Hi, my apologies that this is my first post. This seems to be the most active music forum on the web, so I thought I'd try this question here. Long story short, I've been a full member of a 5 piece original band for nearly 8 years. For most of those years we were not really making money - we had a sizeable local fan base and got great local press in a major city, but never got that big break to go to the next level. I stuck by them because I loved playing the music, but also because I still believed in the project's potential to "make it". In the meantime I gave up a solid public sector job so that I could do things like stay out at gigs until 2am, and I've barely been making ends meet in a hospitality job. Fast forward to 2 years ago, and things finally started happening. A few national tours, a publishing contract, some national press. No record label. So our band had always been made up of 5 full-time members: 2 song-writers/leaders, 3 long-time permanent members who were not song-writers. In the past few months, however, the other two non-songwriting permanent members left (one for family, one for career). The band now consists of the two songwriters, me, and two hired guns. It seems that the songwriters/leaders are satisfied with having those 2 positions be hired hands, for now. This puts me in the awkward position of now being the ONLY permanent member who is not a songwriter. The album we just released, and now our Facebook page, lists the band members as the two songwriters plus myself. But I feel like I'm occupying this hazy region in between being a full-time member and being a hired hand. We recently had to do a publicity photo, and there was some hesitation on the part of the two songwriters (who are long-time best friends, I should add) on whether to include me in the photos. Ultimately I was included, but it was clear to me that they don't know exactly how to handle me - they know they need to treat me as a permanent member in order to keep me around, but I think they would love to be able to just call themselves a duo with a hired-gun backing band, at this point. A word on the publishing contract - only the two of them are named on the contract with the actual publishing company, as they are the songwriters, but I have a written band agreement with them that I share in a fraction of the profits. Nothing has been made from this yet, though the advance did fund some band things. We also have an agreement to share equally in gig profits and merch sales. Now, after a trial period, the team that has been acting as the band's managers for the past few months has presented us with a management contract. It's been vetted by a music lawyer, and it seems to be on the verge of being signed. And it's sitting in the band email account that I have access to, so it's not some secret, backroom deal. They know I've been able to read it. Here's the thing: the wording of the contract lists "the artist" as songwriter A and songwriter B. No mention of me. I do intend to bring this up with them, but not before I do some research and figure out how concerned I should be here. I am not sure how to take this. I see a few possibilities: 1) This is really bad news for me in terms of future contracts. It puts me in the position of sideman forever more, even though I've never been a sideman (playing many gigs for free over the years, recording for free, etc). 2) This is not only really bad news for me, but they may be passively trying to get rid of me and go towards a band model where they are the band and everyone else is a hired gun. As in: they're not going to ask me to leave, but if I leave because of this, so be it. They are constantly assuring me that they value my contribution and think of me as family, but... we all know that success can change things in an instant. I tend to not believe this scenario, but ... you just never know, with bands. 3) As long as I have an acceptable intra-band agreement with them that deals with the question of who profits what if we should ever land lucrative deals via this management team, it is okay. Maybe it's even standard for not all permanent band members to be listed on a management contract. 4) It's *better* for me not to be on this contract - less legal hassle down the line. Although the contract stipulates that the managers only take a share from our earnings with this band, so it's not as if it would complicate things for me if I chose to teach music, play in other bands, etc. But...maybe there is some benefit to me to *not* be entangled in this contract? I just don't if, when I broach this subject with them, I should come from a position of "What the hell is this?" or "Hey guys, noticed I'm not named on the contract, it's cool - but we should start talking about a more thorough band agreement". Has anyone ever been in this position? Is this normal (not naming all permanent band members on such a contract) or am I getting screwed? I just have no idea how to view this. Thanks in advance.