems to be about compensation. I feel that the air time during the SB is huge compensation. Other companies are paying millions per minute for it. If it were my decision, I'd sell the halftime spot. If an act came to me with a proposal in which paying them would substantially increase my revenue, I'd of course consider it........but it would have to be something huge, like a Beatles reunion :)

I am assuming that the performers are not likely the ones making these decisions. Some may be under contract to perform when and where they are told. I assume that, the bigger the name, the more input they would have.




I can think of several instances of "something of value" that should not be sold. We might start with humans.


Come on now. For the sake of simplicity, stay in the realm of the discussion. You can come up with exceptions to pretty much anything ever said. It's hard to put in enough qualifiers to cover every scenario.
 
And that, Larry, is why you shall never be a very rich man.

.

With all due respect Jim, there's other forms of richness other than monetary.

Do you really personally think that profits should be placed above morality? If you could answer with a yes or no that would be great.

I hope not.

I don't get the connection between what I said and fish bands. Do you really feel sorry for me?
 
It will be interesting to see what happens. I don't believe that any act will pay-to-play. The one's that can afford to, won't and the ones' who would, can't afford to. At the end of the day (to me) anyone who would pay is a fool. Let's see if there are any fools out there.

Additionally, anyone who thinks that there are any scruples in big business, is delusional.
Charging for seats, advertising or half-time performers has nothing to do with morals or morality - look it up if you are confused. There is no right vs. wrong in big business - it's just business. If you don't like it, don't watch. If you don't care watch. Opinions are like seats in a football stadium - there are 40,000+ different ones out there and none of them is more important than any of the others. Money talks.
 
Some of what seems to be in question here is the matter of who is providing what value to whom.

It has been accurately pointed out that the spot does provide the entertainer with an opportunity to build up their brand. That's why they do it for free, also, performers are performers because we like to have people looking at us while we do our thing, and the Super Bowl halftime show is one of the biggest opportunities for that.

However, it has not always been this way.

Those of us old enough to remember can think back 25 years ago to SuperBowl halftime headliner "Elvis Presto," who was, and I am not making this up, a former Solid Gold dancer who did his hair up in a pomp, gyrated around with a broken 12-string, and did perhaps the lamest "magic trick" ever.

How we got the superstars was that the NFL and the broadcasters finally figured out (partly because of the complaints about the lameness of the Elvis Presto act: it was only 4 years before the act was Michael Jackson) that they needed someone to keep people tuned into the game in case of a blow-out.

In the case of a big blow-out, people would just turn off the TV or switch to something else, just like they leave before the last inning at a baseball game, or before the clock has completely run out in other sports if the team they support is getting their asses whipped.

Also, after Elvis Presto, the other networks picked up on the idea of Super Bowl halftime show lameness and started putting stuff against it to get viewers' attention.

If the networks can't keep people watching the show, they can't sell the commercials for as much.

By keeping people tuned in through the end of the halftime show, the appearances of these huge acts makes millions more for the networks (and by extension the organization that sells the broadcast rights to the networks).

It makes sense from one standpoint to charge money for people to appear, because the appearance will put more money in their pockets, and for this same reason it might seem to make business sense for these entertainers to pony up.

Where it DOES NOT make sense is that it inevitably hurts the brands of both the show and the entertainers.

And I do not appeal to morality or ethics with these arguments, rather, it winds up being bad business. Here's why:

Part of the glamour of that level of entertainment is the (often illusory) notion that the performers lead fabulously wealthy lives and make millions per show. If they are seen as calculating and desperate, it cheapens that glamour.

Similarly, the current "story" of the Super Bowl halftime show is that they are going to have someone who is completely at the top of their game, the best entertainment with the widest appeal. To be selected to play the Super Bowl is a great honor, only bestowed upon the most charismatic and talented performers.

If the artists have to start competing by bidding on it, and then paying millions just to be there, it devalues both concepts. Beyonce starts to look like some desperate attention hog in a jumpsuit. Madonna? Prince? Tom Petty? The Who? When was the last time they had a big record? Sad to see them trying to grab publicity by miming their old hits at a football game.

And really, that is the best weapon we musicians have against the whole pay-to-play concept: the idea that it puts lower-quality entertainment on the stage.

I don't want to watch someone who's forked over money to a club owner or promoter so they can play. I'll go to a smaller club in a less-popular area of a city to see people who are playing there because they have a following, or the booking person liked their recording. Screw the Whisky and the Roxy. I don't want to go there and overpay for their weak-ass drinks anyway.
 
