I need $175

[kesslari]

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?

If you've already negotiated the gig, and know what it pays, you communicate that to the musician when you "book" them.
If the pay's $100, and they don't want to take it - find someone who does. And you need to have a sense of what your first call folks want for a gig, and either book gigs that pay that much or get folks who will play for less.

 

[Greyvagabond]

Nope. I want $1K.

I don't get out of my trailer for less than $850/hr, plus free drinks, plus dinner, plus a hand massage after the show from the owner's wife and/or daughter.

 

[Slough Feg Bass]

that's the biz man. Take it or leave it.
you want to save money and get the $50 drummer, then it might not be the beat you want to dance to.
I'd bet that the $175 drummer is pretty good and doesn't need to be told when to stop and start.

 

[Brad Johnson]

We all want 175

Nope. And that mindset is part of the problem. I've turned down pay in that range fairly often. I've also played for less... depends on the gig. But look at how many haven't even mentioned that.


$175 might sound like decent money until you find out that you're being used on a high budget gig. I had a guy offer me $250 once... for a gig in Atlanta.


BTW the budget for the gig was $9,000. The BL was driving down and back instead of having the band stay at the hotel that was included in the budget. Mo' money for him.

All musicians are not equal either. Everyone does not bring the same talent and maybe more important, work ethic to the table.

I couldn't care less what the other musicians are getting paid. I care about my compensation. This isn't the Partridge Family. I asked for a raise with one of the agency bands I played with, in the process pointing out six or seven strong reasons why I deserved it. The BL agreed and said "but I can't give everyone a raise".

Me: "Cool... I wasn't asking for everyone"


I got the raise.

You don't get $175 by settling for $100. I have come in below what I deem reasonable on a first gig to prove my worth and it usually follows with me getting my rate for future gigs. I was offered a gig with a small jazz group that paid $100. It was well outside the other side of the Beltway AND they wanted to do a rehearsal. I gave them the minimum I'd do that gig for and they found the money.

Last week I booked four gigs. Strangely enough three pay $350, one pays $450. Two hours to three hours, all local. That's what I was initially offered to do the gigs and I could've negotiated on any of them, I was asked if that was acceptable to me. That's business. Getting myself in that position didn't happen overnight. It required work on my part. And if I miss a 9-1:30am $75 hit where I'm waiting another half hour for my pay while the venue does their count, I'll live.

My favorite offer of all time was a call from a friend for a sub gig in Wilmington DE a few years back. It paid $40. I live north of Washington DC. The pay rate was because they were making their band vehicle payment on that gig. I mentioned that I wasn't in the band and declined and he asked me what I usually charged. At the time it was $200 base. He was incredulous and asked how I got that. I laid out the specifics then thanked him for thinking about me.

It's interesting that some of the same folks I've seen gripe about low pay think the $175 person was out of line. A gig is what you make it. You can give it away, I look at that as a missed opportunity.

 

[dan1952]

I will play at church for free. I will play benefit for free. I will play a nursing home for free. A fundraiser where every bigwig in a 100 mile radius is buying tickets at $100 a plate and playing golf for $200 a round, I will not leave the house for less than $200. Other gigs on approval...

 

[Brad Johnson]

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.

From experience, I don't get what I ask for just because I asked for it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

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 don't think the statement necessarily ignores any of these facts. Because are they really facts?

 

[bikeplate]

We should respect what an individual feels is his or her worth.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

It's just simple economics. Supply and demand. The individual has a set price where they have deemed that's what it will take for them to do your gig. If that's not what you can pay, then that person is not the right individual for your gig. There really isn't anything to understand.

 

[electracoyote]

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 have used one sub musician who set her price well above an equal cut for our typical gigs. It came out of my pocket as I refused to put that burden on the regular members. I used her once in an emergency, never again. I now look for more fair-minded team players to sub for us when needed.

In the majority of clubs and bars of Denver, $175.00 is well above the equal cut for a five piece band.

I never did this as a sub (set a fee higher than an equal cut), and I'm rock solid and spend lots of time prepping for my sub gigs. I'm fine with an equal cut.

Needless to say, that would be a non-starter for anyone I was auditioning for a permanent slot.

Players who think they can set their price like that are not realistic in most markets, and I don't cater to whatever illusion of grandeur they are suffering. I've certainly never met a bass player who was that important and neccesary. You think you can set your own price and get paid more than everyone around you? Time to go try your luck in NYC, L.A., Nashville, et. al.

You get what you pay for.

If you are proposing this as a universal truth, I couldn't disagree more. I know lots of amazing players who are fair, modest, and flexible with their fee.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

Players who think they can set their price like that are not realistic in most markets, and I don't cater to whatever illusion of grandeur they are suffering. You think you can set your own price and get paid more than everyone around you? Time to go try your luck in NYC, L.A., Nashville, et. al.

I don't see it as illusions of grandeur. It's a price that they've decided as their floor to do the gig. Anything less isn't worth (I think he was a drummer) packing up the drums, putting them in the car, driving X miles, getting to a show early for a sound check and set up, playing for four hours, tearing down, load out, band load out, driving home, unpacking. Total time - Seven hours. Pull out taxes, gas money, anything the bar charges for food and drink and you're probably still well under $20/hour net. At a certain point it's not worth it.

