Band Ownership Issues

[jive1]

It seems that many issues that I read on here either directly, or indirectly deal with band ownership.

IME, the best band situations are either where all the members own the band jointly, or one or more members own the band and the rest are hired guns. If you try to mix the two, you run into issues and drama. I sincerely believe you can't have it both ways and have it work in the long run.

For example, asking hired guns to chip in for band expenses like a banner and merchandise will inevitably lead to drama. That's like asking the gas pump attendant to chip in for a new sign at the gas station so the owner isn't out any money. Inversely, having one member domineer everything when it's a partnership will also lead to drama. That's like making one owner the janitor and the other the CEO even though they all own the company. Someone will get their feathers ruffled in that situation.

IME, it's best to get band ownership cleared out first before joining or starting a band. I have seen too many peers get screwed out of their time, energy, and resources for a project they had no ownership of. On the other hand, I've known bandleaders that dealt with unneccesary drama and BS because people thought they'd be treated as partners when one person was clearly doing most of the work.

The question to ask is for a startup band is "Will this be your band, or our band?"
The questions to ask an established band is "Are you bringing me on as an employee or partner?"
Getting that out of the way makes it easier to guide your actions and reducing the chance of any of you getting screwed or not meeting expectations. If you're an employee, you shouldn't be expected to invest in the same way an owner would. If you're a partner, then you should be treated like one, not an employee. Once you got that out of the way, you can use it as a paradigm of how you would operate, and gives you justification for dealing with some issues. i.e. "Hey, you said we'd be partners, how come you are writing all my basslines?" or "I'm just a hired gun, you can't expect me to chip in for the band banner if you're gonna replace me when you go on tour."

To me it's important to know if you're a partner or hired gun.

Anyone else?

 

[bucephylus]

I just think whoever deals with the club owners to get the gigs also gets to call the shots. That works for me on a whole lot of levels. Not that rest of players can't contribute.

 

[zon6c-f]

More questions than answers: OK..You start a band; everyone agrees and you buy a PA: Mains, Monitors, Mics & stands, Cables, Mixer..Effects; Digital Delay Equalizer, etc.

Presume this was paid for by volunteer equal contributions from each member as money is earned from gigs.

When a member quits: Do they get a piece of equipment? Is that piece valued at cost or current worth/ pro rated? Do they get $$ reimbursed, based on contributions?

Been there done that... didn't ask nor put my foot down..shame on me.

 

[Marial]

The question to ask is for a startup band is "Will this be your band, or our band?"
The questions to ask an established band is "Are you bringing me on as an employee or partner?"

This is really excellent, even if it doesn't completely clear up issues surrounding songwriting/publishing credit.

 

[DBCrocky]

More questions than answers: OK..You start a band; everyone agrees and you buy a PA: Mains, Monitors, Mics & stands, Cables, Mixer..Effects; Digital Delay Equalizer, etc.

Presume this was paid for by volunteer equal contributions from each member as money is earned from gigs.

When a member quits: Do they get a piece of equipment? Is that piece valued at cost or current worth/ pro rated? Do they get $$ reimbursed, based on contributions?

Been there done that... didn't ask nor put my foot down..shame on me.

From an accounting perspective, equipment is not an expense, it is an asset. Unless otherwise specified, your band would probably be seen as a partnership legally, which means you are all owners of the band and it's assets.

For this reason, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to use band funds to buy equipment without some kind of signed agreement about how it will be handled when members leave/join the band or the band breaks up.

 

[MatticusMania]

Our band is "owned" by our bandleader, I guess. Ive never really considered who owns the band so much as Ive been concerned over how decisions are made amongst the band. As far as decisions go, we go the democratic method. All our members have an equal say, with the bandleader getting veto power in certain circumstances.
We're not treated as hired guns, and we all pay in equally to band needs (not equipment), and when there is pay its either split equally, or will go towards something where we all would have paid in equally like merch, studio time, or album pressing.

 

[Muttleybass]

There is a third scenario...

