The Musicians Union

The View Ahead

by Bruce Fife

Debate is a beautiful dance. The call and response of this one taking place over a matter of months rather than minutes makes this a slow dance, certainly, but valid none the less. For those that are new to the debate, I wrote an article for the October issue of the Music Liberation Project giving an overview of the Musicians Union. Dave Allen followed up with a response that was less than favorable towards the union. While it's important to respond to his impressions regarding the value of unionism in the music industry, the purpose for my first article, and what I'd really rather be having a dialogue about, is the local music scene and how we can make it better for working musicians. I guess before we can go there together, though, we must validate the unions' worthiness.

Firstly, Dave either missed completely, or chose to ignore, the irony described in my historical review verses the present day reality of the union. Many of his negative perceptions come from a 25-year-old view of either the AFM (American Federation of Musicians) or the Musicians Union in England. The purpose of my personal story that begins with being turned away from the union (the young rocker that I was) to now finding myself as president of the local, was but one example to illustrate how things have changed. It would seem obvious that I must bring a different approach and attitude than some of my predecessors. And if Dave thinks rock'n'roll has changed so drastically over the last 5, 10, or 20 years, that I don't understand the art form, he is sorely mistaken.

In an effort to distill our differences down to key points, income for performances rises to the top of the list. To put it in the most simplistic of terms, I would like to see the notion of payment for musicians' services part of every clubs business plan. Just because a musician is willing to perform for little or nothing does not necessarily mean that they prefer it that way. One thing I know is that in 25+ years in the music business, I have never met a professional musician that didn't want to be able to quit his day job. The more time that can be devoted to their music, devoid of as many distractions as possible, the greater the opportunity for their art to grow and develop.

Dave tells the tale of two clubs to make his point. The first was the Blackbird, now out of business. While I never like to see clubs close, the reality is that this is a very tough business. There are an infinite number of ways for a club to fail. I've played in hundreds of clubs, and rarely is the cost of musicians the proverbial straw that breaks the club's back. They are just the easiest mark for blame. It would be foolhardy for the union to support unrealistic wage expectations. It's a matter of balance. A percentage of clubs always have, and always will, go out of business, union or not. Just a fact of life.

The other club mentioned is the Twilight Cafe. Dave paints it as an altruistic "venue that presents bands who perform for free which in turn allows patrons to attend for free…," but the club is not true to this altruism. It still charges for drinks and food. It has to to stay in business. It should be no different for the musicians. They have to get paid something just to break even. Gas to get to the gig, strings for the guitar, the instruments and equipment they perform and record with, and the cost of promoting their appearances.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the divide between Dave and myself is the perception of whom we are talking about. Whether they are full time or part time, my remarks are really geared towards those musicians that see music as a career, not a hobby. In saying that, I am in no way denigrating those that are music hobbyists. I just recognize that those of us that are in the business crossed a conscious threshold at some point in our lives where we chose to make a career of it. That creates a different attitude, a different approach to performance and recording.

Clarifying that may also help to explain the difference between our views about Internet piracy. If the owner/s of copyrighted material want to share their music over the Internet, there is nothing wrong with that. It is when the owner/s of copyrighted music have not granted permission for use, that file sharing is illegal. It's copyright law, plain and simple. No different than walking into the store and slipping a CD in your pocket. While the union supports the RIAA's tactics as a necessary step towards reducing illegal file sharing, I absolutely agree that education is also key, and the union has been and continues to be involved in that process. Both strategies may be working, as a recent report claims that file sharing has been reduced by 50% from a year ago.

One of the goals of my first article was to put to bed some of the false perceptions and tales regarding the union. Usually, if someone tells me a story about a bad experience with the union, it's from 20 or more years ago. You'd think it was time to move on. The union has. It was a different time, different place. One of those ancient perceptions, repeated by Dave, is that we primarily represent classical musicians. Certainly, they are an integral part of the membership, but currently, over two-thirds of Local 99's membership consists of club and casual musicians.

It is with those club musicians' interests in mind that I have spent the last year and a half, dedicating countless hours to the skirmish with the OLCC's minor entertainer ruling. Dave's backhanded compliment regarding the union's involvement was not appreciated as he asks whether we were "powerless to intervene…or did they drop the ball?" If the union did drop the ball (which we didn't), at least we were in the game. I was at the hearings in July of 2002, and didn't see anyone else there directly representing the interests of musicians. The predicted effects of the ruling then, verses the reality when they were implemented, where two different beasts. When the devastating effects became apparent, Local 99 spearheaded a coalition of union and non-union musicians, parents and interested parties. We put on an underage show at PSU to help create awareness, circulated petitions, garnering hundreds of signatures, put plaintiffs together with the ACLU for the lawsuit, now pending, and organized the flood of faxes, emails and letters received by the OLCC in the current rulemaking process.

Due to a procedural mistake the OLCC made the first time around, they are now required to go through the rule making process again. This has proven to be the most controversial ruling they've ever seen, largely due to the organizing efforts and actions that the union has instigated. Ironically for Dave's vision of anachronistic unions, it may be their presence that is a key component to getting this overturned. The Oregon State AFL-CIO representing some 145,000 union members is standing behind us on this issue. Local 99's association with the AFL-CIO gave me direct access to Governor Kulongoski and an opportunity for a one on one conversation with him to discuss this issue. Kind of important, seeing as how he is the one that appoints the OLCC commissioners and has oversight over them. The new vote, the one that could allow minor musicians back in the clubs, will be taken on February 12 or 13, 2004 (an exact time has not been set yet). I'll be there. The union has put its resources into this because it is the right thing to do for the music business in the state of Oregon. That's what we do.

Dave is absolutely right when he describes our task as one of pushing a rock uphill. That is the way the industry has always been, and I don't see anything in his vision to change that if one chooses a career in music. It goes without saying that it's easier to push that rock as a group. The question is, can we work together to create a better music scene, instead of debating who should come to the dance. We musicians can be a difficult group to get along with, even amongst ourselves. Many of us are inclined to belittle fellow musicians and their music or style. It makes us an easy mark for an employer. We need to watch each other's back. We can accomplish so much more as a group than we can if we act individually. The union has the background, industry relationships, infrastructure (a place to meet), and ideas. Bring to that a fresh vision, desire, energy and more ideas and we have the basis for a healthy coalition. Only by utilizing the best of what everyone brings to the table can we improve working conditions in the local music scene. Together, we can create an environment to better support the development and sustainability of music careers for the many talented musicians that live and work in our community.

Bruce Fife can be reached at the Musicians Union, Local 99 for more information. (503) 235-8791, bfife@afm99.org