Bandmembers who get paid more?

[WarriorJoe7]

OK so I am going to try to present this neutrally and see what people think. You shouldn't be able to tell who I am in this situation. I actually can't tell you too much about my band or else I can't present it neutrally.

We play Reggae. This is a band that has anywhere from 6-10 musicians on stage for shows... broken down to 5 regulars (bass, drums, keyboard, guitar, singer/percussion) and then always a few extras, usually to 7 or 8. We usually have an extra guitarist or 2, an extra singer or 2, or an extra percussionist or 2 and sometimes an extra sax or flute. Our average and usual pay is about $400 but sometimes we play for $250 or $600.

There is a musician in the band who supplies a PA for probably over 3/4 of our gigs. This musician wants to get paid more for supplying the PA. The PA and associated sound equipment is worth over a grand. This is separate from the other equipment that he has for himself to play (can't reveal what it is without giving this away.) What it breaks down to is that this guy currently will get an extra $10-$20 (maybe 50%) more than everyone else for the gig. (Yes hardly a big deal at all but we may have some very high priced shows coming up in the thousands and we might as well settle this before things get blown up.)

There is a few musicians in the band who have nice gear worth over a grand that they bring to gigs. It is such that certain musicians do not need the PA, but all of the singers do and some musicians with smaller instruments. Some of them have instruments that don't require alot of money.

I am not going to reveal if I am the man with the PA or not yet though I may add some clarity later in the thread.

Should the guy with the PA get paid more? Why or why not?

[WarriorJoe7]

OOps forgot to add a poll. If i do it I will put the link here.

[rockdoc11]

FWIW, I own the PA in my band (about $3,000 retail).

I just take a regular cut. The $ isn't worth the associated issues, IMO.

Edited to add: The band does have an agreement that any PA repair and maintenance costs are taken out of the band fund.

[TOOL460002]

hmm... well, the last band i was in was fun: great people, great musicians and all that (we parted ways... different goals/needs... end tangent). anyway, i did not own the pa. the pa didnt need to go to every gig, but if it did, i never had to use it.

now, not to crap on the other members, but my pedalboard was probably worth more than all their gear combined. add my bass and cabs/head, and i probably had gear worth 2-3 times more than the other two combined. we all got equal pay, and even when i was offered extra money for gas, i turned it down.

just because someone doesnt have expensive gear, i dont necessarily think it means they should get less. can you play your instrument AND theirs at the same time? do they help write? do they put in the practice time?

i can see lower pay for the occasional/guest musicians, but for the core group, i wouldnt want to open that can of worms. in that band (happened to be reggae as well!), i was the only one (of three) that was financially stable, or, well off. im not calling the others poor, but for me to drop a grand on a pa wouldnt be a big deal, and i wouldnt care about pay. if money is really tight, then i could see the unequal pay mentality coming up.

im not sure you have enough information for me to give you a clear cut answer, but i personally wouldnt care. i hope i didnt come off as some dude thats bragging about money, because im not rich, but i also have never needed gig money to pay bills. gigging was for fun. id love to go pro, but im never doing the scrape to get by 100% music guy. i have some medical issues that require insurance and monthly costs, so i cant just give it all up. if youre hardcore trying to make it and thats all youre doing, more power to you.

was that an answer, or just a ramble? sorry if it was...

[JohnnyPustular]

My opinion-- note that I haven't really given this any thought, so I may not be able to defend this.

It seems to me that each musician is responsible for his/her own instrument, but the PA is a shared expense. I've been in bands in which we had to rent a PA and the money for that came out of our end before we split the cash.

However, I have always been bothered by the fact that everyone is expected to bring their own expensive gear except the singer (who almost never carries the damn thing either!). At least bring a high quality mic and stand!

OK- so the tradition is to share the cost of the PA among band members. The fair thing? It seems the singer should pay for the PA, because it is his/her amplification equipment, but this brings in lots of problems (probably why it is tradition). What if the singer is also the lead guitar, ala Hendrix? He spent as much on equipment as anyone else and then must pay an additional price for singing? Seems unfair. How about backing vocals? A drummer with a $1500 kit who has to pitch in for more gear to sing backing vocals? Again, does not seem fair.

I guess I'd say the band should rent the PA, from a rental house or the person in the band that paid for it. Why? I'm not sure...