In MY situation, I own the practice space, the PA, the website host... I created the Facebook, Myspace... Made the banner, Yada yada... so I guess you might say I own the band. However, I would never tell my bandmates that because I prefer the illusion of a democracy. I find it keeps everyone happy. The only difference is, if anyone but me leaves, they will be replaced and the band will carry on.

At least this way I can get some help paying for the day to day stuff like posters, printer ink, etc.

We're pretty tight and all on the same page as far as music and personalities, tho'. The only time I had to pull rank was if previous players had a different vision.

 

[Oneirogenic]

Our band is "owned" by our bandleader, I guess. Ive never really considered who owns the band so much as Ive been concerned over how decisions are made amongst the band. As far as decisions go, we go the democratic method. All our members have an equal say, with the bandleader getting veto power in certain circumstances.
We're not treated as hired guns, and we all pay in equally to band needs (not equipment), and when there is pay its either split equally, or will go towards something where we all would have paid in equally like merch, studio time, or album pressing.

This is pretty much how my band works. BL has his own small PA for rehearsal and small room gigs and we have our own soundguy with a big PA if we ever need it. I would say that our BL "owns" the band since he is the main song writer and handles most of the booking but the drummer and I are treated equal and we often contribute to the song writing in a big way. So I guess you could say he is the president and the drummer and I are the house and senate....or something like that.

 

[mikegug]

I manage a teen band. Everyone owns their own equipment. Small pratice PA owned by me. Thus we only play places with a PA. It limits us, but we're not out to conquer the world yet. That may come later when everyone is out of highschool.

I've never played in a band that had corporate ownership of equipment. I've always been adverse to that idea because I hate accounting for partial ownership-type situations. Someone always feels like they are getting the short end of the stick, even if it's just by a little bit. Make a bad situation worse.

We just had a long band meeting Saturday. All agreed that gig money goes to recording and merch. All will chip in for gas.

 

[MatticusMania]

This is pretty much how my band works. BL has his own small PA for rehearsal and small room gigs and we have our own soundguy with a big PA if we ever need it. I would say that our BL "owns" the band since he is the main song writer and handles most of the booking but the drummer and I are treated equal and we often contribute to the song writing in a big way. So I guess you could say he is the president and the drummer and I are the house and senate....or something like that.

I think secretly we function as a dictatorship with me being the trusty lieutenant.

 

[James Judson]

Lots of variables and inequalities in a band. Does the guy booking get an extra cut? Or the guy schlepping all that gear? Or the owner of all that gear? Or the owner of the gear van? Or the guy making set lists? Or merchandise? Or the guy making practice CD's? Or that $100 repair bill? How about that bar tab (thats not fair cuz I don't drink)? Rental on rehearsal space? Wasted rehearsal time cuz that guy didn't learn his parts? The list goes on and on. I've seen most of these rants here on TB.

The question "who owns the band?", should be the first one answered.

 

[timonvh]

Jive1,
why on earth would you want to start a thread like this?
Timon

 

[Stumbo]

...our BL "owns" the band since he is the main song writer and handles most of the booking but the drummer and I are treated equal and we often contribute to the song writing in a big way.

Do you have a written or verbal agreement that you have an equal ownership in the original material and your name is included in the title: XYZ song written by A,B,C?

 

[Stumbo]

To me it's important to know if you're a partner or hired gun.

There are many business run as a partnerships where someone is less than a full partner (Jr. partner?). Named partners (law firms), voting partners, etc.

 

[JohnMCA72]

...
IME, it's best to get band ownership cleared out first before joining or starting a band.

That's the key point, right there. Whatever "it" is, take the time to figure it out up front or you'll most likely be sorry later.

...
The question to ask is for a startup band is "Will this be your band, or our band?"
The questions to ask an established band is "Are you bringing me on as an employee or partner?"

Absolutely, I ask one of those questions whenever I audition or get to the point of talking seriously with people about a startup. I've had people refuse to deal with it, & when that happens I thank them for their time & move on. It's closely related to my saying about contracts in general: The best time to find out somebody plans to screw me over is when they refuse a contract, before I commit any of my precious resources to them.

