Gig pay distribution

[Dominic D]

Completely depends. If the band is a business then it’s up to band owner.

 

[Tim Skaggs]

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.

Those who play get equal pay. Those who don’t play don’t get any pay.

 

[bcbassman]

I've been in bands where it usually is equal split among the performing members. If someone doesn't show, they forfeit what they would have received which is split evenly and there have never been any complaints.
I have subbed in bands where I got paid more than the other members because they needed a bass player to do the gig. That's just me naming a price and saying this is what I need to make this worthwhile for me to give up my time.
I have heard of bands who have a leader who gets a leader's cut, which is: take the number of band members plus one. Divide the money by that number and the leader gets two cuts for his trouble for booking the gig, etc.

There are lots of ways to make it work. If a leader is really booking the gigs and handling all of the arrangements, he is worth an extra cut IMHO. Most bands do an even split because its not worth the hard feelings.
Most of us are not getting rich doing music anyway.

 

[2cooltoolz]

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).

Bailed...
View attachment 5078875

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.

Let's just say it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Taylor Swift is not the prima donna this guy is. I don't expect any real money, but I do expect it to be occasionally fun. And appreciated. The compensated comment was in relation to "hired gun." We were NOT a band, and he was NOT a friend.

 

[devnulljp]

Even split or you're looking for a new bass player next gig.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

Didn't read all the answers.

Who owns, transports, sets up the sound system, books the band, provides the rehearsal space, and sets the fees? Unless it's evenly distributed, the pay should be adjusted with that stuff in mind. BUT, that doesn't mean that the BL/provider of these services gets any windfalls that crop up.

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).

Bailed...
View attachment 5078875

At least he isn't "holding auditions" as an excuse to get free players on his album.

 

[Snarf]

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.

Depends. You may potentially need to return some money to the client if you contracted for a certain number of instruments.

 

[LBS-bass]

Why are people in this thread suggesting that the absent member is getting paid? Clearly what's happening there is that the absent member's pay is going to the BL and the other members are getting the same pay they were anticipating prior to the absent member bowing out.

So, to make it more clear, in a five piece band, 2/5 are now going to the bandleader even though only four people worked that night.

The question here is whether it is ethical for the BL to take that cut that was originally reserved for the absent member.

For my own part, I've never worked on a set rate. I have only ever worked on a split of equal percentage, but I wouldn't put it past some bandleaders to withhold information and take more than their fair share.

 

[Pocket Dave]

Why are people in this thread suggesting that the absent member is getting paid? Clearly what's happening there is that the absent member's pay is going to the BL and the other members are getting the same pay they were anticipating prior to the absent member bowing out.

Because they're applying the same listening skills as they do playing music?

 

[MultiScaleMale]

Why are people in this thread suggesting that the absent member is getting paid? Clearly what's happening there is that the absent member's pay is going to the BL and the other members are getting the same pay they were anticipating prior to the absent member bowing out.

So, to make it more clear, in a five piece band, 2/5 are now going to the bandleader even though only four people worked that night.

The question here is whether it is ethical for the BL to take that cut that was originally reserved for the absent member.

For my own part, I've never worked on a set rate. I have only ever worked on a split of equal percentage, but I wouldn't put it past some bandleaders to withhold information and take more than their fair share.

It comes down to what happens most of the time on talkbass, we apply our own band's standards to what someone else posts and things rarely line up. A BL might be the person that has the house with the rehearsal spot, it might be the person that fronted a lot coin to put together a project and is scheduling all the gigs, maybe taking a personal hit at some gigs while everyone else gets paid. In the different scenarios I could see different things playing out. Every band has their own situation, your best answers would come from your band. (Sorry, not replying at you was just adding to the discussion and your comment prompted it.)

 

[Ostie]

A good BL would divvy up equally. A greedy BL would pocket the extra share.

If it’s a band of subs or session players, that’s different. If they agreed on a rate, and then the payoff is more because of a drop out, then it’s up to the BL.

Now go back to paragraph 1.

 

[LBS-bass]

Because they're applying the same listening skills as they do playing music?

LOL, this really did make me laugh out loud.

 

[Barticus]

Exactly.

But, you might also argue that you agreed upon the gig with a certain amount, regardless of who showed up. I don't really agree with this, but I have had a couple of circumstances where the bandleader didn't mention anything about additional pay, so I assumed they pocketed the extra money.

That’s silly.
Pay is split between those that showed and played, end of story.