[jerry]

I'm always amazed how many singers don't own sh&t.

[modulusman]

How much over a grand is the PA worth? A $1000.00 PA has epic fail written all over it.

[Kenny Allyn]

In my previous band configuration I owned the PA, lights, wireless mic ... everything. I also stored it loaded it in and out transported it and set it up. Never charged extra for any of it, although our drummer always thought I should (singer thought all of the above was her birthright)

Currently the singer frontman and I both own nearly identical PA gear so we now split what we take.

I always looked at it as that is what it took to keep the band booked/running, and an expense of doing business.

... I've always thought a singer should own atleast a small club PA though.

[jtrow]

Originally Posted by modulusman

A $1000.00 PA has epic fail written all over it.

^Why?

Yes, you should pay the owner of the pa a little extra. Could you rent a pa for $20? If something goes wrong, blow an amp, a speaker, anything, he has to pay to replace it.

[Jazzdogg]

Our band is a five-piece, with three founding members, two semi-permanent players, and the occasional sidemen we hire for an upscale gig.

The three founding members own the PA, take care of all bookings and band business, and handle load-in and load-out. When a gig pays $100.00 per man or less, we usually pay an equal share to everyone on the gig because that seems to be the going rate for sidemen.

When we book more lucrative gigs, the sidemen still receive $100.00 apiece, and the three founding members decide how to disburse the surplus. We usually choose to reimburse founders for expenses incurred, or set aside cash for future needs.

Over the years, we've generated enough "surplus earnings" to liquidate all indebtedness to founders, add PA gear as needed, and pay for promotional materials and a demo CD. We're very lucky to have reached break-even before the economy came to a screeching halt. We may not be rich, but at least we're proactive.

[Beej]

Find out what it would cost to rent a comparable PA system for a night, and then pay the PA owner half that if s/he accepts it. At least that half-heartedly covers the wear and tear on shared equipment. The owner sacrifices some, and those who use it but have not paid for it, pay a little for its use.

I deal with my own wear and tear issues on my equipment and pay for them myself, but I'm the only one who uses it...

[SpankyPants]

Those who use it should pay for it. If only members use it the most, they will be the ones who pay the most.

If someone isn't putting in for the gear that I bought and setup, fulfilling my requirements to play a gig... why would I pay for gear they will only use?

People either pay for what they use, or the whole band throws in for it.

[Stumbo]

Originally Posted by WarriorJoe7

There is a musician in the band who supplies a PA for probably over 3/4 of our gigs. This musician wants to get paid more for supplying the PA.

I'd say yes.

Payment should cover:
Hauling PA (Need a van/truck-more gas money/repairs)
Load-in
Setup
Load-out
Repairs/wear and tear

The PA and associated sound equipment is worth over a grand. This is separate from the other equipment that he has for himself to play.

If it does the job, how much is cost, IMO, doesn't matter that much. How much would it cost to rent a $1000 PA?

Even knowing how much a PA would cost to rent might not be that relevant because the PA would be used only for the band and therefore, possibly be in better shape over the long run.

Also, if the PA owner is not renting it out for other bands, making his cut close to a rental PA cost may be fair, especially if an expensive part of the PA went out.

What it breaks down to is that this guy currently will get an extra $10-$20 (maybe 50%) more than everyone else for the gig.

A flat fee is the way to go, using a % will be too much, especially for the higher paying gigs. I don't think you can rent a PA for $10 - $20 for a night. Maybe $100 a night. If you're only making $50 per member, each member kicking out $10 for the PA sounds very reasonable to me. Can't do a gig w/o a PA.

[/quote]

[TC2112]

When the truck gets broken into and the PA is stolen, who is out the investment? When a power amp or PA cab pops, who is financially responsible for the repairs? Or the biggest one in my opinion, If the PA was not available, could the band continue to gig?

I don't think I have any more or probably even as much experience as most on here, but I have been gigging regularly since about 86. I have been in bands with my buddies, I have been a sideman, and I have owned and ran a band. In my personal experience the only way a band works is as a business. Splitting money among friends will eventually always get ugly for reasons exactly like this. It's all good until something breaks and there are repair or replacement costs, then either somebody foots the bill alone and feels hosed, or the drummer says, "I'm not even in the PA why should I pay".

