I need $175

[DirtDog]

If I was being perfectly rationale as to the value of my time, I'd be charging 1.5x 50% of my day job rate (kinda like time and a half, but prorated). And if that was the case, I would never get called for a gig.

So, I'm content to leave the house for as little as $50 if the gig is right. Some gigs, you couldn't pay me enough to do it!

 

[Goatrope]

If someone is coming in as a sub or a hired hand, I have no bad feelings about them *asking* for what they think they deserve.

We have a three piece. We split our gig money equally. If that number is less than the sub will accept, no hard feelings, we’ll call someone else.

The only exception to this was when we were getting subs for a band mate that had fallen ill. We paid the sub what would have been an equal share, but the other member and I took only a half share, so that we could pay our band mate his full share while he was down. We’re very close.

 

[electracoyote]

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!

I wish clubs paid better too.

Here's an interesting question: If a sub thinks they are worth X amount of dollars and that's their standard rate, are they willing to accept that rate even if the cut per player would be much higher?

In other words, if the sub player is only interested in a set fee based on all the factors that go into a gig, shouldn't they be held to that rate even if they would make more on an equal cut basis?

I used a sub drummer for a wedding once, and he stated his fee, which was about 20% higher than the typical bar pay. I didn't tell him that we were making about 4X the fee of a typical bar gig. Would I be justified in paying him 1/4 what I paid all the others?

 

[MDBass]

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.

All good.

Just pointing out why “the sub is deluded to think they are special or different from the rest of the band in terms of workload or anything else” simply isn’t true.

Even if it’s only a handful of new tunes to learn, it’s still more work.

 

[electracoyote]

Just pointing out why “the sub is deluded to think they are special or different from the rest of the band in terms of workload or anything else” simply isn’t true.

.

I've tried to be clear: This mentality is as pertains to my band and needs, not a universal statement of fact.

There is no argument about a person being free to set their own price, and if they can get it enough times to justify it, keep doing it.

I wouldn't be surprised if this issue of paying a sub significantly more than a regular member has caused some serious turmoil in a lot of bands. Whereas a sub with a healthy repertoire might have to cram a few tunes, the regulars have poured a whole lot of time and effort into the project as well. I can see some resentment from a regular because a sub got paid significantly more being a fairly common scenario.

Also, I never expect my subs to nail everything to the wall perfectly, flubs will happen, and attending an audition pre-gig or skipping it is their choice. A sub usually can't learn all our intros and endings in one rehearsal. So a sub may be doing a little cramming, but they almost always deliver a performance somewhere below our regular member. I'm not sure that warrants extra pay.

There is a lot of pro/con relative value comparison in this situation.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

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.

Subs generally have a lot of prep time that they need to put in unless you're doing standards.

 

[MDBass]

I wish clubs paid better too.

Here's an interesting question: If a sub thinks they are worth X amount of dollars and that's their standard rate, are they willing to accept that rate even if the cut per player would be much higher?

In other words, if the sub player is only interested in a set fee based on all the factors that go into a gig, shouldn't they be held to that rate even if they would make more on an equal cut basis?

I used a sub drummer for a wedding once, and he stated his fee, which was about 20% higher than the typical bar pay. I didn't tell him that we were making about 4X the fee of a typical bar gig. Would I be justified in paying him 1/4 what I paid all the others?

What’s being discussed is a minimum rate, not a “set rate”: the factors for every gig are different, which is why not every gig pays the same.

I’ve been paid $100 to play a night of covers, and I’ve also been paid $800: both were fair.

In your example, if the sub stated what he needed money wise to cover the night instead of asking what it paid, fair play in paying them less than an equal split: they are very literally getting what they ask for.

If they ask what the gig pays, and you tell them it’s actually less than what every other member is getting...that’s pretty dirty.

 

[electracoyote]

What’s being discussed is a minimum rate, not a “set rate”: the factors for every gig are different, which is why not every gig pays the same.

I’ve been paid $100 to play a night of covers, and I’ve also been paid $800: both were fair.

In your example, if the sub stated what he needed money wise to cover the night instead of asking what it paid, fair play in paying them less than an equal split: they are very literally getting what they ask for.

