I wanted it to be this way, but I haven't been able to make it work. Instead, I have a bunch of people I just call when I have a gig. They all know most of the repertoire by now, and if they don't, I get them there a bit early and we go over a few trouble spots in the tunes beforehand. They caused this, not me, by joining a buzillion different bands to fill their schedule. So, if there is no loyalty to me, there is no loyalty to them.
All I know is, hands down, the tightest most in-demand bands in my neighborhood, impressive in the eyes of other musicians, clients, and audiences alike, are almost all made up of like-minded individuals who have the same availability and allegiance to one band. The same musicians rehearsing regularly and performing regularly intuitively equals a relatively much tighter band than any line-up relying on subs and fill-ins I've ever heard in 40 years.
I understand it's probably not the most common approach, because finding five or six people who share all those values is like a planetary alignment, but the results can't be disputed.
And for this band manager, the administrative and logistical challenges of playing musician roulette were just too much work. I know plenty of subs for all positions, but they never matched my first line. There was always some kind of compromise, a disruptive component, involved with things like song selection, preparedness, stage presence, etc. Those sub and short-handed line-ups didn't suck, but they were noticeably inferior, and it was sometimes obvious to talent buyers. A few times I've had talent buyers and clients ask me where my regular band member was, and that the band sounded much better with them than without.
I hate to take this stance, but since I, like most weekend warriors, aren't paying the rent or my kid's orthodontist bills with the money I make on the weekends, it's just not worth it. Considering how much time and money I invest, I'm not making any money at all, so it's a matter of pride for me. I bust my ass for my band, doing the vast majority of the work including booking all gigs, but if I can't take my best product out regularly, the one that I am most proud of, that makes the best impression, and that gets me the most repeat business with quality gigs, it's not worth it to me.
I think there are many great musicians out there who could be satisfied making one band the priority, if that band stays busy and provides rewarding opportunities, but the hired gun mentality is pretty popular. You have to shuffle a lot of players in and out to finally hit that magic chemistry of dedicated skilled players. I wasn't able to do it, and called it quits after three years. Maybe if I'd hung in there a little longer and rotated some more musicians, but at 60 years old I think it has run its course.
EDIT: Directly back to the OP, one thing that really burned me up is having to compete with other bands for the availability of my musicians and whether or not I can book a gig with my best line-up or be forced to scrounge up a sub or go short-handed. It's patently insulting. It's hard enough to get six people in the same place at once, and get them on board with the business model and goals of the band, and there are plenty of other distractions like job, family, kids, wife, illness, travel, the list goes on and on and on. You have to make allowances for the legitimate stuff, but if someone isn't all that interested in being an entertainer and can't make it a priority on the weekends, and if someone thinks in their little fickle rock star mind they are a hot commodity and reserve the right to spread their massive talent all over town playing in multiple bands, they are useless to me.
I know some band leaders are cool with it, and even allow certain band members to hold the band calendar hostage and dictate the gig schedule. But that never worked for me, and I have many examples of successful bands in town where it would not work for them either.