Yes - the guy taking the financial responsibility for the Gear, gets the better return on his investment

[thesteve]

I don't see a problem with getting a little extra for sharing the PA. It'd be cool if he would be willing to just let you guys use it without charging more, but at the same time I don't think it's unreasonable since, (as others have pointed out) if he wasn't supplying a PA, you'd have to rent one from somewhere else and probably pay a lot more than $10-$20.

Now, I agree that if this is going to happen it should be settled ahead of time. I think the rate increase should be flat. I don't see a reason for the guy to get a percentage since it's not like he's (at least from what you describe) adding on additional pieces in order to play the more expensive gigs.

Of course there's people out there that use a ton of expensive stuff to play. Others use cheaper stuff. I don't think that is as important here as what is necessary to get the job done. I think in the long term it might be good for the band to get a band PA, but then you run into the whole issue of "when the band breaks up, who gets the PA?"

[ChrisB2]

Nothing wrong with the owner getting more, but I can see it getting awkward and/or complicated and/or pissy.

In the cover band I play in, the bandleader owns the PA, does all the booking and scheduling rehearsals, and we use his house for rehearsal. All he will accept for his extra contributions is "thanks." (He will sometimes chastise the rhythm guitarist if he's playing through the PA and cranks it too much. "Don't blow my speakers!")

On one outdoor gig this summer, the organizers paid him extra for using his PA for the MC (not any other bands, voice only) before and after our show. I suggested he keep this extra money that I and the others were in no way entitiled to, but he said no, we all share equally and he split the whole take evenly with the band.

I think his attitude, while a little unfair to himslef, is nice and helps keep everything simple and pleasant. Since we're not making our living playing music, it can be done and maybe smooths the ride a little...

[tycobb73]

My drummer/soundman takes an equal cut. But when a speaker blew we all chipped in equally to fix it.

[RustyAxe]

Timely topic. We (acoustic trio, two guitars/vocals, and upright bass) played a private party gig yesterday. When we booked it, we were a duo (two guitars/vocals), and because the host is a friend and local patron of the arts, we had no contract, and expected to play gratis. I supplied, loaded, and set up the PA system, and provided a bass amp for the guest bassist (who is just playing with us now and then).

At the end of the gig, the host layed some money on me, and I began to split it three ways. The host stopped me, and layed some cash on the other two players. I noticed, though, that while I had "several" bills, the bassist only got one. So I asked him how much he received. It was considerably less than me and the other guitarist. We both shook our heads, dug into our pockets, and evened the score ... like Jim said, "I'm pretty sure there were three people makin' noise today".

As the owner and schlepper of the PA, mics, stands, cables, etc, etc, and the defacto sound man (live and recording), I often feel that I'm doing a disproportional amount of the grunt work. But it comes down to the fact that without the others I couldn't book those gigs, and their inputs are as important to me as mine is to them. For most gigs, there is a separate contract (mine) for supplying the sound system; and the band(s) understand that.

I agree with what others have said; that to nitpick for a few extra bucks just isn't worth the ill-will it causes.

(It also makes me appreciate my bass gigs, where I only worry about my gear)

[chriss]

I am in the same place now. I will be buying the PA for my current band. I had considered asking for just a little more to help cover cost but decided against it.

In my case I decided against it since I don't sing. I thought that all the work the other two permanent members do preparing for and performing all the lead vocals balanced out my taking responsibility for the sound(and eventually a little lighting)

I just see it as adding value to myself as a professional musician. I may ask, as has been mentioned, that if something breaks they help fix it.

[Meyatch]

years ago my then current guitar player and I chipped in and bought a fairly expensive PA, we worked out some system where we gave I think 10% to the "PA" and then that 10% was split up among people who had bought the PA, mainly myself and the guitar player.

In the end I ended up barely making any more than I would have if we just split the money equally, and it was probably the primary factor in the drummer leaving us.

When we got a new drummer, he had a PA, and even though it was not as nice as the one we were using we decided it was not fair to charge him because we liked our PA better than his, so we stopped the practice all together.

Its not something I would ever do again.

I'm kind of assuming that you are the person that owns the PA, because I know from experience that the one that benefits from this situation is the only one it makes sense to.

Instead of taking an additional cut over the rest of the musicians, why don't you take a cut and just put it in a cookie jar for PA repairs, and other shared band expenses?

-mitch