Maybe as an exposure to show that ur band exists...sure why not...but to keep playing here...no point!
Yes, truth hurts, and i'm glad i'm constantly being reminded of it.
No major label to headhunt for talents here, not much money is invested in advertising talents here. Reason being, no matter how we wish people here to be our targeted audience, they just don't fall in that category.
The only real paying people are people who go to nightspots with live performances, they pay the bands through the buying of the venue's drinks and food. Another type of sustenance for bands are corporate events. And for a solo musician, a viable career would be to teach. Correct me if I'm wrong, but i think most, if not all, full time musicians here belong to one of these three categories. Most other musicians are earning their dough doing another job or are hobbyist.
Getting signed up by a label, touring around in a band bus going from city to city, playing to people at concert venues, selling albums. If a local band can do just these to survive, they're definitely not doing it here. It is sort of sad that this option is not available to people aspiring to be full time musicians in singapore.
Ultimately, full time musicians here equal to either playing at nightspots on a regular basis, playing at coporate events fairly regularly or teaching during the day, perform during the night. Cutting and album would be fun but profits from it will be close to zilch if it's only released locally. Just ask dave from electrico.
I don't think this will differ too much even if a really good band tried playing at pay to play gigs to get famous as fame is capped, by the population who appreciate local bands here, and by the $ they are willing to part for the band's materials.
I don't have first hand experience, but I do have a feeling that bands ultimately make more profit from playing at gigs than selling albums. for that to happen, of course there must be some sort of income like ticket sale, or merch sale, or drinks/food sale, together with keeping cost as low as possible from sponsors for things such as venue, equipment and other $ sucking stuff.
Back to topic, i think most of us are more against greedy organisers who are "lazy" (for not ensuring income is generated and cost is kept low, ie no sponsors, no marketing) and are organising gigs for young, naive and gullible bands. Not saying all pay to play organisers are like that, but generally these organisers organise pay to play gigs and thus the stigma. i have worked with such organisers (as an organiser myself, with them, organising for, ironically,
our bands) and i've heard many skewed reasons on why we should keep the profits and not pay bands (our friends) after suggesting to them that we should pay. I was neutral to pay to play gigs previously, but now, after going through the process of organising a fairly profitable gig and not paying the bands, as a musician myself, i feel strongly against this.
the most screwed up thing was, the bands themselves didn't know they got cheated as they thought they were just helping out friends and performing for fun.
cheated, that is a strong word, but that's what it really is.
imo, if an organiser is clean, they should be transparent with the money they handle. if one is not organising gigs for the profits, then
show the bands, your clients, the accounts! let them have an idea of what's going on, how much they're making, how much the organiser is earning, what were the costs, where did the $ from sponsors go. don't be dodgy with a simple statement assuring bands that "i'm not organising this for the money, it's for your exposure". I'm a typical pragmatic local and i certainly don't buy words, I wanna see figures.