Gig pay distribution

[DWBass]

If someone is missing, the extra cut is split with the band. It's always been that way in all my years of gigging.

 

[pb9717]

If someone’s missing, yes his portion should be divided equally, BUT… some band members make more than others, individual attendance not withstanding. Bookers, programming, setups that are only done by certain personnel are valuable tasks that warrant additional monies.

 

[RGerhart]

A couple of things:

A vocalist "amp" is a powered speaker with a mic directly plugged in, or at most a small mixer so they can EQ things. If they bring that, a mic, a stand, and the needed cables, they're bringing something comparable to what the rest of us bring. Well, drummers bring a bit more.

If we need actual PA we're going to have multiple channels with drum mics, DIs for all instruments including bass, and mics and stands for multiple singers (my band has four). We also need monitors for everyone, and cables for all of it. That's a lot of responsibility to lay at the singer's feet. In a smaller room you can get away without micing drums, but at this point you probably need the flexibility to do the bigger jobs.

As a singer who is also the bassist, I'm willing to bring my own mic and stand and cable if it helps. I can bring a monitor, too, but I'm only bringing one. By this "every man for himself" approach, all the other singers need to bring their own of all of that, too. You still need something to plug all that into.

In reality I've rarely seen it work this way. Usually one person owns all the monitors and cables and stands and mics, etc.

As far as a band expense, there are a lot of people here who will tell you about how they've been burned on that. A band saves their gig pay for a PA, spends a few thousand dollars for a PA suitable to a five-piece band, then someone quits. A fight ensues over their cut of the money that went into the PA purchase. That person may or may not ever get paid for their cut.

Personally I've learned to avoid "band funds" unless the expenses are consumables. Advertising, studio, or merchandise? Sure. But not tangible goods that someone's going to lay a claim to. Bottom line is it's simpler to toss something appropriate to the band member who is also supplying the PA and setup. It's not fair to expect any of that for free.

I see what you're saying, for sure. Taking it a step further, do you feel that if certain band members help with setup and tear down, they should be compensated for it? Obviously it would be an arrangement made ahead of time and agreed upon by the whole band.

I've never had a situation where it was discussed as a band, so I feel like the paying the person with the P.A. situation would open Pandora's Box with my bands. I don't really care either way, but if the subject were to be broached, then I know the argument would come up about member's roles and their (lack of) assistance at gigs. Of course, the real issue at hand could simply be that we pay the person with the P.A. more, and just charge the venue more to compensate.

 

[Blue Moose]

We run into this fairly often. We can sub any member except one. When we do, it's even split among the members who actually play the gig.

 

[mikezimmerman]

In my world, the pay gets split between the members who are at the gig. Is there anyplace where band members get paid for gigs they're not at?

We have a sax player who is at most but not all gigs...he doesn't expect to get paid for gigs he's not at. Several of us have needed subs at one time or another (bass and drums included), and in that case, the sub is the one who gets paid.

Yes, it's true that the band leader gets paid more for some gigs--those where he's supplying the sound, for instance--but that doesn't really make a difference to the basic principle that the ones who show up are the ones who get paid, and aside from whatever we've agreed is fair for the use of the PA, everyone who is at the gig gets an equal share/

 

[ToneMonkey]

This is a weird ass hypothetical… if you don’t actually play the gig, you don’t get paid.

 

[ijump206]

I would say it depends on the situation of the band.

If the band has its own finances as a legal entity separate from the individual players, then an arguement could be made to pay the missing player's cut into the band as an entity.

Otherwise, divide it evenly among the players.

I don't see the band leader getting the money - that feels wrong.

 

[Pocket Dave]

This is a weird ass hypothetical… if you don’t actually play the gig, you don’t get paid.

It would be weird if it were what the OP's talking about. It's not.

 

[Pocket Dave]

I would say it depends on the situation of the band.

If the band has its own finances as a legal entity separate from the individual players, then an arguement could be made to pay the missing player's cut into the band as an entity.

Otherwise, divide it evenly among the players.

I don't see the band leader getting the money - that feels wrong.

May feel wrong, though it would still be up to the BL. Personally, if I did it as BL it would feel like a dick move.

I know a BL who'd pocket it just as soon as look at it. Same guy a lot of people won't work with.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

Let's say you have a situation where you're in a band that has at least one member that can be missing at a gig and not totally ruin the performance. For instance: vocalist, electric guitar, acoustic guitar, bass, drums. You can probably get by at the gig without the acoustic guitarist, or perhaps the electric guitarist. Without bass? No. Without drums? Definitely not.

