Unequal Pay

[Zon5string]

When I'm a "member" of a band, it's usually an even split all the way around, since we typically pool our PA gear (singer has some, I have some), guitarist "manages" (gets/books most of the gigs, or, at least follows up on leads that anyone provides). When I'm a hired gun, I don't really care what anyone else makes, as long as I am paid whatever was agreed to when I was contracted to play.

[martyr40]

I've always done an even split and only recently when we've run into personnel issues have we comped the ringer with more pay. And that was for short notice, long distance gig and they nailed all 50 songs that night. They got an extra $40 bucks for that

[gspointer]

I am the bass player, of course I get paid the most. Everyone knows and no-one cares, if they do the leader would can them.

[KeysBear]

 

... leave your PA and other gear in his house so he can learn how to use it (and behind your back, letting other people use your stuff too)

 

 

I let my lead singer use my PA for his solo gig then found out he was also playing with another band on Sunday afternoons and charging them for using my PA.

[tim_7string]

I let my lead singer use my PA for his solo gig then found out he was also playing with another band on Sunday afternoons and charging them for using my PA.

 

What a tool!

[WynnD]

 

If you're unable to move the gear, expect to receive less. I see nothing wrong with that. Do less, get less.

 

 

I'm currently recovering from surgery and am not supposed to lift more than 30 pounds. (Or play trumpet.) After doing nearly all the PA setup for the last 3 years, should I be giving up some of my pay because someone else is moving the stuff for now? (I pretty much had help with packing up every night. That was when I really needed the help, until now.)

[nchangin]

 

I'm currently recovering from surgery and am not supposed to lift more than 30 pounds. (Or play trumpet.) After doing nearly all the PA setup for the last 3 years, should I be giving up some of my pay because someone else is moving the stuff for now? (I pretty much had help with packing up every night. That was when I really needed the help, until now.)

 

 

Until it becomes an issue or brought up I wouldn't. Your the one taking the risk in owningservice of the equipment, and I assume you won't be out of commission from heavy lifting permanantly correct?

[sventvkg]

I've stated this before. I've never seen a band where all members did equal work. Never. I've been a sideman which is a hell of a lot less stress than running a band, and I've been a band leader so I know both sides. I definitely took more as a band leader and paid my guys very well which ensured I had top notch players who were professional. This in turn ensured that I stayed in the best playing venues and we worked as much as we wanted to. This strategy worked well at the time.

[FitchFY]

Any band I've ever been in as "a member" has done the even split. We're all working for the same team, and we all know what we are or are not contributing, so it was even. That always seems to work best, especially if you have a good band.

 

If I'm a sub, it doesn't matter what anyone else gets paid - I know what my cut is, and that's as far as my knowledge needs to be. I mean, we all have day jobs -- do you know your co-workers salary? Your manager's? That's none o' yo' beeswax.

[cephus]

 

it is incumbent on him to clearly state what is in play and what isn't when shares are distributed.

 

 

Yeah, that ain't going to happen. Each player has a separate deal with me, not with each other. It's none of their business what i pay anyone else or what i keep. They decide up front if they want the gig and how much the money is going to be.

 

You sort of act like every time it's an unknown. The sideman knows what I am going to pay him when HE books the gig WITH ME. He's not booking it with the club. I am hiring him. If he came in too low and the other guy(s) get more, then telling him that I paid the bass player more than him isn't going to do anything except ruin his drive home.

 

I am trying to see your point. If I hire you as a sideman, and we agree that you'll play from 10 to 2 on saturday night for $100, what would you do if I handed you your money and said "by the way, I paid John $150" purely in the interest of disclosure. Would you throw a fit and insist that I give you $50 more? Would you expect me to go back to John and tell him that he has to give me $25 back to pay you so you won't feel bad?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Any band I've ever been in as "a member" has done the even split. We're all working for the same team, and we all know what we are or are not contributing, so it was even. That always seems to work best, especially if you have a good band. If I'm a sub, it doesn't matter what anyone else gets paid - I know what my cut is, and that's as far as my knowledge needs to be. I mean, we all have day jobs -- do you know your co-workers salary? Your manager's? That's none o' yo' beeswax.

 

 

Same here.

 

I understand the "leader/hired hand" setup and it makes sense on one hand. And as long as everyone agrees to it, that's cool. I've never worked in such a scenario unless it was just a pick-up gig.