 

[electracoyote]

I don't see it as illusions of grandeur. It's a price that they've decided as their floor to do the gig. Anything less isn't worth (I think he was a drummer) packing up the drums, putting them in the car, driving X miles, getting to a show early for a sound check and set up, playing for four hours, tearing down, load out, band load out, driving home, unpacking. Total time - Seven hours. Pull out taxes, gas money, anything the bar charges for food and drink and you're probably still well under $20/hour net. At a certain point it's not worth it.

The "fairness" you outline applies to all the players in that combo, not just the sub. If everyone else has to suck it up and accept the perceived challenges and realities, so does my sub.

If he can't accept that, as you wisely stated above, he can accept the words "thanks, but no thanks" if an equal cut is not worth his time.

For a sub to claim he is somehow more burdened or special than my regulars and deserves more money is untrue and a form of illusion in this band leader's book.

 

[ajschnitzelbank]

Players who think they can set their price like that are not realistic in most markets, and I don't cater to whatever illusion of grandeur they are suffering. I've certainly never met a bass player who was that important and neccesary.

$175 is an “illusion of grandeur”? Wow, cold! Haha. Doesn’t seem that unrealistic to me. Maybe the player is good. And if they can get it, why begrudge them?

 

[electracoyote]

$175 is an “illusion of grandeur”? Wow, cold! Haha. Doesn’t seem that unrealistic to me. Maybe the player is good. And if they can get it, why begrudge them?

Yeah, I explained how it is in my market. Quick math: $700 gig, six musicians, equal cut = $116.00. I'm not paying a sub $175.

If a sub can ask for and get a significantly higher fee than the band regulars, he should go for it. Pretty sweet deal. It just won't be happening in my band.

 

[ajschnitzelbank]

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 can’t afrord to hire Elton John for my backyard barbecue. But I don’t begrudge him for his price! Why get upset about the guys rate? If you can’t afford it, hire somebody cheaper.

Seems to me like you’re ignoring just one fact: the person doesn’t want to play with you for less than $175.

 

[MDBass]

The "fairness" you outline applies to all the players in that combo, not just the sub. If everyone else has to suck it up and accept the perceived challenges and realities, so does my sub.

If he can't accept that, as you wisely stated above, he can accept the words "thanks, but no thanks" if an equal cut is not worth his time.

For a sub to claim he is somehow more burdened or special than my regulars and deserves more money is untrue and a form of illusion in this band leader's book.

The reason that last sentence isn’t necessarily true is twofold:

Firstly and most importantly, the sub may need to learn a significant amount of new material, perhaps even in a short time frame that the regulars don’t.

I’ve been paid double the regular’s rate in similar circumstances, and due to the time commitment involved it was still on the light side money-wise.

Secondly, due to supply and demand and especially on shorter notice, the band very literally needs a player to cover the gig: that particular player may not even want a gig that night at the rate it pays.

 

[Nev375]

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?

You are only looking at the statement from your own point of view. Try looking at it from the player's.

He's apparently good enough that he doesn't need you or he wouldn't be pricing himself outside of your ability to pay him.

 

[ajschnitzelbank]

Yeah, I explained how it is in my market. Quick math: $700 gig, six musicians, equal cut = $116.00. I'm not paying a sub $175.

If a sub can ask for and get a significantly higher fee than the band regulars, he should go for it. Pretty sweet deal. It just won't be happening in my band.

I hear ya. I guess it just makes me sad an extra $35 is grand. I know it’s a passion project for many of us, but I think we all get paid too little for playing!

 

[tradernick]

I may have missed it but did you give any details about this gig? There's a big difference between saying this is a bar gig vs a jobbing/corporate/wedding gig. If it's a wedding and load in is at 5 and cocktails start at 7 and the band plays until midnight, there's no way I would do it for $175. Conversely, if I potential client called me up through a referral and said 'I have a wedding that I want you to do and it's a total 7 hour call and I can pay each guy $175', unfortunately I'd say the musicians I play with won't do the gig for that much.

If it's a bar gig, I'd play for less because around here, $140 is decent money for a bar gig with a 5-piece.

Bottom line - no problem with someone stating that they need $xx to do a gig. The market will speak.

 

[electracoyote]

The reason that last sentence isn’t necessarily true is twofold:

Firstly and most import, the sub may need to learn a significant amount of new material, perhaps even in a short time frame that the regulars don’t.

I’ve been paid double the regular’s rate in similar circumstances, and due to the time commitment involved it was still on the light side money-wise.

Secondly, due to supply and demand and especially on shorter notice, the band very literally needs a player to cover the gig: that particular player may not even want a gig that night at the rate is pays.

I know those kinds of sub players.

I also know sub players like me, who first off have a pretty healthy repertoire of pop rock variety standards and don't need to start from scratch. The amount of prep for players like me is not that time consuming.

I stick with sub players like me.