Talk:American Federation of Musicians

List of presidents
It's possible that the Hal Davis mentioned here is the same Hal Davis about whom there is an article. The same applies to one of the two musicians named Steve Young. -Mardus 02:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither. AFM President Hal Davis died in office in 1978. The Steve Young links are for other individuals. AFM President Steve Young was a bassoonist from Boston. KenShirk (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1948 ban
I added mention of the 1948 recording ban mentioned in the swing music article. . Unlike the 42-3 ban, it doesn't have a page of its own; it should, but I don't know enough about it. BobFromBrockley 17:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A direct link to Steve G. Young - AFM President can be found here: http://home.comcast.net/~syoungafm/events.htm 68.45.6.61 23:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Steve G. Young

NPOV
The last paragraph refers to the "problems caused by virtual orchestras" without identifying any and without explaining why they are "problems." This paragraph should be expanded in a neutral manner or deleted. 83.78.24.131

More History of AF of M needed
Changes and decline of membership and locals needs to be explored. And the effect of technology in eliminating musician jobs needs to be expanded. Also the need to explain how the once nationwide membership, is now limited to major entertainment and recording locales. Eelb53 (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

no controversy section? No issues from people who oppose the union? no detail?
Surely there are some issues that deserve being covered, such as the current and going issue with Pere Ubu's two British members.. http://www.ubuprojex.net/press/ubuvisa.pdf Centerone (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Expansion ideas?
Hello. I am thinking about expanding the article by adding the history of the AFM from books, online sources and magazines. I will find a couple of sources, but can you help me out? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No discussion is taking place, so I am going to find a couple of sources through WorldCat and notify interested WikiProjects. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
Under "20th century, New millennium" "Illegal downloading is a serious matter yet hard to regulate since it is impossible to track down every individual." >Illegal downloading is a serious matter is not NPOV Perhaps this should be rephrased to "The American Federation of Musicians is strongly opposed to music piracy" or likewise. Let me know if anyone has thoughts on this.
 * Your comment lead me to look at this article again. I would say this is but a SMALL sign of the major problems with this article.  The article is written in a way that is very un-wikipedia-like.  I looked at the history and traced it to one user, Yeseule20.  Here are his contributions from 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yeseule20  The article currently reads as an essay or propaganda piece.  I don't know if he has a COI or what, or perhaps as suggested on his talk page by a bot, he was "involved in a class project". Centerone (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree -- plenty of holes. I don't mind if an article is a bit "glossy," but I certainly expect much more depth than I see here; my propaganda ought at least be informative! I mean, why doesn't "musician" have a clear contextual definition?


 * Maybe some notes as to who is qualified to join the union, who is not, how one would go about joining, what sort of musician would benefit from AFM membership, and wouldn't.


 * There are certainly downsides to membership that should be addressed. A member once told me he was prevented from performing at "open stage" coffehouse shows (because unpaid) and at a worker-owned brewpub (because non-union), and to do so could get him fined by the union; he was even reluctant to touch a guitar when a few of us decided to jam at a house party.


 * Whether the union is actually so strict in practice is immaterial: an informative article would go quite far toward answering such questions. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Puff piece
This article is very complimentary to the AFM and doesn't at all mention the seedy side of the union, especially Petrillo's goon squads that would assault non-union musicians who were performing in public venues. 38.69.12.5 (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect this article was written by the AFM. I have not gone back through the edit history to verify, but it has the hallmarks of paid corporate editing. I have started cutting it back, but you are right that it also needs additional material. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm thinking about expanding the article to at least a B-Class or a GA. I think we can find sources via library books. I'll post some as I go along. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources to use
Here are some sources we can use. More will be added to this list when they are found.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Only represents instrumentalists not vocalists
As a point of distinction, the AFM represents instrumental musicians. It does not represent singers.

Choral and solo singers (opera, art song, actors in musical theatre, etc.) are represented by the American Guild of Musical Artists.

Variety singers (e.g. nightclubs) might be represented by the American Guild of Variety Artists, but some are members of AGMA.

Singers who are also actors might also be represented by SAG-AFTRA or Actors Equity Association, especially if they are predominantly actors.

2601:645:C300:C1C:6C9D:8074:59B9:5233 (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"More egalitarian" than what?
There's a claim of "a more egalitarian organization, inclusive to all musicians", but there's no hint of why that would have been necessary. What was wrong with the National League of Musicians? Was the AFM fully racially integrated in 1896? In short, what's the meaning here? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)