 

In my mind the "band" is the "band" and everyone is expected to contribute 100%--regardless of what their personal 100% might be. Paying some people less only gives them a reason to contribute less, in which case even MORE work and responsibilty falls on the guy taking the bigger cut. It seems to me that the guy doing that only ends up creating even more work for himself. Plus you have people who never feel that they are more than hired hands and not really a full part of the band.

 

Just never really seemed worth it in my view, but certainly many bands operate in that manner successfully.

 

If one guy owns the PA, trailer, etc and takes a bigger cut for providing all that, then that certainly makes sense.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I've stated this before. I've never seen a band where all members did equal work.

 

 

Can't happen. Different people have different abilities. This is just part of human nature. All I expect is that everyone put out 100%--whatever their 100% might look like---and that nobody dog it if asked to do anything that they are capable of doing.

 

In a situation where several people are doing a lot, there's not really a lot of room for anyone to not do their share lest the pressure of the rest of the band come down upon them. In my band, if we asked one guy to do something he was capable of doing and he either refused or simply failed to do it, the other 5 would come down upon him/her with such a huge ration of {censored} that it just wouldn't happen. Nobody wants to take all the {censored} they'd get for being the {censored} up.

[SeniorBlues]

 

Yeah, that ain't going to happen. Each player has a separate deal with me, not with each other. It's none of their business what i pay anyone else or what i keep. They decide up front if they want the gig and how much the money is going to be. You sort of act like every time it's an unknown. The sideman knows what I am going to pay him when HE books the gig WITH ME. He's not booking it with the club. I am hiring him. If he came in too low and the other guy(s) get more, then telling him that I paid the bass player more than him isn't going to do anything except ruin his drive home. I am trying to see your point. If I hire you as a sideman, and we agree that you'll play from 10 to 2 on saturday night for $100, what would you do if I handed you your money and said "by the way, I paid John $150" purely in the interest of disclosure. Would you throw a fit and insist that I give you $50 more? Would you expect me to go back to John and tell him that he has to give me $25 back to pay you so you won't feel bad?

 

 

We're talking past each other. I have no problem with your policy for on-off gigs with hired guns. What I'm talking about is a band with stable membership that has a pay structure that presumably is consistent from one gig to the next. If you want me to commit to your gig on regular basis, including rehearsals, then I want to know what's up. If all I have to do is show up when it suits you (or me), then we negotiate for each gig.

[SpaceNorman]

 

In my mind the "band" is the "band" and everyone is expected to contribute 100%--regardless of what their personal 100% might be. Paying some people less only gives them a reason to contribute less, in which case even MORE work and responsibilty falls on the guy taking the bigger cut. It seems to me that the guy doing that only ends up creating even more work for himself. Plus you have people who never feel that they are more than hired hands and not really a full part of the band...

 

 

My sentiments exactly !!!!

[mymartind35]

 

My sentiments exactly !!!!

 

 

I've played in about every scenario. 4 people. 25%. If the pa breaks. Comes out of the top. The guy who owns the pa is no more important than the guy who own two guitars and a keyboard. He has a lot to contribute. The PA is just someone else's gear. I've been in the situation where the guy who owns the PA considers himself boss. Nope. 25%. The only person who I have ever paid less was a girl singer who sang about 10 songs and no backup. I gave her 10%. If she had stayed onstage all night and sang. 20%. She made 5 of us. I will say this. If you do ALL the booking, driving to the gigs, talking to(or being yelled at by)the owners, and essentially running everything then, yes, you need more money. I sang every night for 6 hours, lead and backing vocals. After 15 years of playing our drummer offered to sing. He was a good singer. I could have killed him. I had to have vocal chord surgery from singing that much. If we play 6 hours, I'll sing a max of 4. We have 3 singers.

[SpaceNorman]

 

....Each player has a separate deal with me, not with each other. It's none of their business what i pay anyone else or what i keep. They decide up front if they want the gig and how much the money is going to be.

 

 

Like SeniorBlues has opinined - I have no problem with this approach for the gigs I take on as a "hired gun". Contract with me for $xxx for a given gig - I'm yours for that price - no questions asked.

 

However, if my role in "your" band is one in which it's expected that I'm going to play all the gigs (including the ones that don't pay all that hot), show up for all the practices, play a role in the other non-playing facets of the band (i.e., schlepping communal gear, putting together setlists, helping with advertising, keeping my ear to the ground and steering potential gigs to the band, and/or any of the myriad of other things that most bands do beside simply playing) - unless you're paying me a guaranteed rate that includes payment for ALL of my effort - I consider myself to be a member of the band who is accepting part of the risk (i.e., that the unpaid effort I'm putting into the project will result in an acceptable return (i.e., payday) in the future) and that I'm building sweat equity that entitles me to a) full disclosure regarding the band's revenues and expenses and b) to share equitably in the band's profits. If I'm not receiving that which I feel I'm entitled to in that regard - rest assured that my certain departure will not be the result of you firing me.