If they ask what the gig pays, and you you tell them it’s actually less than what the equal split would...that’s pretty dirty.

Right you are, it introduces a moral dilemma.

FWIW, in that situation where the sub spouted off a set fee that was well below an equal cut, I tell them what the gig fee is and that my band has a standard policy of paying subs an equal cut whether it's a $500 bar gig or a $3K wedding. That's how my sense of fairness and ethics roll.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

I used a sub drummer for a wedding once, and he stated his fee, which was about 20% higher than the typical bar pay. I didn't tell him that we were making about 4X the fee of a typical bar gig. Would I be justified in paying him 1/4 what I paid all the others?

You could, but if he found out later, you would no longer have a sub.

 

[electracoyote]

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.

Subs generally have a lot of prep time that they need to put in unless you're doing standards.

Noted and addressed.

I know jazz guys have standard books, and pop rock players know what most popular pop rock bands play. I suppose if we are talking about a genre or playlist that is so idiosyncratic and demanding that it requires more significant prep, perhaps some allowance should be made.

 

[electracoyote]

FWIW, in that situation where the sub spouted off a set fee that was well below an equal cut, I tell them what the gig fee is and that my band has a standard policy of paying subs an equal cut whether it's a $500 bar gig or a $3K wedding. That's how my sense of fairness and ethics roll.

You could, but if he found out later, you would no longer have a sub.

Once again, that was already noted and addressed. I would never do that; I stick with an equal cut no matter the fee. My ideal sub rolls with it. He plays my gigs for the hang and the music and the love of being an entertainer, sucks it up on the low paying gigs, rejoices on the high paying gigs.

i never met a weekend warrior paying his mortgage with his gig money. The vast majority of us don't do this for themoney

 

[ajschnitzelbank]

I wish clubs paid better too.

Here's an interesting question: If a sub thinks they are worth X amount of dollars and that's their standard rate, are they willing to accept that rate even if the cut per player would be much higher?

In other words, if the sub player is only interested in a set fee based on all the factors that go into a gig, shouldn't they be held to that rate even if they would make more on an equal cut basis?

I used a sub drummer for a wedding once, and he stated his fee, which was about 20% higher than the typical bar pay. I didn't tell him that we were making about 4X the fee of a typical bar gig. Would I be justified in paying him 1/4 what I paid all the others?

Yes, I think so. The guy playing guitar on stage for Bon Jovi, not the famous one, Richy something, but the one wearing black and playing a black guitar standing at the back of the stage, he makes way less than Richie Samboro I think his name is. That’s the deal in that band, and everyone seems okay with it.

I just try to take emotion out of it. Perhaps it’s my cold heart, hah. I figure a sub asks for a rate, a band leader offers a payment, and they either work out a deal or they don’t.

 

[Brad Johnson]

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.

That's what I used to think should be obvious. A band member should have a comfort level with what the band does because... they're in the band. They've typically been working on what they do.

OTOH I as a sub come in COLD. I have no idea what idiosyncracies the band has, etc. I may have to learn a lot of music in a short period of time and be expected to perform it as well as a band member at a minimum. Given those things, why should I be expected to do it for the same money as a band member when I have to put so much effort into such a concentrated space?

I'm a musical paramedic as a sub. If you want to call Uber instead and cheap out when you have those chest pains, knock yourself out. I'm sure there's something on Netflix I could watch instead.


I had a friend call me in a panic one night, needed a bass player a half hour ago because theirs didn't show. I did the gig at regular pay ($100) as a favor to him. Got through the gig fine but there was no comfort level since I didn't know the songs until they called them. Around a month later I get the same panicked call, after the gig had started and again I bailed them out. The next time I got the call I told him that unfortunately I had another commitment. My other commitment? I wasn't going to be the guy putting out their fires anymore. If they had hired me in the first place...

 

[PauFerro]

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

He was a first call wind player, but when he came out with that statement he lost his position. Now he still accepts $100 gigs when I have them, on a sub basis. The whole thing was a bluff on his part, I guess. Another guy, a sax player, did the same thing, so we found another sax player who for two years displaced the $175 guy. That sax player sits at home except for sporadic calls from a couple other bands now and then, but nothing regular. Even changed his tune when I called him for lower paid sub work saying "I'll go out for $75 if I can get playing again".

