Equal Pay Split, What Are Your Thoughts?

[STL Rip]

Originally Posted by seanm

To be honest, an equal cut can work to the bands disadvantage in the long term. Let's take the example of lights. If the gig is $600 or more we provide lights. It costs us about $65 to rent the lights (more if we get two trees). I had a chance to buy a set of lights for about $120 (probably could have talked him down a bit).

No brainer right? It pays for itself in 2 "better" gigs (we do 3-4 gigs a year with lights). But if I buy the lights, that is basically the profits from two gigs gone. If we continue to rent, I lose $16 per gig. It also means I have to carry the lights. So renting is the better option for me and I didn't grab them.

The thing is if you personaly spend the $120 for the lights you own them. If you go through some kind of band fund you own 1/4 of a set of lights (if you are in a 4 piece band). If you own 1/4 what are you going to do when the band splits up?

If you owned those lights outright there is no arguement, they are your property. You could even rent them out yourself on non gig weekends. They could also be used as leverage getting you into your next band.

I own my own PA and lights. When im not playing I make money running sound everything is an investment. just seems your thinking a little short term with your $120.

[Edward G.]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Our band's drummer does all the booking and all the logisticals of our gigs. He also pays for all things like stage clothes, promo materials, merch, etc, and produces and promotes shows we play as well. And the band was up and running for 12 years before I ever joined. For that I get paid way better than most musicians in this area, and at times it's equal to or more than I could make if I were doing it myself from scratch, and all I have to do is play bass and sing. Think I'm going to complain that I don't get an equal cut?

Most bandleaders I know just tell you what the gig pays you and you can take it or leave it, and if you ask what the band is getting, you'll get told that it's none of your business. That's a little pre-emptive strike against band members who think everyone should get equal pay without doing equal work.

But even if you have an all-for-one band not making huge money, there usually ends up being one person doing the gruntwork. They should get paid for it. And having been that person in the past, I felt pretty ripped off because it's not easy by any means to get people to pay to host your band. So if you're in a band and you think you deserve equal pay, you need to be very realistic about your workload vs. everyone else's.

Every band comes up with its own best solution. Your circumstances clearly make sense, Boom. My thing is that parsing out small money based on each member's perceived value is not a good way to build a winning team. Also, pointing out all the extra work you do is a ticket to martyrdom, and nobody likes a living martyr.

If a band doesn't understand what side its bread is buttered on, now that's just a bunch of idiots, now isn't it? These are issues that get ironed out over time. IMO, the best and most enduring musical associations are based on a shared sense of fair play. Without that, a band will always be its own worst enemy, at least in a commercial sense, going back to 'square one' over and over and over again.

[plong123]

Re: famous bands splitting money

This was just in the news recently. Original Black Sabbath drummer Bill Ward was so insulted by the proposed split for a new album/tour that he quit the band, and may likely never talk to his bandmates ever again.

Sure, most people come to see Ozzy or Tony. But without Geezer or Bill, it's not Black Sabbath, either. You would think a founding member of a seminal rock band would get more respect, but when friends start to only see the band as dollar signs, this is the result.

[Russell L]

Originally Posted by john m

Those who own the PA, transport more than their own gear or go out of their way to book the gig (especially if others do nothing) should get more than an equal split.

Equal pay for equal work/investment is OK if there is gig and take.

+1. Simple as that. But, oddly, we usually all get the same. I've always told them it doesn't have to be that way. Some are due more, IMO. Personally, I enjoy not being the one who owns/hauls the PA, and if I make less that's ok.

[Edward G.]

Originally Posted by plong123

Re: famous bands splitting money

This was just in the news recently. Original Black Sabbath drummer Bill Ward was so insulted by the proposed split for a new album/tour that he quit the band, and may likely never talk to his bandmates ever again.

Sure, most people come to see Ozzy or Tony. But without Geezer or Bill, it's not Black Sabbath, either. You would think a founding member of a seminal rock band would get more respect, but when friends start to only see the band as dollar signs, this is the result.

That's just sad.

[modulusman]

Originally Posted by STL Rip

The thing is if you personaly spend the $120 for the lights you own them. If you go through some kind of band fund you own 1/4 of a set of lights (if you are in a 4 piece band). If you own 1/4 what are you going to do when the band splits up?

If you owned those lights outright there is no arguement, they are your property. You could even rent them out yourself on non gig weekends. They could also be used as leverage getting you into your next band.

I own my own PA and lights. When im not playing I make money running sound everything is an investment. just seems your thinking a little short term with your $120.

I agree. I just wonder if they play in the dark at low paying jobs. Nothing says lame band like no lights at all.

[lfmn16]

I don't know about the OP, but I've found that most of the time the people hollering the loudest for an equal split are the ones doing the least work. In my band the guitar player owns the PA, owns the van that hauls most of the equipment, and books the jobs. We split the gigs evenly, but I've told him on more than one occasion that if he wants to take an extra cut it's OK with me.