[KeysBear]

What a tool!

 

I'm easy about this kind of stuff so all I'd want is a phone call saying he was going to use it and I'd be ok. Since no phone call and he charged money for my gear and pocketed it he will never get any of my gear to use again.

[SpaceNorman]

 

I've played in about every scenario. 4 people. 25%. If the pa breaks. Comes out of the top. The guy who owns the pa is no more important than the guy who own two guitars and a keyboard. He has a lot to contribute. The PA is just someone else's gear. I've been in the situation where the guy who owns the PA considers himself boss. Nope. 25%. The only person who I have ever paid less was a girl singer who sang about 10 songs and no backup. I gave her 10%. If she had stayed onstage all night and sang. 20%. She made 5 of us. I will say this. If you do ALL the booking, driving to the gigs, talking to(or being yelled at by)the owners, and essentially running everything then, yes, you need more money. I sang every night for 6 hours, lead and backing vocals. After 15 years of playing our drummer offered to sing. He was a good singer. I could have killed him. I had to have vocal chord surgery from singing that much. If we play 6 hours, I'll sing a max of 4. We have 3 singers.

 

 

You (and everybody else for that matter) who support splitting revenue based on effort - make a completely valid point. Paying the folks who do more work more than the guys who do less of the works makes great sense. However, there may be a cost involved - as Guido pointed out in his comments: "Paying some people less only gives them a reason to contribute less, in which case even MORE work and responsibilty falls on the guy taking the bigger cut. It seems to me that the guy doing that only ends up creating even more work for himself. Plus you have people who never feel that they are more than hired hands and not really a full part of the band..."

 

To me - the debate is more about idealogy than it is about real impact. For what I suspect is the vast majority of us on this forum - who are weekend warrior types working in a gigging world in which the typical "even split" share for most gigs land somewhere in that $100-$200 a night range - the net impact of a complex "pay for effort" formula boils down to relatively minor swings in any one player's share.

 

I analogize it with 5 guys who get together for a bar night once a week. They go out - order a pizza or two and knock back a few pitchers of beer. Sure - all of us are smart enough to come up with a method for counting the # of glass of beer each guy drinks, counting the # of slices of pizza each eats ... heck we can even get really precise and measure the beer consumed by ounces (just in case somebody's refilling a half drained glass of beer!) and weight the pizza so that nobody gets screwed monetarily when they get stuck with the "little" piece! Coming up with formula that guarantees fairness isn't a problem. To me the real question is whether that's truly worth the time and energy? Personally, I'd rather forego all the bull{censored} - and toss in a $20 to cover my share of the $100 tab and not sweat the little stuff on a night by night basis. Even though I know that splitting the bill down the middle doesn't match consumption equally - I'd rather throw my $20 than see my buddies focused on having a good time - than to spend our time keeping track of who eat/drank what ... and trying to keep the bill absolutely equal.

 

Sure ... over time, I can (and have!) realize that one of my bar mates is always taking a leak when the bill comes ... or looking around and explaining to the table that he's only got a $10, a$5 and 2 $1's.... and counting on the rest of us covering for him. If/when I run into those guys - then YES, I agree, action needs to be taken. But I'd much rather do that on an exception basis - than implement a process that pits the individuals within the group against each other by design.

 

I feel the exact same way about splitting band pay.

[cephus]

rest assured that my certain departure will not be the result of you firing me.

 

More likely not hiring you

 

I get what you guys are saying. you are looking for something to be a part of and you want to accept the risk and reap the benefits. I am getting old. I think that stuff causes more problems than it's worth. I stopped even pursuing putting bands together when i found out how well this business model works.

 

Everything is totally stated up front what the expectation and what the compensation is. If you are a pal and want to roll a couple cables up or drag a speaker to the van, that's awesome. But I might have misled you if you thought that those contributions are itemized and separately billed. All I am asking for is for the guys to show up on time and play like mofos. For that they get x dollars. I don't expect any other effort.

 

I haven't played with anyone who didn't love this arrangement. I have been on both sides of it, as well. I didn't ask the bandleader how much the 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 piece band was making. He and I had an arrangement that I was getting $200 or whatever. I didn't ask about anyone else. I just liked to fool myself into thinking I got more than at least one other guy. Made me happy. Hurts no one.

