Jump to content

Pay Per Man


senorblues

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I've talked to a few venues who have a policy where they pay a band based on how many people are on stage. More than a few bands tend to think this way, too. Example: "I need $100 per man to play here." I suppose this makes sense if you're used to the idea that each chair does one thing - drums, guitar, vocals, whatever . . . . . But what if one chair covers more than one function? The guitar player sings; the keyboard covers bass? I'm putting together a trio that covers drums, keys, guitar, bass, and vocals. Shouldn't we be paid based on what we have to offer as a band? Makes no sense to me that a guitar trio with a front singer should be paid more, other things being equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

I've never approached it that way when negotiating pay...that would be crazy. Why can't my outstanding four piece band get paid as much or more than an outstanding [or mediocre] five or six piece band? I don't sell on headcount, I sell on quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm putting together a trio that covers drums, keys, guitar, bass, and vocals.

 

 

All at once, every song? How you do that?

 

FWIW, we never charged per person. (This, back in the olden days.) OTOH, we also never wanted to charge anything less than something that meant the gig was worth each performer's time. IOW, our minimum was based on our own idea of "per person" value.

 

-D44

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are a couple of ways to look at this. The most important is start with the ring. If the band and/or the venue can't attract enough clients on a given night who are willing to spend money, the band can't expect to get paid much.

 

But . . . and I've run into this a few times . . . some venues have this notion that everyone should be paid the same. Not bands - individuals. You can argue that it's the entertainment package that draws, regardless of how many guys are on stage. I guess some venues have some sort of idea about fairness and paying everyone the same. Where else could it come from?

 

Anyway, it's had for me to explain to these people that I'm covering three chairs - keys, bass, and vocals - and expect to be paid according to what they're hearing, not the number of heads.

 

Anybody else run into this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I can't see a club owner saying, 'well, let's see... you have a seven piece band, so I'll pay you $700, but if you fire the second guitarist and the percussionist, I'll pay $500'? Nonsense. Budget is budget, and per man should have no rational part of that equation.

If this were true, I'd be hiring more horn players...but it isn't, in my experience. Most clubs set a per night 'fee', and that is what you compete for. If you have a 5 piece band, or a 4 piece, the $ is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Let's flip the argument. A lot of guys won't play out for less than $100. So a trio with a front singer needs $400. It's the musicians, not the venue, that thinks that way and they should have a minimum below which they won't pack their gear. If the venue has a $300 budget, he can expect to be looking at mostly trios. If I bring in my drums/keys duo, don't you think he'd want to give me $200, and if he does, I'd be inclined to add a third guy.

 

Back in 60s, my drums/keys duo split the difference. Less than the other bands, but more per man. Full calendar. . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

There really is no flip, you are jsut thinking this all wrong! Budget is budget. All the club wants is live music that won't chase customers out. What the band wants is to get paid. AS A BAND, it is their decision what they will accept, how it works out per man has nothing to do with the club. The club is not paying each individual member [they don't want to issue that many 1099 forms], the yare paying the band/leader, and how the money splits is none of their concern.

Show me a club that has a strict policy that they will pay $100 per man, and I will show you a closed club in six months. But I will definitely want to book my seven piece Jazz/R&B band in there as long as it lasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

i've run into this with my band. we went from a trio to a 4 piece back to a trio. When we were a trio the 1st time we got no extra pay when we became a 4 piece but when we went back to being a trio the bar owner wanted to cut us $150. I said if you are paying by person my wife will play tambourine... there is your 4th member.... LOL

 

We never went back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have heard of clubs that pay per man only in that they will pay a five piece band $500.00, and in order to save money they will pay a three piece band $300.00. In reality, the club has a max budget of $500 and the price goes down from there.

 

The only place I have ever been paid per man is at festivals based on AFM rates. Then you get paid per man, but they like to book smaller acts.

 

Regarding doubling, and the lack of extra pay for doing it, that's why I'm concentrating on solo stuff these days. I used to get calls (still do I guess) from guys that couldn't sing or front. They would want me to come in and sing, play guitar and generally get the crowd in a frenzy. This was all for the same pay as that guy who shows up late, looks bored on stage, and does one thing (often badly). Never seemed fair to me. In fact when I'm a sideman, I don't mind if the leader or front, takes extra money - makes sense to me.

