bellydance gossip

[juldea]

Not like any of you will really care, but I find this interesting...

The Bellydance MA group has totally exploded over the fact that Sarah Brightman has asked a local dancer to perform in her 10,000+ crowd concert for no pay. Dancers are appalled that someone would think that we're less worth paying than, say, techies or people who set up the chairs or whatnot. If they want a dancer on stage, they need to be able to pay for it.

Quite interesting.

Then again, if you root around on Sarah Brightman's page and find the video for her new song "Harem," and you know anything about bellydancing, you can see that... well, she doesn't. There are some pretty costumes in the video but the dancing is sub-par.

Comments

[karlean7.livejournal.com]

Sarah Brightman married Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Stay the hell away.

[siderea]

On one hand, I completely sympathize with the local belly dance crowd.

On the other hand, I'm well aware that sometimes highly successful performers will ofter a non-paying position to an upcoming artist they want to help promote. It's considered a favor. The idea is that this gets them much, much more massive exposure than they would have gotten on their own.

One does it for the fame/publicity/bragging rights. One does it for the new gigs, students and paying opportunities which follow from doing it.

There's probably not a ME dancer in NE who can fill a +10,000 seat hall. Sarah Brightman can. Sarah Brightman is willing to share the spot light. Literally. Sure, she gets something for nothing out of it, she gets her set piece. But if it involves the dancer's name getting out, it's a hell of an opportunity.
Ω

[nemoalia.livejournal.com]

But there's also the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sarah Brightman is quite able to pay this person.

If, say, the National Convention of Poor but Good People asked me to perform at their commencement ceremonies, and they were people I wanted to support as much as they wanted to support me, I would probably do it "for the publicity." But Sarah Brightman is not a non-profit group whose goals I admire. She's in this as a career, and my free performance for her wouldn't "show support," it would just be another piece of her public persona. No, she should pay the people who are contributing to her concert & her profits.

[siderea]

But there's also the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Uh, that quote's from Marx. Why are you using his basis of Communism as the justification for demanding cash instead of immaterial value? You just caused my irony meter to wedge.

You don't know me. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a musician of 15 years gigging experience (25 years total experience). My specialty is dance music, so I'm familiar with a variety of dance scenes. And I have done exactly what you're saying is so unforgivable -- I've both taken gigs like that and offered them.

From they way you put it ("for publicity") you clearly don't value publicity. I'm guessing from the way you've put it (and from my own experience as a performer, who has been around the block a few times) that so many people have tried to convince you to do gigs "for the publicity" -- gigs which really don't have any prestige or publicity to lend a performer -- that you've become completely cynical about all non-paying gigs. That would be foolish. There is a difference between the publicity available by performing to two dozen people in a greek restaurant (not much) and performing before 10,000 people in a headline concert.

What you say is, well, an opinion you are entitled to. Any gig you don't think pays enough, you shouldn't take. If you don't think the value of that sort of profile is worth it to you, don't take it. But getting all moral and on your high horse about this one seems to me to miss the point and be short-sighted in so many ways.

Let me put it to you this way: Someone is going to take that gig. That someone is going to be able to use the increased profile to advertise her classes and get more gigs. If the local dance community decides the offer is an affront, guess who is going to get that gig? Someone not in the community. Some irredemable amateur belly-bunny who is unconnected to the respected community of skilled dancers. That belly-bunny is going to get to advertise to the non-cognoscenti that she "PERFORMED WITH SARAH BRIGHTMAN" and, much to the disgust of the ME dance community, it will work, because students have no other basis on which to judge.

Sarah Brightman is offering a value in exchange for the service. It isn't money.

This isn't about a dancer doing charity for Sarah Brightman. It's about Sarah Brightman doing charity for a dancer. Sarah Brightman has decided what quality belly dance is worth to her: nothing. She is completely content to have someone who is absolutely terrible. That's a perfectly reasonable -- if irksome -- decision for her to make. She's the artist, it's her show, and if she wants to be approximative, that's her prerogative.

Welcome to capitalism. It does indeed suck, but that's what we're stuck with. Price is a function of supply and demand. She is the buyer, and her demand for quality belly dance approaches zero, while the supply is vastly greater than the demand, ergo, as they explained to us in HS econ, the price drops to diddly-over-squat.

Don't like it? Don't take it. Knock off hassling the other people who might decide it's worth it for them. Quit your moralizing -- it will just guarantee that the most disreputable possible person will get the publicity.
i

[flyingindie.livejournal.com]

Kids, I think there are two sides to this coin, and we need to remember that every human being on this earth is entitled to an *opinion*.