I need $175

[okcrum]

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.

...

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?

Do you even have to ask? It's the music business. Why should they take a smaller cut to hire you when you wouldn't do the same for them?

 

[QORC]

i would think if you had a band member with this opinion, you would know that before you booked the show. and if you can't get that rate for this person, I think you need to replace them

 

[MultiScaleMale]

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?

Maybe the chemistry just isn’t there. It’s okay, Charlize Theron won’t return my repeated calls either.

 

[guy n. cognito]

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

It ignores absolutely nothing. The musicians knows what he’s worth, knows what he can get, and isn’t willing to compromise simply because that amount is unobtainable for some of his less-bookable bands.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

OP, seeing your posts over the years, I think you have a difficult time accepting that others have a different mindset than yours. People are complex creatures and don’t aldehyde make sense. If someone wants $175, just accept that. Put it in the spreadsheet and only call when appropriate. If he’s doing other gigs without you, it’s because it’s working without you and why would they change that group’s chemistry? Some times things are just what they are at face value.

 

[4001]

If I ever got $100 for a gig I was happy.

 

[RustyAxe]

I do have “my rate”. I might bend it for a friend in a bind, but pretty much I’ll just say no thanks if the game isn’t worth the candle. I don’t need the money, but i do value my time. What the next guy works for is none of my concern, nor do I mind being passed up for a $50 gig an hour away.

 

[Jack]

People will place different values on working a gig, that's fair enough. We've had people in this thread who've quite correctly said that they'll play for free. Some people are completely broke, rely on playing to make rent, and will equally quite correctly take ANY gig with ANY pay. Some people are really worth the cash (or they are cork-sniffing musos with inflated self-worth!) and those guys will, also correctly, place a lot of money on their time.

Me? At around once a fortnight I already play out more than I really have time to. I want to do it more, but I've got a day job, friends, etc, and they take up too much time. If you want me to come out on a Saturday when I'm bored and I've got nothing on then I'll do it cheap. If you want me to come out on NYE and miss my sister in law's famously drunkenly debauched house party then it's REALLY going to cost you.

All of this is before the fact that you realise that some people earn £15,000 a year and some people earn £500,000 a year for doing a 37 hour a week day job. Those two people have different concepts of money.

In short, it's silly to assume that everyone has the same values, priorities and sense of monetary worth than you do. If someone wants $175 for a gig then it doesn't matter if they're really worth twice that and they get offered 3 gigs a day or if they're only worth half of that and never work. If that's what they want, that's what they want.

 

[RustyAxe]

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?

Sure, and that’s how I work. As long as I get what i agreed to i don’t care what anyone else gets.

 

[Low Class]

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.

Pretty much exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP post.

 

[charlie monroe]

My first reply was pretty cut and dried - I suggested not calling them anymore.

I have decided to augment my reply to address the specific question in the OP - "How do you reply to this statement?"

I think some combination of your points 1,2,4 and 6 is the answer. i.e. the gig rate has been set, you don't want to cut anyone's pay, bidding that high on new work will result in a reduced closing rate and finally, accepting your current offer will allow the sub an opportunity to join your outfit on the higher paying outings.

These are all reasonable points to present in an attempt to get the musician off of his minimum.

As the thread developed, I have noticed that you state that the majority of high ballers now accept your lower rates regularly just for the sake of continuing to work. If that is true, shouldn't this thread be moot? Clearly you have found a successful way to compel musicians to accept less than they think they are worth.

Additionally, if this is true, do you feel any remorse for helping to drive down the pay scale of musicians in your community? When you get a call back saying "I'll take the 40% hit in my pocket book" do you derive satisfaction that you have won the skirmish? It comes across like you take the $175 requirement personally.

I too have read many of your posts over the years and I am beginning to wonder if there are control issues at play. It sounds like you are trying to become the Pimp Daddy of Orlando smooth jazz. Especially when you self identify as an "enlightened despot" and consider yourself Machiavellian.

So I am now pondering the source of your displeasure at hearing the dreaded "You aren't meeting my minimum". Does it upset you because they are not willing to drop their standards merely to have the opportunity to work with you? Or is this a situation that diminishes your self worth because you are unable to offer them lucrative gigs?

 

[Mister Boh]

It's not personal. Can't hate on people advocating for a good deal on their behalf. Either you can pay it or not, and he will get the job or not.

I've turned down positions due to not enough money, though not in music.

 

[fhm555]

I was playing in a big (7 piece plus singer/BL) classic country band and the drummer had to take a month off for medical issues. While he was out the BL found a young cat to sub for us. Pay was an eight way split and usually ran around $100~$150. After the first job with us the sub called the BL and said he’d have to have at least $200 a night to continue playing with us. The BL thanked him for his time and went right to finding another sub. The kid called back a few times and the BL told him as soon as we had a job that met his salary expectations he’d call him.

 

[mstillman]

Agree with others who stated is a business decision. Other professions have a range of salaries, too.

I don't leave home for under $100, which I think is too low, unless it's a charity gig or a friend's band is in a tight spot. I may rethink the latter...

I'm preparing for a sub gig with friends and former bandmates. Their bassist is undergoing a procedure, so I'm learning probably two dozen songs for a gig that will pay me under $100.

Granted, it's primarily country music (not my favorite genre), but I still need to learn song structures, which takes time. Nearly all of these are songs I'll likely play only that night.

But it's to save my friends' debut gig at this venue. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it.

So, I don't see anything wrong with people having a minimum price for their talents.

 

[lfmn16]

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?

Why do you care how much someone has to make? If it's too much don't hire them. None of the things you mention are THEIR problem, they are YOUR problem. Why do you think that YOU get to set what is reasonable? I've had people call me and ask me to play for $50. Am I unreasonable for turning them down?

What if the gig pays $250 a person? You can pocket an extra $75.

In my area, qualified subs tell you how much they need and if it fits your budget, you hire them. I don't see the problem.

 

[Timmy-Watts]

I know what all the gigs pay around here, and I know who all the musicians are. I take it or leave it depending on the totality of the gig. I will generally do the $50 Tuesday gig at the Mexican restaurant because I love the musicians and music. I don't typically say what I need to leave the house, but I have an idea. When I get a call, there is a set pay amount.

That said, anyone calling me knows what they will be getting. