I got several responses to my request for what others have charged for playing at a wedding. Thanks to all who responded. I thought the response to the list from the solo ringer was right on target for what I was expecting, but was more than a little disappointed to hear the mostly low-end figures from bell choirs. We've expressed concern here on the list regarding how the public doesn't take the handbell community seriously. We've also been concerned over the extremely low salaries handbell (and other music) directors receive. If we don't demand what we ought to receive, I think we aren't likely to be taken seriously.
To explain what I mean, a couple of choirs were willing to play at a wedding for only $150. As a harpist, I can easily charge $200 to do a wedding, solo. Organists, who don't have to move their instruments around, usually get at least $150.
I assume that most bell choirs will have to move all of their bells and equipment in and out of the wedding hall, regardless of where the wedding takes place. I also assume there will be at least 10 people involved, and that you will spend a minimum of 3 hours rehearsing the music, plus 2 hours for set-up, warm-up, playing, and tear down for the wedding itself. Add this up this way:
5 hours of work x 10 people = 50 hours of labor
It seems reasonable that even non-professional groups should be able to charge $10 per hour for their experience, expertise, and work. Thus:
50 hours x $10 = $500.
Am I way out of line here? Does it seem unreasonable to charge $500 for 10-12 bell ringers to practice and make themselves available for a wedding? In my area, a string quartet (4 people) frequently gets at least $600. Not to mention that brides of today often pay $1000 for their dress, $500 for a cake, and over $100 a piece for floral arrangements for tables. Is the music really worth less than the cake?
I'd appreciate hearing what others have to say about this.
Written by:
Jo Morrison
mimid@erols.com
23 Mar 1997
Archived original can be found at: wedding fees again