In the same breath, the first guy -- I knew he had gigs too -- he's an entrepreneur type of sorts and he never calls me for gigs. He formed a trio of percussion, guitar, and his flute instrument, mimicking a Latin concept I had put together years ago, except with bass in it. He did it better, actually, with REAL latin players who looked and sounded the part. Yet he never calls me. I raised that issue with him -- you want $175 a night, yet you have these other gigs and you never call me? Can we talk about this?

 

[Brad Johnson]

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.

Even if it's the difference between being able to do the gig or not?

Hey, rigid mindsets work for some. I look at each situation and go on the merits.

 

[PauFerro]

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

Actually -- no -- most of them then accept sub jobs at the going rate of $100-$125 a night! The only ones who have been firm is this guy who used to play sax with a really, really big, famous, award-winning 80's band you would know. And then guys who know that if they hang back a few more weeks they are going to get a solo act at $200 a night (keyboard players mostly) -- never sax, guitar, or drummers.

The fact they stop getting calls for an extended period of time, see the band chugs along without them, and see all the gigs posted on facebook and other places acts as a wake-up call.

 

[two fingers]

Each person has to decide for him/herself what it takes to make a gig worth it.

I have played with guys so desperate to relive some sort of glory days that they'll play classic rock covers for "exposure" for five years. And I have worked with guys who won't get off the couch for less than $200.

Worth with players who have the same goals as you do. End of discussion.

If the talent pool is deep where you are, call somebody who will play for less.

I will play with MY band for $175 or maybe even a tiny bit less. But I derive great joy from just being in the same room as those guys.

Fill in gigs? Those are just work. Period. You will pay me dearly for my time and effort to get ready for those, or I will simply turn it down. But it's just a matter of priorities and has nothing to do with "fair".

If I have to learn 20 songs by next Friday, I will have to miss out on reading to my girls a couple of nights while I practice. I will have to miss going kayaking or taking my wife to dinner to do your gig. You'll have to make it worth my while.

Thay doesn't make me "greedy". It just means my priorities are different.

 

[Slater]

Actually -- no -- most of them then accept sub jobs at the going rate of $100-$125 a night!

Well, since you know that, you can counter offer with that information. If they’re going to bluff, they better be prepared to have that bluff called.

 

[PauFerro]

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.

Just wanted to respond to the part in bold -- I find this is another pattern. The musicians will often quote that one time gig where they got a massive amount of money for a short gig. OUr sax player, the one with a minmum, did NYE for $600 for a two hour show. I have a feeling I'll be hearing about that for a few years to come. But it was a one time thing. Certainly not the norm, but that's what I hear when people draw the line in the sand.


BTW, I don't begrudge people setting a limit, my question was how do you respond as BL.

My response is normally to tell them that when I have gigs that pay that much, I can offer them the gig, but if I have guys slugging it out for $100 a night, is it fair to give the creme to someone else? So, it depends how much they want to sit at home. Outcome -- they normally lose their spot to someone who has a reasonable minimum, wonder why I'm not calling, and then accept $100 sub gigs. Most of the time.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Actually -- no -- most of them then accept sub jobs at the going rate of $100-$125 a night! The only ones who have been firm is this guy who used to play sax with a really, really big, famous, award-winning 80's band you would know.

He might not have been speaking specifically to your situation. What he said definitely fits my situation. I considered whether it's worth it or not and live with the consequences.

I had a high end BL's assistant call me about an out of state gig. Said it paid $400. I countered at $500 and she said thanks and that was that. Cool. A month later she called back and asked if I was still available for that date. I said yes. She asked what I needed, I said $600. She asked if I'd take $500, I explained that we're now working on short notice and I'd need to get up to speed on whatever it is they wanted me to play in a short time period. I got the gig, which went so well that I was asked if I was available to play with them. I couldn't commit to that.

This is one of the reasons I live and work where I do. There are lucrative gigs to be had if you're up to it and I'm not forced to do the lowball gigs. Fortunately for me most people here don't take this as seriously as I do so my actual competition isn't for the most part.