 

If you can wing it and know a gazillion songs and you have a good roster of guys to call, this is alot better than a traditional bar band thing. I know that you might want to work up some really complex things that take alot of rehearsal. I like playing standards that really just create a framework for guys to jam within. It's what I like doing. And I have been able to sustain it for several years now making some coin for a bunch of different musicians who ask me every time I see them "when are we playing again?" See? No dissatisfied customers. Win win.

[Vito Corleone]

 

But I'd much rather do that on an exception basis - than implement a process that pits the individuals within the group against each other by design.

 

 

Good analogy. One of the keys to any successful band is keeping things acrimonious. As you suggested, it simply isn't worth risking having people in the band feel like they are not being treated equally just so one guy can take home a few dollars more than everyone else.

 

The other side of that, of course, is the one guy who contributes much more who feels he's being screwed by not being compensated for his extra time/effort. But it seems to me if one guy really IS doing that much more, it shouldn't be a big deal for everyone to come to an agreement that Bob deserves an extra few dollars for all the extra work he does.

 

The bottom line is whatever-everyone-agrees-is-fair is going to be the best system. But the more complicated it becomes---paying different people different scales based on some rather-arbitrary definition of what each person's contribution is worth? That just sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

 

I've never played in a band where the money was split anything other than evenly. I've been in five cover bands over the last 35 years. There's never been any arguments or disagreements over money in any of them. Three of them were/are together 10+ years. The others broke up due to factors that had nothing to do with people not getting along personally--they simply just ran their course rather early. I definiately believe the even-money-split is a contributing factor to the long term success of those bands.

[FitchFY]

What's neat about this is that after four pages, only thing is entirely certain:

 

A happy band has clear communication, realistic expectations, and an understanding of how the business and personal side of being "in a band" works.

[Vito Corleone]

 

What's neat about this is that after four pages, only thing is entirely certain: A happy band has clear communication, realistic expectations, and an understanding of how the business and personal side of being "in a band" works.

 

 

Yep. Everyone on the Same Page.

 

This is the number one rule for a Happy Life: whether it's work, marriage, your band...whatever. Just keep communication open and everyone on the same page and working towards a common goal, and everything else is cake after that.

[SeniorBlues]

 

Yep. Everyone on the Same Page. This is the number one rule for a Happy Life: whether it's work, marriage, your band...whatever. Just keep communication open and everyone on the same page and working towards a common goal, and everything else is cake after that.

 

 

I agree in theory, but Cephus is not alone in his band model that doesn't follow this philosophy. Nothing wrong with dating around, freelancing, keeping your card close to your vest. . . . .

 

It's pretty clear to me that my current band leader has a lot of experience in his model, both as a leader and as a hired gun.

 

I'm trying to figure out if he wants it both ways in his current group. He clearly wants something more stable, but what we shouldn't miss in this discussion is that there are a lot of guys out there who we might want to play with us who are drawn more to Cephus' model than ours. You will note his emphasis on "mofo" players. Our guys too, especially drummers. I haven't seen a drummer in this market who can cover our song list that isn't a mercenary . . . and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. They go for availability and the highest bidder. They like the money and playing with good musicians and don't feel that being tied down will necessarily get them more of what they want.

 

It isn't just drummers. Bass players are in high demand. So are guitar player and keyboard players, depending on the style of music. Our three horn players are all trained musicians and have other connections for good paying gigs.

 

Do we have enough upside potential to attract all these guys to a greater commitment? Maybe. I hope so. I'm actually on the same page as they are now, in some ways, in that I place a high priority on playing with the best guys who will tolerate me, although I'm accustomed to the co-op model.

 

For the time being, I think I'm dealing with a hybrid model, and it could be a bit strange until the dust settles.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I agree in theory, but Cephus is not alone in his band model that doesn't follow this philosophy. Nothing wrong with dating around, freelancing, keeping your card close to your vest. . . . .

 

 

Absolutely. And there's nothing wrong with "hired gun" model (or any other model one might dream up) as long as everyone agrees to the terms. But like Norman, if I was working under that model, I probably wouldn't be very motivated to do anymore than the bare minimum that the salary demanded.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I haven't seen a drummer in this market who can cover our song list that isn't a mercenary . . . and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.

 

 

I wouldn't take it as such. The best players with the best experience want money. And deserve it. And unless they are in some band they are doing for the love of the project as much as for the money, players on that level will almost always be the mercenary type.

 

It's fun and a challenge to play with guys of that caliber. Keeps you on your toes, for sure. Gotta be able to pay 'em though, which means a pretty solid project with good gigs.