Come on now. For the sake of simplicity, stay in the realm of the discussion. You can come up with exceptions to pretty much anything ever said. It's hard to put in enough qualifiers to cover every scenario.

Oh, no you don't. You don't get to weasel out of the hole you've dug yourself that easily.

You asked a specific question:

When did it become immoral to sell something of value?

That question was answered. The answer makes you uncomfortable, but rather than reexamine the impulse which led you to ask the question, you're trying to sneak out of it.

Own up, my dear fellow. ;)

Having read this thread, I have a foot in both camps. This is a business deal on the basis of effectively selling advertising space. No more, no less. That said, it has a different angle to it that causes disquiet in the lower music ranks (i.e. everyone on this forum). There's a "thin end of the wedge" aspect to the principle being established here though, & It has the potential to further diminish the value placed on the performing arts, especially trickling down to everyone other than the top tier. Under such circumstances, I believe it's right for top tier acts to take a stance on this.

Exactly. The arts are already devalued to the point that I marvel that anyone pursues it for a living. To permit the situation to further deteriorate is idiotic.
 
With all due respect Jim, there's other forms of richness other than monetary.

Do you really personally think that profits should be placed above morality? If you could answer with a yes or no that would be great.

I hope not.

I don't get the connection between what I said and fish bands. Do you really feel sorry for me?


My comment should be taken as a compliment, not as derision. I consider myself a "post-capitalist" having seen the limitations and problems caused by this system so I think the answer to your question is self-evident.

The "fish band" section was not directed at you but at earlier statements. Sorry for any confusion.

Just to be clear on the general discussion, in no way do I think it should be illegal for the NFL to ask anyone to pay-to-play. I do believe, though, that it is a sign of the times that an entity would consider doing so. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. I find it particularly galling that a so-called "non-profit" monopoly has the gonads to do this. Like I said, it's just one more reason why I hate the NFL.

I say forget this whole pay-to-play dust-up and instead strip the NFL and the other major sports monopolies of their 501(c)(6) non-profit status. Let them pay taxes like the rest of us.
 
Whoops my apologies Jim. And thank you.

I agree with your NFL sentiments in full.

Next week I am going to take a pic of the "real life Pupster" that I pass going to work all the time. It's a 6' plastic dog in a child care place that looks a lot like your Pupster. I think you'll get a kick out of it.
 
The NFL exists as an Entertainment entity. They provide "quality" entertainment in hopes that we will stay glued to the television and watch all the dumb commercials. Having a good half-time show helps to facilitate our willingness to watch their commercials during that time period. So, really, if you don't like it, then don't watch NFL Football.
 
The NFL exists as an Entertainment entity. They provide "quality" entertainment in hopes that we will stay glued to the television and watch all the dumb commercials. Having a good half-time show helps to facilitate our willingness to watch their commercials during that time period. So, really, if you don't like it, then don't watch NFL Football.

Right. And if you play in a professional band you can be considered part of an "entertainment entity" as well. Funny though, I'll bet you'll have to pay income taxes.

I don't watch football. In fact, I don't watch sports on TV. I participate in some but I don't watch them. I remember climbing into my father's lap as a kid as he watched a football game, to see what all the fuss was about and to share some time with him. Within a few minutes I began to experience an overwhelming feeling: boredom. I climbed down and went off to something else. Hey, but don't let me stop anyone if that's the sort of thing that floats your boat.
 
Oh, no you don't. You don't get to weasel out of the hole you've dug yourself that easily.

You asked a specific question:



That question was answered. The answer makes you uncomfortable, but rather than reexamine the impulse which led you to ask the question, you're trying to sneak out of it.

Own up, my dear fellow. ;)


Seriously dude?

If I cared enough, I'd take the time to go thru your posts and come up with an example of how your words were wrong. It would be totally unrelated and off topic but, since you didn't take the time and effort to install qualifiers, you would be wrong.,

We are having a discussion here, not writing laws. Everything doesn't have to spelled out in detail.
 
Michael Jackson's 1993 Super Bowl performance was the first time network ratings went up during halftime. Bruno Mars and RHCP* hold the record for largest TV audience with 115.3 million viewers. Its reported Mars himself 'invited' RHCP to sit in and do a couple.

Super Bowl half time performers aren't paid, production costs are covered tho and last year by PEPSI CO.