Now, let's say you have a gig coming up that all of the members are booked for. On the day of the gig, or maybe a day or two beforehand, you learn that one of the members can't make it to the gig. You can still do the show, so it's not a big deal.

Now here's the question: do you as a member of the band, get paid the same amount? Or, should you get paid more because the band as a whole is still getting paid the original amount, but there is a member not showing up?

I'm kind of on the fence about this, because you already agreed to the original pay before the member decided to not show up. However, if you're a regular member (not a hired gun) of the band, it makes sense that you would get paid more.

EDIT: sorry, the assumption here is that if you didn't get the pay distributed evenly, the bandleader would get the extra pay. That has been my experience the limited number of times that it has happened.

I don’t understand your question.

If someone isn't at the gig, why would they get paid? You get handed the money, you count heads, you whip out your phone and divide it, you hand it out.

If you have a sound guy, that's another head.

If you have a booking agent, that amount is off the top, before the divi.

 

[coyote1]

When I did this professionally, I was paid the agreed amount for the gig - which was union scale. What the customer was charged for the orchestra was not my issue. How many musicians were on the gig was not my issue. All I cared about was the band playing well enough to prompt the customer to request overtime, in which case the gig would be a nice little windfall. And, of course, the utter satisfaction of playing well with a group that I might have played with some or all previously, or none at all.

 

[Stewbass1]

IMHO it depends on the reason the missing member gave for the absence. Some things and events just happen that cause unforeseen absence. And another point that needs to be taken into consideration is absence history (IE: is this a one time event or is there a pattern of absences) If a one time event, then split the pay equally and include the missing member, and if a pattern of absences is evident then just split the pay among the members who actually showed up and played. Always work to build the team up for success.

 

[FenderP]

As previously mentioned, though, being a "regular member" doesn't mean you are not a hired gun. The last band I was "in" was "The Joe Blow Band". Joe Blow (not really his name, or the bands) owned EVERYTHING; I could bring my own gear if I preferred, but didn't have to (I brought a bass, anyway). He wrote all the originals, chose all the covers, booked everything, and payed us what he paid us (usually $100).

I was okay with it at first, until he started talking about recording material for his new CD. Uncompensated. ("It's just like rehearsal", which was also uncompensated).

Unless you're Taylor Swift, no one is getting rich on recordings these days. For my last album (and first under my name - not a band), I put up all the recording/mixing/mastering/promotion costs, etc. I asked people if they wanted to be on it and set the expectation they were not getting paid. If you think I made any money on it, I've got a bridge to sell you. We had a fun time documenting tunes in the studio. If you're not asking unreasonable things of people (especially time), that may be ok. I didn't ask people to come in for crazy amounts of rehearsals and days and weeks at a time in a studio. If that is what your BL asked, that's a job not something for fun per se. If someone said to me "**** you, pay me", I would have totally understood their position and been ok with them saying no. When we did a few gigs over the past year, if it was paid, they got paid; I lost money every time (reheasal rental room cost more than we got paid each time). Do I wish I had unlimited funds and could pay everyone all the time? Sure. I don't, though, so when I ask people to play, if it's paid I set expectations of what that is and if it's not, I'm up front.

 

[LBS-bass]

I don’t understand your question.

If someone isn't at the gig, why would they get paid? You get handed the money, you count heads, you whip out your phone and divide it, you hand it out.

If you have a sound guy, that's another head.

If you have a booking agent, that amount is off the top, before the divi.

They’re not. The BL is pocketing that members pay instead of splitting it.

 

[Ggaa]

The situation in every band I've been in is equal splits with whomever shows up. Only tweak would be extra cut taken for band mad money or similar.
And never asked a sub to load gear.....

 

[DWBass]

I see what you're saying, for sure. Taking it a step further, do you feel that if certain band members help with setup and tear down, they should be compensated for it? Obviously it would be an arrangement made ahead of time and agreed upon by the whole band.

I was in a band where I bought, stored, transported, set up and broke down the PA system including mics and stands. I got paid extra.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

They’re not. The BL is pocketing that members pay instead of splitting it.

Fire the BL

 

[fdeck]

I'm a hired gun. I expect the bandleader to pocket the savings. At my workplace, if someone calls in sick, I don't get a cut of their pay.

However, it's also the BL's judgment call. Many of them will split that cut with the band because they know that they weren't paying a lot to begin with.

