• 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?

#61
It's the old fair vs. equal argument. Fair and equal almost never happens, it's either one or the other. Fair is most of the time very subjective, but equal is usually objective. If you think you're being treated unfairly, well you might wanna get used to that. IMO, you've chosen a more or less reasonable solution about the payout percentages, as long as everyone in the band agrees. I own the PA in one band and someone owns it in another, but in neither does anyone charge a share for its' use, but I can see where paying a percentage for using it is reasonable. Things like this can come between band members, and make the whole experience not nearly as much fun.
 
#62
You don't split based on gross procedes you split money based on the net.

Gross (What you're paid)
- Sound reenforcement (PA rental, roadies, etc)
- Lighting (light show rental)
- cartage (truck cost to haul crap)
- promotions and booking
- anything else (can be food and lodging)

= Net (what's left)
Net pay is what you divide equally between band members

If the guitarist owns the PA then the guitarist should charge the band rental for use of the PA. Band needs to agree on what a fair rental rate is. If you're lucky to have a decent sound man and a helper then they should share a band cut. If the soundman owns the PA then they get a full share (or more).
 
  • Like
Reactions: REME7178
#65
Blueszilla said:
It's the old fair vs. equal argument. Fair and equal almost never happens, it's either one or the other. Fair is most of the time very subjective, but equal is usually objective. If you think you're being treated unfairly, well you might wanna get used to that. IMO, you've chosen a more or less reasonable solution about the payout percentages, as long as everyone in the band agrees. I own the PA in one band and someone owns it in another, but in neither does anyone charge a share for its' use, but I can see where paying a percentage for using it is reasonable. Things like this can come between band members, and make the whole experience not nearly as much fun.
Click to expand...

This is true. For the vast majority of us, though, the thing is that the difference between getting an "equal" share or a "fair" share at a given gig might be a whopping $20 or something - like whether you go home with $90 or $110. People who are playing for bigger money than that generally have contracts that spell out exactly what they're getting, so it isn't an issue. People can get their knickers in a bunch over these things but at the end of the day it's better to let it go, as long as the split makes some vague kind of sense. I definitely agree that what's important is for everyone to AGREE on the split - preferably BEFORE the band starts making any money - and then stick to it.
 
#66
if i leave everything at 25% four ways, singer breaks even $$$ in roughly two or three gigs, and then its all profit for him. the drummer who has no drums, but owns some drumsticks lol, makes profit the first gig! the guitarist will have to play over 100 small gigs to break even, and same goes for the bassist (me). it is severely unbalanced and unfair due to the costs. you can't have a drummer with no drums. you can't have drums without a damn drummer. *** lol. it take the instruments with gear and a player to make music. i'm being business minded cause this band can make decent money quite soon. you never see a company just pay its employees and not supply the equipment for the job (in most corporate cases). will we incorporate, probably not. if you joined metallica right now, you'd expect 20-25%?????????????? lol you'd be lucky to get 5%... but it would be over 50k per gig :)
 
#67
If you are determined to go down this route, and convinced you will be making it big, I suggest you go all out and treat the band as a business. All proceeds go to the band and members are hired and paid based on individual contracts. The band company owns all gear - you can't have a member quit and take important gear with him - and the company pays for marketing, recordings, maintenance, transports, etc. Since you are becoming so successful soon you also have to plan for hiring subs for gigs where some member can't play, plan for replacing members etc, and all this should be in your business plan and in the contracts for each member of the band. No more haggling over who gets paid what, it's all in black and white and business like.

Or you can remain buddies and split any money you make equally until your big plans actually pan out. ;)
 
#68
DrakeWeiss said:
if i leave everything at 25% four ways, singer breaks even $$$ in roughly two or three gigs, and then its all profit for him. the drummer who has no drums, but owns some drumsticks lol, makes profit the first gig! the guitarist will have to play over 100 small gigs to break even, and same goes for the bassist (me). it is severely unbalanced and unfair due to the costs. you can't have a drummer with no drums. you can't have drums without a damn drummer. *** lol. it take the instruments with gear and a player to make music. i'm being business minded cause this band can make decent money quite soon. you never see a company just pay its employees and not supply the equipment for the job (in most corporate cases). will we incorporate, probably not. if you joined metallica right now, you'd expect 20-25%?????????????? lol you'd be lucky to get 5%... but it would be over 50k per gig :)
Click to expand...

