• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

How does each band member get paid fairly?

#21
Jazz Ad said:
What I do
1 for each member
1 for the PA
1 for whoever booked the gig
Click to expand...

That's a really good way to do it. It could work for my band just like that. I will have to suggest to the drummer and singer to save for their own new/used equipment for the band.

I think I will try to divide it this way though...
4 for each member (4x4members)
1 for pa (this is a pitiful pa. if it was great, then 2+)
1 for gig booker (booking a gig can be difficult, but not as hard as playing a full gig)

=

1000 gig

each member (4) gets 222.22
pa owner gets 55.56
gig booker gets 55.56

That looks very good! :)
 
#22
Any band worth a crap that wants to be doing $1000.00 gigs will probably need a PA that isn't vocal only. So now should the lead singer have to buy it when the electronic drums, guitars and bass are also in the mix? What about monitors? Does anyone sing background/harmony vocals?
 
#23
You guys play hard rock, so it may not apply. But my old band (classic rock/blues), the drummer had two kits. He preferred the acoustic kit, but the e-kit got us into places due we couldn't normally play. (low volume gigs) Also drummer will need mics & cables, so an e-kit may be cheaper. And nowdays they can sound good. To get a vocalist with more than a mic, well, good luck with that......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Downunderwonder
#24
No comment on the drum kit thing. Important principle, though; you should NOT peg people's share of gig money to how much their personal gear is worth. If someone doesn't have good enough gear to gig with, they should make an investment or find another band, and as long as their gear passes muster, the band should let them spend as much or as little as they want. Otherwise you get spending wars and endless squabbling over I-just-bought-a-new-pedal-so-i-should-get-more-money, or resentment because "Billy has rich parents so now he gets extra gig money too?"

In theory, it would make sense for the PA to be the singer's contribution to the band gear supply. They're not spending on amps and guitars and drums, and it's mainly their "instrument" - their voice - that the PA amplifies. In practice, it seems like that's never the case. They seem to feel that they don't need to invest in gear because their voice is already part of their body. And the thing is that because the success or lack thereof of the band will largely rise or fall with the singer, a good front person is worth an equal share even if they don't contribute any investment in gear. My preference is that one band member owns the PA, and whoever it is gets an extra share or half-share to cover it.

The other way to do it is to break out a list of band jobs; then everyone either shares them out equally, or you assign a "share" to each of them and gig money gets split according to who's doing how much. For instance:

Practicing and performing - everybody does this, of course, so 1 share.
Provide rehearsal space
Make the bookings
produce marketing materials/maintain a website (beyond a facebook page)
Provide a PA

And whatever else you can think of. In my current band, the guitarist has the practice space, he and the drummer each provide PA components, I do marketing and website and the singer does bookings. The guitarist also did most of the work on producing demos. He really should get the higher share of gig money, but doesn't care about it. So since everyone's contributing something beyond practice and performance, we make it even splits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vasilio
#27
If you base pay on gear, that will have to change every time someone buys something. Everyone gets an equal share, unless you want to give a cut to whoever books the gig. The issue of the drummer borrowing gear from the guitarist is their issue to resolve. As to the PA, see first sentence (not just vovalist uses). Everyone should do extra work on the load in and out to make his life easier. However, vovalist is responsible for a good vocal mic.
 
#28
A band is paid for what happens on stage not who owns what.
If one person hauls all the gear the gas money comes out first.
If the band is using my pa cause I can afford to buy one the only thing the band does is cover any repairs to thoses thing which would be pa lights mics and monitors. Otherwise gig money is from the gig not who owns what.
This has always worked well for me.
 
#29
Jazz Ad said:
What I do
1 for each member
1 for the PA
1 for whoever booked the gig
Click to expand...

yeah, this is a good approach, worked quite well for me in a commercial cover (5 musicians) band
what we did: discussed the money issue at a very early moment, in fact at the day the band was formed
proofed to be a good move to have this sorted out before we did the first gig

the "bonus" for whoever booked the gig became - later on - a nice push for all the band members to "run for bookings"
because a (for example) $1.200.- gig with a provided sound system made the musician who booked (and took care about everything else around the gig) $ 400.- ... turned out to be enough to make all members really involved in this part of the game :-)

as a result we got very busy with this band till we had to split because three of us went abroad for studies
 
#30
OP,
I call this sowing the seeds of your own resentment. Unless the project is specifically owned by someone within the band (or even outside of it), everybody owns the band and shares equally in the proceeds (unless songwriting royalties are involved). If you're not happy with sharing equally because you have a disproportionate amount invested, then get out and start a new project where what you say goes. OR, stop providing anything except your bass, amp, and microphone, and tell everyone else to step up their involvement. Otherwise, do what you've been doing and be content in the fact that you're big in making it happen. But, under no circumstances should you dwell on the inequities of the current situation as though you played no part in creating it. Change it or lump it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Winfred
#31
Maybe you and the guitarist should purchase an adequate PA. Trying to find a singer with their own mic, much less a PA, is going to prove difficult. Seriously very few so called singers even own their own mics!!! Fund the PA with your own money, pay everyone equally(factor in who sets up the pa and books the gigs) and move forward knowing you have the necessary tools to perform live. You may entice some really good players/singers who see you have your stuff together and are serious or inspire the current members to step up their game. You will definitely want to communicate how the pay will work before even thinking about booking a gig. Consider a 10% fee for booking the gig and an even split for members of the band and whoever gets stuck setting up the PA(if it's you and the guitarist then split an even share). Thinking about this stuff now will alleviate any and most potential issues. Good luck!!!
 
#34
Every band I have ever been in has done an equal split regardless of how much money each person has spent on their own gear. I have been fortunate that most of the bands that I have been in have been good enough to play larger venues where a PA is provided.
 
#35
Singers rarely own their own gear beyond a mic and maybe a mic stand.

I agree with many of the others in that the equipment each member owns for their own instrument should not factor into the pay. As long as each member has sufficient equipment to get the job done - and you don't need expensive stuff - that should be enough. If you're going to be amplifying the whole band, then taking a cut for PA may be a consideration.
 
#36
I see two ways around this. Either go completely 25% for each member of the band and hope for the best for new equipment, or have each member take a cut and throw the rest into a BAND bank account. Whenever the account has the money to get a piece of equipment, buy it. Let the player keep it if he/she decides to leave. After all...it was part of their hard work to get it to begin with. Hopefully whoever replaces that person won't need much of anything.

The PA really should be more of an entire band thing. I'm assuming that the lead singer isn't the only one who even so much as talks into a mike. A decent PA is a big investment. You need to think about speakers, mics, power amps, mixers (or maybe even a powered mixer), cables, stands, the list kinda can go on, depending on the needs of the band.

Just my opinion though.
 
#39
Things that deserve an extra cut:
Supplying PA
Booking Gigs
Promotion and organization work

Things that don't deserve an extra cut:
Having an expensive guitar
Having an expensive bass
Wanting more expensive personal gear

I don't care how expensive your vintage Les Paul or Ampeg rig is, you play the same amount of music on stage as everyone else.
If you don't like someone else's gear, don't hire them. You have no right to dictate what someone else plays. I play a Squier and an Ibanez, and I get more work than I can take - because I show up on time, am reliable, and I can PLAY.
 
#40
No way would I have a band where cats don't have the equipment to play. I don't necessarily think a singer should own a PA but should own quality mics (wired and wireless), mic stands and cables.

If you're the band leader and book all the gigs and do all the legwork, you should get an extra %. If you own/supply the PA, you should get an extra %.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back