 

The way I see it, if someone is saving the band money by doubling, they should get a little of that savings. I rarely see it work that way though. If there's another way of dividing the load that's fine too. The drummer books the gigs, the sax player brings the PA, the guitar player who doesn't sing gives the doubling singing keyboardist a ride - that's different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was on a circuit in the late 70s with a five piece band. The soundman was an equal partner so it was a six way split.

 

A genius friend of mine who played guitar, sang and used pedals to play bass teamed up with a drummer who also sang and formed a duo. They carried their own gear and ran their sound from the stage. They were very good and played the same circuit as my band.

 

For the clubs on the circuit, my band and their band (duo) produced the same result so we got the same pay - the difference was they each got half and we split it six ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Outside of union gigs? It's hard to make it work that way. You can always ask and a sympathetic club owner will at least understand your situation and maybe toss you a couple of extra bucks, but it's not like he can charge a higher cover or raise drink prices because he's got a 7 piece band on stage instead of a trio.

 

​And even on a bigger level---it's not like Earth, Wind & Fire can charge higher ticket prices than Rush just because they have more people to pay.

 

​Hopefully with more people you can put on a better show/draw more people/sell more drinks and therefore justify a higher price than a duo. But that's only in a perfect world, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back when I was playing clubs I had to explain to more than one manager that the band was my business and it wasn't a communist utopian society where we all got paid the same. I had several just assume because we were 4 or 5 piece that we needed 4 or $500. When I explained to them that I booked the band have all the PA lights saying play guitar pick the song list, handle the pay taxes and 1099 the bandmembers they understood it on those terms. The band is my business and the musicians are my contracted employees. I certainly was not going to work for $100.

 

Even back in the early 2000's the writings on the wall and we began to pair the number of members down due to pay. The least amount I made in the band was an easy Thursday night regular gig. I would make 175 and the other guys would make 100 for three sets. I can't imagine leaving my house for $100 for a gig. The last time I did that was probably 1991 when I got out of the Army and I was trying to establish gigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's not uncommon around here. It's a way of setting minimum wage. The good bands get more than minimum wage. If you are an unknown entity, the club will put you in on a so-so night and pay you as little as they can. Offering $100 a man is their way of telling you what their minimum wage is. They don't want to see anybody making less than a hundred bucks a night. BTW, it's only the better clubs that pay that well.....sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

So, hypothetically, if the Police came to play they'd get $300, but if U2 came in they'd get $400...and if the Beatles came in they'd get the same $400, but if the Stones came in they'd get $500? ..what happens if EWF or Tower of Power or Chicago get booked? Just freaking ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"So, hypothetically, if the Police came to play they'd get $300, but if U2 came in they'd get $400...and if the Beatles came in they'd get the same $400, but if the Stones came in they'd get $500? ..what happens if EWF or Tower of Power or Chicago get booked? Just freaking ridiculous."

 

Get serious.

 

If you're making more than chump change at this point, it's because you are a draw. There are far too many rooms that aren't willing to pay for a "better" band - assuming one exists - because their experience tells them that the ring for that night won't exceed their costs. So instead they let mediocre groups play for next to nothing so they can at least advertise that they have "live music". Doesn't matter who or how many. I understand that quite few of you won't leave the house for $100, but up here, you'd starve. There are talented guys who've lived here forever and play for less than that because not enough people show up to see them. Maybe it's their fault . . . or the venue . . . or nobody's fault. People just aren't as interested in musical entertainment as they used to be. Look at the online calendar's of the best groups and tell me how many nights per month they're playing out. . . . and tell me what you think they're making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Apparently you missed part of my point.

Yes, I was dropping names somewhat facetiously, but it was all about headcount and quality. Police: 3, U2:4, Beatles:4, Stones: 5...etc

All those bands would draw, yet based on the headcount theory, the Police [or Cream, ZZ Top, or Beck, Bogert & Appice, etc] would get paid less...makes no sense at all.

I agree most bookers have no ear or eye for quality, and that gig $ is not what it should be, or was even a decade ago. But draw is draw, and if I put a band in a room that doesn't draw, they don't get booked back.

But if teh band draws and the bar makes its nut+, then what is the difference how many people are on stage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...