I need $175

[PauFerro]

OK, I hear statements like this from time to time from musicians about the amount of pay they need to go out for the night -- "I need $175 to go out".

I'll be frank, I don't like the statement AT ALL. It ignores a number of facts:

1. Usually, the gig is booked and pay already negotiated. I can't go back and ask for more.
2. Granting the extra pay normally means taking a cut to my personal pay, or cutting the pay of the other guys.
3. As a consequence of #2, some musicians can get a different rate of pay than the others. This can cause hard feelings.
4. Often there isn't room in the market rates for that increase; if I start quoting to include that rate, we sit at home (most of the time).
5. In my genre, good musicians are plentiful, so musicians who raise prices ignore supply and demand.
6. If I reserve the high paying gigs for certain musicians, that's not fair to the guys who slugged out the $100-$125 gigs.

As a band leader, when you get statements like this -- how do you respond? And what is normally the outcome of such conversations? Do you lose the player, or do they stick with you?

 

[1st Bass]

More than 30 years ago, I was working as a welder, at $8.40 per hour. On my way home one night, I picked up a hitchhiker, who turned out to also be a welder. He asked what I was paid. I told him, and he exploded "Eight-forty! I won't strike an arc for less than eighteen!"

I thought it was an odd statement, since, though the car I was driving was a piece of junk, he was hitchhiking. But I kept my mouth shut. As it turned out, he was a pipefitter, and, yes, such folk do command very good wages. But! He had been chasing that eighteen dollars all over the country, and this was his first time "home" in three years...and he had nothing!

I still kept my opinion to myself, as I dropped him off where our paths parted, but as I drove away, I thought, "I am halfway done paying for a home, and I go home to MY home, my wife and my three children every single night."

I wanted more money, as most people do, but I could set priorities and stick to them. I stayed with that job, and, though I never saw that fellow again, I'm pretty sure I got the better deal, over the years.

I don't get paid for playing music, but I'll bet there is a parallel, there, somewhere.

 

[chadhargis]

When I was a kid I imagined myself walking out on a stage as part of a band. Playing music, seeing the crowd dancing, hearing the applause. At 38yo, long after I'd established my career and I was making decent money, I decided to learn to play an instrument in my spare time. Since then I've played many gigs. I've fulfilled my childhood dreams of playing before some decently large crowds. I've made a few bucks here and there, but seldom enough to cover my expenses. And forget the investment I have in basses, amps, cabs, pedals, cases, etc. THOUSANDS of dollars. Factor in that, and I've not made dollar one and never will.

I'd gladly PAY for the privilege of of playing. To feel the rush of that first downbeat. To have the lights shining on me. To feel the energy of the crowd. It's the best drug on the planet. Worth more money than I have to spend.

While I enjoy getting paid to play, I never factor in money. I just want to play. I used to play high school basketball. Busted my butt for hours a day. Ran bleachers, suicides, jumped rope, lifted weights....all for the brief chance that I'd get in the game for only a few minutes. But hitting that floor and knocking down a few buckets while everyone cheered made all that work worthwhile. It's the same with music. I can't wait to pick up my bass each day.

 

[DWBass]

Those are the guys who rarely get the call. I feel I’m worth way more than what I’m getting but you have to weigh your options. In my case most gigs pay more and some pay less than $175. No one is going to hand you $175 just because you asked for it. If you’re worth it to some folks, they already know and called you already.

 

[charlie monroe]

Simple. Don't call that person anymore.

If the talent pool is as deep as you suggest, you have no need for this person.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

OK, I hear statements like this from time to time from musicians about the amount of pay they need to go out for the night -- "I need $175 to go out".

I'll be frank, I don't like the statement AT ALL. It ignores a number of facts:

1. Usually, the gig is booked and pay already negotiated. I can't go back and ask for more.
2. Granting the extra pay normally means taking a cut to my personal pay, or cutting the pay of the other guys.
3. As a consequence of #2, some musicians can get a different rate of pay than the others. This can cause hard feelings.
4. Often there isn't room in the market rates for that increase; if I start quoting to include that rate, we sit at home (most of the time).
5. In my genre, good musicians are plentiful, so musicians who raise prices ignore supply and demand.
6. If I reserve the high paying gigs for certain musicians, that's not fair to the guys who slugged out the $100-$125 gigs.

As a band leader, when you get statements like this -- how do you respond? And what is normally the outcome of such conversations? Do you lose the player, or do they stick with you?

I dunno. I don't see what the problem is with that statement. Everybody has a right to set their own value on their own time and effort. (Whether that self-derived value accords with anybody else's valuation is another issue entirely!) We all--well, at least most of us--have gigs that we consider just not worth the trouble.

I would just say, sorry, this is what the gig pays. If they're willing to accept that, great; if not, hire somebody else who doesn't need $175 to go out. When you do get a gig that pays $175+, you can make your own choices about whether you want to go for the "high-priced spread" (for example, if they're your favorite guitarist, or they're substantially better than the other people you could hire for less) or to reward the people who did the lower-paying gigs.

If a player said that to me, I would just make a note of it and find somebody else to do that gig. Whether and when I hired that player again would have to do with (a) how well and easily I typically worked with the individual and whether I would enjoy doing that work again and (b) the nature and cost of other practical options available to me.

On the flip side of things, I lost a gig a couple months ago because the performer felt unable to meet my price (which was hardly exorbitant, BTW, as I'm not a terribly expensive date as a rule). I didn't come down on it, because it just wasn't worth it to me to do so. I didn't lose any sleep over that, and apparently the artist had no hard feelings either. Nobody was hurt. Just one of those things....