In another band when I owned and hauled the PA and booked the band I didn't take an extra cut, but I understand how much work that is and have no problem with people who actually want to be compensated for the work they do. Anybody who doesn't agree probably has never actually paid for an entire PA system, hauled it to every gig and booked every job.

[brotherbassj]

I have an interesting take on this from both sides. I used to own the whole PA in a previous band. I'm the bassist......i don't even sing backup. Why should I have the PA? Because no one else could afford it!

Hows about this. I step on the stage with a couple 2 thousand dollar basses. A $1300 dollar head and a $1100 cab. So $6400 value totally. The guitarist brings in $5000 worth of gear. Why shouldnt a singer own a $2500 dollar PA? Make sense.....

In eveery band I've been in most of us move and set up the PA......oddly enough, often the SINGER was too busy......I dont need a PA to be heard......He does.

IN the end now that I'm just doing bar cover bands We have a $2000 PA. It's easy to move and set up and quite quick. I used to own it. The singer guitarist bought it for solo shows. I'm quick to help set up and tear down and the drummer never helps.....lol.

That being said.....we split pay equally....period. And we ALL book gigs for the good of the whole band.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by bassybill

REGARDLESS of the circumstances? What, totally?

How about if one person writes all he charts, books all the gigs, buys, stores and transports PA and lighting, organises promo stuff... and someone else just turns up and plays?

I don't think it takes too much thought to realise that you can't sensibly generalise about things like this "regardless of circumstances". Equal pay can be fair or totally unfair, depending on circumstances.

EDIT - oops, looks like I responded to the OP without realising how many responses there had already been along these lines.

It can be fair, however if that's not the way you do business you don't have to accept their offer.

Blue

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Good post. Do you get paid a little for writing horn arrangements, Jimmy? Just curious.

Yes I do. A little. Could be better but I stand to gain from writing them, too.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by bassybill

So, if you're in a full member of a four piece band that takes $400 a gig, and the rest of the band decide to split that to take $90 a piece and put $40 into a fund each gig for shared band running costs, you'd say "No, I want my $100?"

I would say;

"Guys if we need to buy something just let me know what it is and how much my share is and I'm in. However, I'll pass on participating in the band fund."

Blue

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by bassybill

I gotcha.

Well, even if it's not an actual "band fund", that still means that shared expenses are just that - shared. That was my main point. Whether you call it a fund or not and everybody throws in as and when or it gets skimmed off gig fee or whatever.

It just seemd a little odd for blue to say that everybody should get an equal cut regardless of circumstances, and then say that he didn't like the idea of a band fund/sharing band expenses.

That's not what I said. I believe in an equal cut for myself. I don't know what everybody should get.

I don't participate in band funds, however I believe in shared expenses.

Blue

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by mellowinman

In practice, we split equally for one simple reason:

There really isn't that much money to split.

My point exactly, some may have missed this point.

Blue

[jaxstarke]

Originally Posted by domdec314

In my current band, for gigs that are $500 and up we take $100 for the band fund and the rest is split evenly. The band fund is used for anything that benefits the entire band: PA equipment, band shirts, business cards, etc.

HA HA! Band Fund. Too funny. Every "band fund" I've ever had the misfortune of paying into has usually ended up nowhere to be found. Never, ever, ever again will I pay into a band fund. I would rather not be in a band than pay to. Just my experiences over the past 10 or so years have taught me that when it comes to money, trust no one. Maybe your situation is different and I hope it is but man, I'll never go down that road again.

[Edward G.]

Originally Posted by bluewine

My point exactly, some may have missed this point.

Blue

I caught your drift, and I totally agree. Fussing over small money is a perfect way to miss the bigger picture—namely, how to get into the running for bigger paydays. It's got to be a mission.

[bluewine]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

So if you're in a band and you think you deserve equal pay, you need to be very realistic about your workload vs. everyone else's.

"I'm paid an equal share, I don't know if I deserve an equal share."

Blue

[Mtnman]

IME, cooperatively owned gear and band funds never work out well. What happens when someone quits/gets fired? Does the rest of the band have to buy the departing member's share?

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Mtnman

IME, cooperatively owned gear and band funds never work out well. What happens when someone quits/gets fired? Does the rest of the band have to buy the departing member's share?

Word. A nightmare at best. Nothing like negotiating gear buyouts with people you're pissed at.

[hrodbert696]

In our band, the drummer owns the PA. We do a five-way split for a four-piece; of the 5th share, half goes to the drummer for the PA and half is "band fund" for promotions or whatever. That's gone to offset band pics, promo kits, a banner, stuff like that.

[Arthur Strand]

Most musicians are not level headed with cash etc. When a band forms, its members - if equal partners - should read up on basic small business accounts and book-keeping. Take exams in it if you like but the main thing is understanding finances. Certain expenditure needs to be attended to before splitting the money and the more professional a band is, the more professional the finances must become. The manager/agent should be considered for his percentage first because it is they who keep the ball rolling. A friendly Bank manager could also prevent disputes. A one-man band cannot split up over any dispute: either it is there or it isn't and drummers cannot be one-man bands nor bass players generally speaking.