Earlier, I said you must either own the project outright or be good with the current situation.

First of all, whether you like it or not, singing drives it all—if you can't sing it, it doesn't matter how well everybody else in the band plays it. It is a well-established fact that singers rarely own anything other than mics (maybe), and this is at least partly because their contribution is so pivotal and dramatic to a band's ultimate success. A really compelling lead vocalist is money in the bank. If you're lucky, yours isn't a hopeless egomaniac, because THAT'S not unusual either. This might be the best you can do with a lead vocalist. Get over it.

On the other hand, a drummer without drums is absurd, and you cannot accept one without drums. If you like his groove enough to keep him, you must set a deadline past which your drums are not available anymore, when he must produce his own stage-worthy kit. Talented drummers are very common, especially when the gig is solid. This is the stand you must take.

It is not your job or responsibility to equilibrate everybody's investment so that everybody has the same amount of skin in the game. Each individual player is responsible for his/her own sound and gear. That's why your unequipped drummer is the only thing here that is truly 'not like the other'. If you're really on the brink of success, you just have to be ready to turn him into Peter Best.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hrodbert696
#69
DrakeWeiss said:
if i leave everything at 25% four ways, singer breaks even $$$ in roughly two or three gigs, and then its all profit for him. the drummer who has no drums, but owns some drumsticks lol, makes profit the first gig! the guitarist will have to play over 100 small gigs to break even, and same goes for the bassist (me). ... i'm being business minded cause this band can make decent money quite soon.
Click to expand...

What you're missing:

  1. In business terms, you'd account for equipment costs this way *only* if this were the first and only band each of you would ever play in.
  2. Some of the capital the guitarist has tied up in gear will come back to him when he sells the PA and drums. The same applies to your basses and bass rig.
  3. This pay split goes against the prevailing business practices of gigging bands; yet you want your singer and drummer to agree to your proviso about splits, with essentially the force of contract.
  4. You haven't mentioned any leverage that would allow you to persuade singer and drummer to agree to this concession that changes the status-quo that they've previously enjoyed, that clearly goes against standard practices, and that clearly favors you and the guitarist.
  5. Maybe you have that leverage. But if you don't, what *you want* isn't relevant. Good drummers and (especially) singers are in demand. They'll either find other bands or replace you in this one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hrodbert696
#70
SoWilson has it spot on and its not about you personally 'breaking even'. If you want to spent $7000 on gear then that is up to you, it doesn't mean you should bet more.
Once all the money for rental/transport, etc has been deducted, the remaining amount is what you have actually earned (as explained by SoWilson).

Put 50% of the remaining money into a kitty which is then used to purchase equipment, each member gets an equal amount of this money. If the singer wants $700 for a PA then everyone else is entitled to $700. This would also mean that any purchases are discussed in the band as there must be justification for the purchase.

Its not all about the amount of money spent, money does not always equal quality.
I saw a guitarist with a £150 strat copy and a cheap practice amp rip up Hendrix better then guys with £1000 fenders into Marshall stacks.

You can not put a value on each member. Without each, you would not have a band.
 
#71
Each musician's gear is at their own expense ... instruments, mics, cables, stands, etc, etc. No gear, or inappropriate gear, no band. Why on earth would someone even consider taking on a member who has no gear? As for the PA, it might be a band purchase, but this sometimes doesn't work out so well when the band splits. An extra cut to the provider of the PA is appropriate.
 
#72
If the band is serious start a band account and after every gig put an agreed upon amount into the band account to save up for anything that will make the band better - be that a PA , Lights or studio time. If the band were to split up distribute the money in the account ( 25% each) or sell the items you purchased as a band ie PA and split the money there too.
Just because someone may not have the deep pockets to get top line gear does not mean they shouldn't get paid the same amount - who would decide what is acceptable gear??? It should be up to the people with "substandard" gear to save the money and make any upgrades that are needed...

my two cents....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueszilla
#74
The Finance guy in me wants to assess the market value of each of the investments into gear used by the rest of the band (i.e., I don't think you can count it if a guitarist has bought gear that just he uses for himself), and then allocate it over a period of time, maybe five years, then take that amount off the top from monthly receipts, and that goes to whoever owns the equipment, and then the remaining is split amongst the group evenly. But that sounds insanely complicated.
 
