SwingDJs

So most of us here have spent a lot of time shopping for CDs, practicing the craft of DJing (flowing sets, making choices that make sense for the crowd, etc) We learn about the artists, the history, the dance all at least in part to make uys better DJs. Every hour we log in the booth increases the possibility that our entertainment will be pretty good.

We also have significant financial investment in our CDs.

We are a part of the entertainment at many many events. In fact probably every lindy event in the world. If we were doing anything _but_ djing, ie anything from playing music to being a security person to promoting the event, we would expect monetary compensation. But it seems that frequently DJs are not paid at all.

What value do you place on you time, and how do you tell a promoter that you aren't going to travel to an event for free to dj.

I ask because I was asked to DJ an exchange recently, but there was an expectation that I would also pay a reduced price for the exchange. To me, it really wasn't worth it.

I would like to tell the promoter that I would like to DJ for him, but If I'm going to provide all the entertaiment for 4+ hours at this exchange, in fact I had being paid in mind, not paying.

At the same time, I'm fairly sure this promoter is just new to the game, and I don't want to burn bridges when they come to their sense later on.

Any thoughts?

One- If an exchange asks you to DJ an event, minimum compensation would be free entry to the event. I have had only one event ask me to pay for the event even though i was djing the event. With that said, after a few emails, my compensation turned out to be satisfactory.

two- This topic has been discussed time and time again. I am a huge proponent of compensating DJ's for their time. In my view, we are like a band. We provide music for people to dance to, just like bands. However, an event would never expect a band to play for free, but more often than not, don't pay the DJ for doing the same thing. IMO event promoters see us as hobbiests who want nothing more than to hear our beloved music over a loud speaker. They forget that music costs money to play, and that "not everyone" can be a DJ

Three- Unfortunately, there are too many DJ's who will do it for free. There are too many teachers who have enough music for a set or two because they have bought some CD's inwhich to teach, and they too will do it for free

Until event promoters start to value our service, we will not get paid.

As I see it, DJ's are like bands, people have their favorites. In LA, LindyGroove is packed when Jesse Minor comes to town, because people like his music. LG is empty when an unknown comes to town, or a "not as popular" DJ plays. To me, Jesse should be rewarded for his hard work building a collection of music that people come out to see, he should be paid! There are plenty of venues that I do not go to because the music is horrific. I do not go to some venues simply because of the DJ, and I am not the only one who does this.

In San Francisco, the doghouse paid their DJ's....well! And because of this, the DJ's tried harder. The DJ's that brought in more customers got more dates. those who didnt, only got a date once every 2 months or so. There was motivation to the DJ to play innovative music, and music that people liked. That was rewarded!

Some events say that they dont have money to pay for DJ's. BULLSHIT They just didnt budget for the DJ. When the venue was being setup, they identified costs for the event. Flyers, venue rental, promotional goodies, etc.... If they would just add "Payment for DJ" into that mix, then they would have money to pay a DJ because either the ticket price reflects that or they make cuts in other areas.

To me, I am tired of not getting compensation for DJing. I think it is a wrong that needs to be corrected. ALL events should pay for the DJ. The amount? well, that is not static, and depends on location etc.....

I also feel that if DJ's were paid, then there would be an increase in quality of the music, because the DJ would have to try instead of throwing on a compilation and pressing play. There would be competition because people want the extra cash.

There is no glamour in DJ'ing, there is no prestigue in DJ'ing. There is personal satisfaction, and there is someone coming up to you and saying thank you for playing "xxx" song.

DJ's need to be appreciated and compensated for the job that they are doing.

In LA, LindyGroove is packed when Jesse Minor comes to town, because people like his music. LG is empty when an unknown comes to town, or a "not as popular" DJ plays. To me, Jesse should be rewarded for his hard work building a collection of music that people come out to see, he should be paid! There are plenty of venues that I do not go to because the music is horrific. I do not go to some venues simply because of the DJ, and I am not the only one who does this.

Ve shall see...

Herr Kalmandorf

The DJs who have developed a following have the clout to ask for and get compensation for their work.

If they are not compensated or not to to that the level that they want, they should either not take the gig or be content. I DJed an Exchange for free a few weeks back, I did not care, nothing was promised, nothing was expected. I was happy with the outcome.