 

[ThePez]

is this guy a part of your band or just a temporary hired gun? big difference between the two.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Simple - the gig pays "X". Everyone gets an equal share. If you are telling me you won't take any gigs for less than $175, then fine, I won't call you for gigs making less than $175. But I also first call the players who are the easiest to work with.

Their choice.

 

[Inara]

I see no problem with this. When I was a BL in Nashville years ago, I went through this a few times with some of the more in-demand players. There was never anything personal about it - I had a call sheet that I had sorted by order of preference (in terms of musicianship and chemistry), with notes as far as what minimum dollar amount anyone specified. I think it's totally fair for someone to have this sort of limit. I also think it's totally fair for a BL to not want to work around things like this, and so to prefer players who don't have dollar limits. It's all good, to me.

 

[MasterG]

Ive done plenty of gigs as BL for $0 because I gave up my dough to pay the rest of the band what I thought they should be getting and to keep them happy. I dont need the dough so its no big deal to split my pay and give the guys and extra $40-50 each. Ive never told them I do this though. I just like to play out.

 

[Chad Michael]

One of the bands I worked with would sometimes go thru a booking agent, to get into certain venues.

We had a regular gig at a club near the lake, paid the agent fee (not a lot, but still a ding in the paycheck.)

Friends, who also had a very good band, had been trying to get into that club for years. We'd have them sit in, to try to drive the point to the owner, and staff, that they are a great band and should be on the roster. Finally, they were able to do so. Hurray..... only one problem: Not only were they being paid just as much as we were (as loyal, long- term regulars that packed the house), they didn't need to book thru the agent (no agent fee ding in the paycheck).

I put my foot down, told my band they straighten this out with the agent, (get us a raise for that venue) or they will be playing there without me next time. I've never quibbled about pay, except for this incident. There are both sides of the coin with the pay demands, I can understand both points of view... Not that it makes any difference, but I have earned more $$ (by a somewhat comfortable margin) than I have spent on gear. That, to me, adds a little bit of satisfaction to the whole idea of being fortunate enough to do this (play live)

 

[richntiff]

OK, I hear statements like this from time to time from musicians about the amount of pay they need to go out for the night -- "I need $175 to go out".

I'll be frank, I don't like the statement AT ALL. It ignores a number of facts:

1. Usually, the gig is booked and pay already negotiated. I can't go back and ask for more.
2. Granting the extra pay normally means taking a cut to my personal pay, or cutting the pay of the other guys.
3. As a consequence of #2, some musicians can get a different rate of pay than the others. This can cause hard feelings.
4. Often there isn't room in the market rates for that increase; if I start quoting to include that rate, we sit at home (most of the time).
5. In my genre, good musicians are plentiful, so musicians who raise prices ignore supply and demand.
6. If I reserve the high paying gigs for certain musicians, that's not fair to the guys who slugged out the $100-$125 gigs.

As a band leader, when you get statements like this -- how do you respond? And what is normally the outcome of such conversations? Do you lose the player, or do they stick with you?

To be fair though - you are in a different situation than most. Your perspective is rather unique. You've stated before about booking/etc for 'your bands' - so clearly you have taken on a professional band leader role. In effect - you are middle management for the bodies that you have hired to play in that particular band that particular night. It's in YOUR best interest to hire the cheapest guy who can play the parts as you can. If I were in your position, I'd probably do the same. However, I don't think your average band - at least, not around here - functions in this manner. For both bands I play in - we have a minimum set price. If we can't get that, we aren't playing. We also rarely play with subs - we just don't like to. None of us are full time professional musos, but we are all pretty good. None of us are hurting for money - but to show up and play for free or some paltry sum is insulting to our investment in time and materials. Not to mention being damaging to the guys that are using music to pay their bills. So, we opt for somewhere in the middle.

 

[mrcbass]

Assuming this is a "hired gun" story, then yeah, don't call this guy when you can't meet his requirements and as bulldog said, others will get the first calls because of ease of workability. Good for him if he can actually fetch what he wants.

I can't imagine trying to manage a band that has different rate of pay between members "just because". Yeah, if you compensate for stuff like PA rental or gig mining, but just because they ask for more? Nah.

When I joined my band, I asked about what I would expect to get paid for gigs. Sure I wish it were more (not even minimum wage if you count travel and gear schlepping) and there have been a few gigs where dinner and a couple of beers made the gig a financial wash anyway. But its not particularly about money for me - it's about getting some stage time. I wouldn't go through all the effort and sometime B.S. for much less, but this was all determined before I signed on.

 

[five7]

We all want 175

 

[Slater]

OK, I hear statements like this from time to time from musicians about the amount of pay they need to go out for the night -- "I need $175 to go out".

I think when someone makes a statement like this, they have already considered the alternative of “staying home”, and they are fine with that.

 

[thenazz]

You get what you pay for.

 

[MattZilla]

As a band leader, when you get statements like this -- how do you respond?

If I ever get myself to the sweet position you're in, I'd like to think that this stated at the first handshake and e-communication address/number exchange would be sufficient:

there isn't room in the market rates for that increase; if I start quoting to include that rate, we sit at home annnnd good musicians are plentiful, so musicians who raise prices ignore supply and demand.

 

[5StringBlues]

I'm gonna need about tree fiddy.

 

[Greyvagabond]

Your required rate is your required rate. It is business; can't take it personally. If they wind up missing gigs because they won't play for less than $x, that is their business. As you say, plenty of other musicians, so just grab the other person willing to play for less.

If there AREN'T other people willing to play for less, well hell, there's a free lesson in economics.

 

[Munjibunga]

We all want 175

Nope. I want $1K.