#75
MegaSwing said:
Earlier, I said you must either own it or be good with the current situation.

First of all, whether you like it or not, singing drives it all—if you can't sing it, it doesn't matter how well everybody else in the band plays it. It is a well-established fact that singers rarely own anything other than mics (maybe), and this is at least partly because their contribution is so pivotal and dramatic to a band's ultimate success. A really compelling lead vocalist is money in the bank. If you're lucky, yours isn't a hopeless egomaniac, because THAT'S not unusual either. This might be the best you can do with a lead vocalist. Get over it.

On the other hand, a drummer without drums is absurd, and you cannot accept one without drums. If you like his groove enough to keep him, you must set a deadline past which your drums are not available anymore, when he must produce his own stage-worthy kit. Talented drummers are very common, especially when the gig is solid. This is the stand you must take.

It is not your job or responsibility to equilibrate everybody's investment so that everybody has the same amount of skin in the game. Each individual player is responsible for his/her own sound and gear. That's why your unequipped drummer is the only thing here that is truly 'not like the other'. If you're really on the brink of success, you just have to be ready to turn him into Peter Best.
Click to expand...


This post makes a lot of sense.
 
#76
Employers do provide the equipment their employees work with. But the employer also OWNS that equipment. You are playing a bass of your choice through an amp of your choice and can sell them off or buy others whenever you want if you can afford it. You couldn't do that if the company bought your bass for you.

The singer - live with it. Band rises or falls with the singer, that's practically the only person the audience really registers. If they're good enough to carry it, they're worth every penny and if they're not, ditch 'em.

The drummer - he's not really your issue, he's the guitarist's issue, because it's the guitarist's gear he's mooching. If the guitarist is OK with that, let it be. If the guitarist ISN'T OK with that, the two of them will have to work something out. Maybe the drummer "rents" the drums from the guitarist with a piece of each gig's pay - as a deal between them, not a standing band arrangement. Maybe the guitarist sets a deadline - he can use the drums for ten gigs, by then he should have enough gig money saved to buy his own. But it's an issue between the two of them and not a matter for changing the band's pay split.
 
#77
Basing pay on personal investment is completely the wrong way to look at this. I can see if a member has invested in a PA which benefits the entire band. That person should get an additional cut to help cover their investment.

If the guitarist is supplying the drummer with drums then maybe the drummer should consider giving some of his cut to the guitarists.

The most valuable member of my band plays a half dozen $20 tin whistles. Should he make less? Absolutely not.

Keep us updated. I'm interested I hearing how this works out.
 
#78
What everyone spends on there own gear, has no baring on how you split money.
25% each. No one pays me extra If i bring my 1961-Jazz Bass to a gig. Or give me less if I bring my Modern Player Bass.
 
#79
I want to be in this band. Do you need a second guitarist?

I promise to buy some of the most expensive gear available, to make the band better of course, and I obviously expect the band to hand me at least 50% of the pay from each gig for the use of my excellent guitars and rig. As long as the money keeps coming in, I promise not to leave until the band is done paying for my gear, at which point I reserve the right to leave the band, sell it off MY gear, and pocket all the money.

Sounds fair, right?
 
#80
I own some pretty decent bass equipment. I also own a PA. The PA is a pretty decent one that is capable of much more than just vocals. It is based around an X32 digital mixer so I can mix 32 channels and also record those channels direct to DAW for live recordings. It also has enough EQ on every output to equalise the room and run 6 separate monitor mixes.

I put the PA together because I've been able to spend the money to gradually build it up over the last year or so, and because after a lifetime of playing through crappy PA systems, I wanted a system that left no room for 'crap equipment' excuses in the type of venues we play. I did it for my own satisfaction and enjoyment, and it has the benefit that the whole band sound great.

When I gig with my band I get 20%, the same as our vocalist (who owns nothing but has a great voice and frontman presence), and the same as the rest of the guys in the band. If I want to make extra money from the PA, I own it, so I can charge other bands to use it without having to ask anybody else in the band whether that's OK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tmw and oysteivi

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back