 

[sylvanbass]

As someone that did some independent touring a long time ago, everything should be divided in equal parts minus expenses like gas and hotels. In my experience, all contracts and riders were emailed to us through our booking agency. Even though the singer/guitar player wrote most of the songs and was the main draw, he took the same amount as me and the drummer per gig.

 

[LBS-bass]

That’s silly.
Pay is split between those that showed and played, end of story.

It really does depend on the agreement. For the record, I normally don't ask for a specific amount. I might ask for a minimum guarantee, but expect to be paid that amount or a split, whatever is more.

It's very easy for a bandleader to hide what he actually got paid and give the members less. So there's no reason anyone would know that the bandleader is pocketing more unless you agreed to a specific amount and got that, and not the absent member's share as well.

Bandleaders do this shady stuff all the time. It's just not usually this obvious. When this stuff comes to light is the time to talk about what you've previously negotiated, as in "well I said I would accept $100 but that assumed a $500 payout split five ways," or whatever. If you've got someone who's doing shady stuff, negotiate a percentage based on membership (20% for five members, etc.) and make sure you know someone who can verify what the house is actually paying. Or quit and work for someone who is more trustworthy.

 

[drumvsbass]

Yeah, some places pay are based on the number of members in the band. Say they pay $100 per person. They book you; 4 person band; for $400 and only 3 show up. What then?

This indeed... I would say the band should split the pay at the gig. If the band was booked as a five piece and only 4 show up you all make an extra 25 bucks, tp the winner goes the spoils... but, if the promoter decided to pay you less because of this, there would be good argument depending on the circumstances of the agreement...
Sure sax man Harold is expendable, but then you can't do 'Careless Whisper' for the promoter to try and get laid too, and he booked your band based on his luck at his brother's wedding that you played that song at (with sax man Harold) and here he is at the end of the night... lonely, it's sax man Harold's fault you only made 400...

 

[BostonJazz72]

If we had to pay a member who wasnt there then there would be another person not there: me

 

[LBS-bass]

Yeah, some places pay are based on the number of members in the band. Say they pay $100 per person. They book you; 4 person band; for $400 and only 3 show up. What then?

This kind of arrangement would be very rare where I've played. The band usually asks for a set fee or the venue offers a set fee. A per-person fee would really limit the number of players you'd want to put on a stage, and is the venue getting more value per person? I really doubt it. A good and popular band will bring in business whether there are twelve of them or three.

So, all that to say I've never seen offers to pay this way except for a private party I once booked who was expecting a slightly lower fee than I asked based on our members. When I explained we wanted a little more due to PA requirements, they understood that.

I'd think if you've truly booked with a per-person fee arrangement, you'd be handed whatever you agreed to, adjusted to that person's absence. If it's a pre-printed check you'd be expected to make up the difference. That's not ideal to me, and I'd be griping quietly to myself about that, especially if the venue was crowded. But an agreement is what it is. We honor it and negotiate better next time.

 

[pcake]

if the band leader gets extra pay rather than splitting it with all of us, he'll be placing an ad on CL for a new bass player / vocalist, because i'm outa there. i hate unfairness!

 

[dbsfgyd1]

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.

Good hypothetical. In my band 99% of the time there is a sub when somebody can't make a gig. As the bassist, in the last 12 years (this go-around) I've missed one gig and haven't missed a rehearsal yet. Oh, I don't live in the same city (Pittsburgh) or state as where the gig are. I was living in Richmond, Va ( which is around a 5.5 hour drive) and for the last 2 years, now living outside of St.Louis with a commute of about an 8:00 drive each way.. And to top it off, I'm rarely late.

Subs get paid the same. Our horn section is comprised of Union Musicians and they love this gig, playing wise, a cut above. We have a core of these, for instance the sax player has missed two gigs since 2012. We have the same 2 Trombone ( one or the other) players that incredible players, and one of two trumpet players. Union guys are on a separate pay schedule.

The fact is, only 4 of the 12 that perform are actual members of the band. I'm one of then. Member get paid the most and it's the same share, but we have to play the gig to collect. The sub for a member get's paid the same as a contract player. The extra money goes into a general account to cover the cost of promotional items.

The BL get paid more mainly because he is also our booking agent. Plus he's the guy that has to deal with 11 other players to get them on the same page. It's like herding cats at times. He has said that if the other 10 performers were like me he wouldn't take an extra cut. If the gig was a low revenue gig, he forgoes his extra cut to makes sure we all get paid. He also put's me up when there is a gig, feeds me, and provides all the Iron City Beer ( It used to be Duquesne pilsner "The Prince of Beers"... Apparently he abdicated ) I can drink, which isn't much because I'm more of a nice Cab sort of guy.





i



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.