What can you do but bitch really? Its the NFL's show, who's to question what a non profit needs to be sitting on $9 Billion a year profit for (they want to take it to $25 Billion)? Its insanity really. All a marketing cabal dependent on TV.



* Flea:

"When we were asked by the NFL and Bruno to play our song "Give It Away" at the Super Bowl, it was made clear to us that the vocals would be live, but the bass, drums, and guitar would be pre-recorded. I understand the NFL's stance on this, given they only have a few minutes to set up the stage, there a zillion things that could go wrong and ruin the sound for the folks watching in the stadium and the t.v. viewers. There was not any room for argument on this, the NFL does not want to risk their show being botched by bad sound, period. For the actual performance, Josh, Chad, and I were playing along with the pre recorded track (which was recorded earlier that week) so there was no need to plug in our guitars, so we did not. Could we have plugged them in and avoided bumming people out who have expressed disappointment that the instrument track was pre recorded? Of course easily we could have and this would be a non-issue. We thought it better to not pretend. It seemed like the realest thing to do in the circumstance. We decided that, with Anthony singing live, that we could still bring the spirit and freedom of what we do into the performance, and of course we played every note in the recording specially for the gig."


$9 Billion a year in profits and they can't afford to stage a fully 'live' halftime performance in the year 2014??? Cheap, unprofessional bastards. NFL fans deserve better. They didn't want to 'risk' the show being botched by bad sound...pfffft.
 
I'm kind of old school here.I don't play in a band any longer.but I did starting when I was 13 or so.I eventually settled into a band when I was 15,and we started playing parties ,and school dances.As I got older,different bands formed,and we played bars,clubs colleges.And.....we got paid.Not once in a while....all the time,unless it was for a fund raiser,or a friend.

The very thought of not getting paid,except under the afore mentioned circumstances....was just a joke.This whole play for free ,or for exposure thing is laughable to me.Now venues want you...to foot the bill,and some want you to pay to play

Not me,not ever.Some out there think this acceptable,and soon,if bands keep doing it,nobody is going to get paid to play anymore.

It's real simple to me.I put time,practice and money into learning my craft,the same as anybody that goes to school for ...say software design.They get a job after completing school,and learning the necessary skills....they get a job,and they......get....paid.

Musicians are no different,and that play for nothing paradigm,has to shift...period.Don't give me that artsy BS.Starving for your music....is Highly over rated.

Steve B
 
...This whole play for free ,or for exposure thing is laughable to me.....Some out there think this acceptable,and soon,if bands keep doing it,nobody is going to get paid to play anymore.

Which is exactly what some people want. They don't care about music. They see musicians as an expenditure not as a resource. As a culture we don't value art. Instead, we value entertainment because we can monetize it. That's all we really care about: monetization. Look what we're doing to education: we're monetizing it and now it's training.


Don't give me that artsy BS.Starving for your music....is Highly over rated.

That myth is propagated by two groups: 1) People who don't want to pay you, and 2) Artists who think it will help them get laid.
 
Here is a thought. We tell the Superbowl guys they have to pay us $ 100 to watch their stupid TV show football game.
 
Seriously dude?

If I cared enough, I'd take the time to go thru your posts and come up with an example of how your words were wrong. It would be totally unrelated and off topic but, since you didn't take the time and effort to install qualifiers, you would be wrong.,

We are having a discussion here, not writing laws. Everything doesn't have to spelled out in detail.

Now you're going to move the goalposts? Are you going for some sort of logical-fallacy record in one thread?

I decline to engage with you further. You're a chess pigeon.

The very thought of not getting paid,except under the afore mentioned circumstances....was just a joke.This whole play for free ,or for exposure thing is laughable to me.Now venues want you...to foot the bill,and some want you to pay to play

Not me,not ever.Some out there think this acceptable,and soon,if bands keep doing it,nobody is going to get paid to play anymore.

It's real simple to me.I put time,practice and money into learning my craft,the same as anybody that goes to school for ...say software design.They get a job after completing school,and learning the necessary skills....they get a job,and they......get....paid.

Exactly my point. Thank you.
 
Opinions are like seats in a football stadium - there are 40,000+ different ones out there and none of them is more important than any of the others. Money talks.


Not sure of the last time you were in a pro sports facility, but some seats are definitely viewed as more important than others. Otherwise you wouldn't have stadiums designed completely around the luxury boxes.....stacked 4 over one another pushing some of the plebian seats 200 feet high and in another county from the field..

Not to imply I dont get the idea of your post.....money talks.

:)
 
Back
Top