Goodwill is important both ways. I generally prefer to build long term goodwill with BL's than fight with them over pay, and likewise BL's are usually trying to build goodwill with the players.

 

[FollowMeDown]

IANAL but it seems to me that if you have a written fixed price contract with the BL, then you're an employee so the BL could legitimately pocket any differences. The flip side is that (assuming you did the right thing) he must still pay you even if the venue doesn't pay him.
In a more loose situation then I think the moral thing is to split whatever money there is, including tips (maybe some extra for the BL to cover any costs such as advertising and any work to get the gig). One band I played with would split the money from the venue, but the BL would take a double-share and keep the entire tip jar. This really used to piss me off. My thinking is the audience were tipping the whole band, not just him. Also the tip jar was often full enough to amount to nearly as much as what the venue was paying.

 

[Rip Van Dan]

Let's say you have a situation where you're in a band that has at least one member that can be missing at a gig and not totally ruin the performance. For instance: vocalist, electric guitar, acoustic guitar, bass, drums. You can probably get by at the gig without the acoustic guitarist, or perhaps the electric guitarist. Without bass? No. Without drums? Definitely not.

Now, let's say you have a gig coming up that all of the members are booked for. On the day of the gig, or maybe a day or two beforehand, you learn that one of the members can't make it to the gig. You can still do the show, so it's not a big deal.

Now here's the question: do you as a member of the band, get paid the same amount? Or, should you get paid more because the band as a whole is still getting paid the original amount, but there is a member not showing up?

I'm kind of on the fence about this, because you already agreed to the original pay before the member decided to not show up. However, if you're a regular member (not a hired gun) of the band, it makes sense that you would get paid more.

EDIT: sorry, the assumption here is that if you didn't get the pay distributed evenly, the bandleader would get the extra pay. That has been my experience the limited number of times that it has happened.

Totally depends on how the group is set up. If it was set up as everybody gets an equal share, then it doesn't matter if there's 4, 5, or more folks at the gig It's split equally between them. That at least is how all the groups I've been in have done it over the years.

When I first started playing with a nightclub group in 1971, our female vocalist was "the draw". She had a country record come out when she was 16, which quickly got into the top 5 (I think it went to #3) on the Country Charts. The record company had only done one run of 45's and as soon as those sold out, they took the money and ran. She got squat. Anyhow, she was a looker and had a gorgeous voice. So a condition of joining the group was that our agent got 10% and Vera got 10% off the top as the draw - so 20% gone to begin with. Then the rest of us split the remainder equally and Vera got that too.

Drummer, Mickey, was the band leader and he was married to Vera, so he was happy with that arrangement. My split to start out with was $425 a week in 1971 dollars. We were paid in cash weekly. Most places paid us by check and then cashed the check at the bar for us. For perspective, that's the same as $3,169 in 2023 dollars. So it was still good pay, and it went up from there. We added a 5th person, but raised our prices accordingly. By the time we added the 6th person, we had 3 other lead singers besides Vera, so she was no longer singing most of the songs. To add the 6th person we had a discussion about removing her extra 10% so we could afford to add #6. She was resistant but acquiesced without hurt feelings. However, she owned the PA system we used for vocals and she was no longer the main person using it. So we all chipped in a share at fair market value. When we broke up after 3-years, She bought it back from us. Everybody was happy and we were a better group because of it.

In a surprisingly short amount of time we were able to raise our prices again because we brought so much more business into the clubs we played. At the high point my share was $650 in 1972 dollars which would be the same as $4,717 weekly now. So we started out with a featured vocalist and ended up with 4 vocalist and, with a band meeting, we were able to change the terms of our cut. Our BL had the final say, but he was reasonable, and we were getting better paying gigs all the time. If he had held out, we would not have hired that 4th vocalist, but he'd been with the group and left before I had joined, so he was a known addition and Mickey knew it was worth doing in the longer run.

So it totally depends upon how it was originally set up. If it was set up as equal shares and one person can't make it, then his share is split equally into everyone else's share. If there's a different arrangement made up front, then you have to abide by that arrangement unless you can convince the BL to do it differently. If you were a "hired gun" and promised $XX for the gig, then that's what you'll get regardless of what the BL receives for the band's services.

Here's a shot of the group in 1972. There actually was a keys player at this shoot that was set up on the other side of the drums, but he had already given his notice and these were publicity shots, so he wasn't in any of the pics. As a 5-pc group, the only one who didn't sing lead was the drummer.