Seriously, would anybody start a restaurant with other people involved without setting out a partnership/corporation/sole proprietor agreement? If a typical band went into the restaurant business it would go something like this: I'm going to invest $50K, develop the menu, cook, & order food while you bus tables, invest no cash, & you want us to be paid the same each week (as well as invite all your friends in for free dinner every day).

Defining your structure up front is nothing more than good business. I could never count the musicians I've known who not just ignored, but deliberately avoided any kind of good business practice at all! Yet, they wonder why they're not successful (hint: How well you sing, or play your instrument has nothing to do with it) when they have no clear definition of what "success" even means.

 

[JohnMCA72]

There are many business run as a partnerships where someone is less than a full partner (Jr. partner?). Named partners (law firms), voting partners, etc.

Yep, there are a lot of ways to set it up. The key point is to get everybody on the same page in the first place. Not doing that is just asking for misunderstandings later.

 

[jsbachonbass]

Jive1,
why on earth would you want to start a thread like this?
Timon

You are kidding, right?? With all of the issues we see in the Band Management section almost everyday? I think this discussion has simply solved a lot of issues.

 

[timonvh]

I'm not kidding.
Most, if not all, issues that I see in BM - and forget after reading a couple of posts - are non-issues.
Timon

 

[jsbachonbass]

It seems that many issues that I read on here either directly, or indirectly deal with band ownership.

IME, the best band situations are either where all the members own the band jointly, or one or more members own the band and the rest are hired guns. If you try to mix the two, you run into issues and drama. I sincerely believe you can't have it both ways and have it work in the long run.

For example, asking hired guns to chip in for band expenses like a banner and merchandise will inevitably lead to drama. That's like asking the gas pump attendant to chip in for a new sign at the gas station so the owner isn't out any money. Inversely, having one member domineer everything when it's a partnership will also lead to drama. That's like making one owner the janitor and the other the CEO even though they all own the company. Someone will get their feathers ruffled in that situation.

IME, it's best to get band ownership cleared out first before joining or starting a band. I have seen too many peers get screwed out of their time, energy, and resources for a project they had no ownership of. On the other hand, I've known bandleaders that dealt with unneccesary drama and BS because people thought they'd be treated as partners when one person was clearly doing most of the work.

The question to ask is for a startup band is "Will this be your band, or our band?"
The questions to ask an established band is "Are you bringing me on as an employee or partner?"
Getting that out of the way makes it easier to guide your actions and reducing the chance of any of you getting screwed or not meeting expectations. If you're an employee, you shouldn't be expected to invest in the same way an owner would. If you're a partner, then you should be treated like one, not an employee. Once you got that out of the way, you can use it as a paradigm of how you would operate, and gives you justification for dealing with some issues. i.e. "Hey, you said we'd be partners, how come you are writing all my basslines?" or "I'm just a hired gun, you can't expect me to chip in for the band banner if you're gonna replace me when you go on tour."

To me it's important to know if you're a partner or hired gun.

Anyone else?

Bravo and Amen! Excellently written.

I think these questions (partner or employee) come up the most when dealing with the singer/songwriter who is looking to start his/her own band to cover his/her music. Many times they will claim to be looking for partners ( No hired guns), but you know that you will have no say in anything regarding band business.

Let's also clarify what counts as an investment besides the obvious issue of PA. Any money you contribute, like chipping in for rehearsal space, recordings, band merchandise should also be counted. But above all else:

YOUR FREE TIME IS AN INVESTMENT

I say this because many musicians take this for granted. Your free time is valueable (especially if you have a family), and any and all time that you put into learning songs, driving to and from rehearsals, rehearsal time, and gig time should be at least respected if not compensated for. If you are a partner, then it is expected that you invest your free time equally, along with your cash. But if you an employee, then make sure you are compensated for your free time. If you are spending all your free time for rehearsal but your aren't getting any gigs, then you need to start considering yourself a partner, and you should be treated as such.

 

[CS]

I'm not kidding.
Most, if not all, issues that I see in BM - and forget after reading a couple of posts - are non-issues.
Timon

Don't read them then, go and feel superior somewhere else.