I also think that a great DJ does his or her best, whether it is a paid gig or not. If I thought that a DJ tried harder if you paid him more, I would not want him or her near the DJ booth.

Call me old fashion, people who take pride in their work tend to move up the ladder sooner or later.

Again, I believe in paying DJs. I changed the Austin Swing Syndicate policy to pay all DJs, it was seen as throwing money away by some folk, why pay people who will work for free?

That being said, some of the best DJs don't care about money, they do it for love. Last night, I had to practically force one of the DJs to take his money (it was not much, but it was money).

Nathan

Nate Dogg wrote:
Again, I believe in paying DJs. I changed the Austin Swing Syndicate policy to pay all DJs, it was seen as throwing money away by some folk, why pay people who will work for free?

An interesting experiment would be to take a transitional scene - Austin is great with several notable DJs in rotation plus newcomers - and establish a suitable wage and criteria for DJs and then see what the results are after a year or so.

Kalman

Nate Dogg wrote:I also think that a great DJ does his or her best, whether it is a paid gig or not. If I thought that a DJ tried harder if you paid him more, I would not want him or her near the DJ booth.

I was saying that DJ's who know they are getting paid, or DJ'ing a big event, or a battle, often play they "better" stuff.

Look at a regular event. most DJ's play basic swing music at the beginning of the night because the better dancers aren't there. they might feel that it would be wasting a good song if they played it for an unappreciative crowd.

Same feeling when getting paid. You will bring out DJ's who have worked on their craft because they feel if they are getting paid, they should play better. and those who dont get paid, play "whatever'

I do agree that DJs should play their best no matter what, im just noting what happens

Other options include bartering for your services. I have gotten free entry to events, taken to dinner, dance t-shirts, CDs, and free dance lessons.

Kyle wrote: I was saying that DJ's who know they are getting paid, or DJ'ing a big event, or a battle, often play they "better" stuff.

It may happen, but I don't like that attitude.

Kyle wrote: Look at a regular event. most DJ's play basic swing music at the beginning of the night because the better dancers aren't there. they might feel that it would be wasting a good song if they played it for an unappreciative crowd.

I think that is called playing to your crowd. I play more six count friendly music earlier too. As the night grows and the crowd shifts, the crowd allows me to change. It has nothing to do with "wasting songs," it is all about playing the appropriate music for the dancers in the room at a particular moment in time.

Kyle wrote: Same feeling when getting paid. You will bring out DJ's who have worked on their craft because they feel if they are getting paid, they should play better. and those who dont get paid, play "whatever'

I know of too many exceptions to buy this as a general rule. I am sure there are DJs who play "whatever" when they don't get paid, but they probably suck when they are paid also.

Nate Dogg wrote:

Kyle wrote: Look at a regular event. most DJ's play basic swing music at the beginning of the night because the better dancers aren't there. they might feel that it would be wasting a good song if they played it for an unappreciative crowd.

I think that is called playing to your crowd. I play more six count friendly music earlier too. As the night grows and the crowd shifts, the crowd allows me to change. It has nothing to do with "wasting songs," it is all about playing the appropriate music for the dancers in the room at a particular moment in time.

Playing the crowd is fine, but I have heard many many DJ's say that they save their better stuff, or new stuff for later on in the night when the good dancers get there.

Kyle wrote:

Nate Dogg wrote:

Kyle wrote: Look at a regular event. most DJ's play basic swing music at the beginning of the night because the better dancers aren't there. they might feel that it would be wasting a good song if they played it for an unappreciative crowd.

I think that is called playing to your crowd. I play more six count friendly music earlier too. As the night grows and the crowd shifts, the crowd allows me to change. It has nothing to do with "wasting songs," it is all about playing the appropriate music for the dancers in the room at a particular moment in time.

Playing the crowd is fine, but I have heard many many DJ's say that they save their better stuff, or new stuff for later on in the night when the good dancers get there.

A lot of time the "better" stuff is not beginner friendly.

I guess a DJ ought to have enough good music to all last him through the night. Saving a special song for later is not a problem.

I also think that a great DJ does his or her best, whether it is a paid gig or not. If I thought that a DJ tried harder if you paid him more, I would not want him or her near the DJ booth.

The problem with this is that if (pretty much) anyone gets anything for doing something, they try harder. It just establishes an "exchange" mindset. There's a ton of psyche experiments on this. Hand someone a half cent pencil to fill out a survey and they actually think about the quesetions instead of just blowing through it is the classic example.

It also establishes that the DJ is expected to be professional, rather than doing something friendly. My attitude when I "DJ" a friend's party is much different than when I DJ a venue because the expectation of my behavior is different. At a party I can mess about and toss on a play list for a few songs, on a venue I'm paying my complete attention (or almost complete) to the DJ'ing. Money changing hands reinforces the idea that this is a professional event, not a friendly one, no matter how friendly the scene is.

Kyle wrote: Some events say that they dont have money to pay for DJ's. BULLSHIT They just didnt budget for the DJ. When the venue was being setup, they identified costs for the event. Flyers, venue rental, promotional goodies, etc.... If they would just add "Payment for DJ" into that mix, then they would have money to pay a DJ because either the ticket price reflects that or they make cuts in other areas.

I agree. If your exchange isn't bringing in 100 people who are willing to pay an extra $5, then maybe you shouldn't bother anyway...?
At exchanges that are guarenteed sell outs, there is no excuse not to at least offer airfare too. Again, $5 per 2-300 people means 4 DJs get $250-300 for airfare. Giving up some cash for a local CD trip seems only fair too.
The exception is the exchange that has many awesome live bands that, to be fair, deserve the money more than we do. In that case there isn't much need for DJs anyway. Even so, free admission and some CD money please!

Greg Avakian wrote:At exchanges that are guarenteed sell outs, there is no excuse not to at least offer airfare too.

Yes, there is an excuse: namely, if they can get someone else to do just as good a job without paying their airfare.

I've felt offended at times at what I thought were shitty offers, myself, but I just remind myself that 1) I can say "no," or 2) if I don't want to say "no" and I really want to DJ the event no matter what, but I don't want to accept what they've offered because it just "seems" too low, then perhaps the problem is with me and my own uppity pride, not the offer. Without focusing on any particular post above, I sense a level of unjustified uppitiness in most of the comments so far that sounds too familiar because I've felt it, myself, and needed to resolve it. We all seem to be talking in terms of what a DJ objectively deserves, or creating some sort of price-fix for everyone, and there is and should be no such objective measure. ("You must offer free airfare;" "you GOTTA let them in for free....")

The value of ANYTHING is simply what a person is willing to pay for it, and the amount someone "should" accept is simply the lowest that the person is willing to do it for. IF the DJ gets more, then good for him. IF the venue can get someone for free who can do just as good a job as someone who demands airfare, free registration, and "CD money," then more power to the venue. (Of course, the operative word FOR BOTH is "IF.")

But there need be no uppitiness or offense taken on either side. Nobody "owes" anyone anything unless they strike a deal to owe each other something. The above sentiments should be rephrased to say, "the Exchange should offer a bare minumum that is necessary to get who they want to come to actually accept the offer."

Thus, in answer to the original post, I see nothing wrong with simply saying what would make it worth your while in non-uppity terms. If you are planning on going to the event, anyway, do you REALLY need free registration to make it worthwhile, or is that just to sate your foolish pride? If you had other plans for the weekend or had not planned on going because you're already travelling too much, but you would do it if they flew you in, then it is not at all inappropriate to say so.

Is it uppity to say that you shouldn't have to pay to work? If you are going to have to pay to get there and pay to attend, why bother working at all. Just go there and have fun partying.

"the Exchange should offer a bare minumum that is necessary to get who they want to come to actually accept the offer."

if that is the ruling sentiment why should anyone working the event do any more than the bare minimum? i think the attitude of hosts will affect the whole event. treatment doesn't have to be lavish but it shouldn't be stingy either.

Why run an event that is bent on getting by on the bare minimum, when economics are easy to satisfy?

Why does economy translate into quality? Or "smarts"? Why is it good to get the most out of someone for the least amount of effort? That sounds tragic to me...

I mean, if you're just saying that there are no "rules" about this, then yes I agree with the semantics; but there is something to being above the minimum when it comes to decency.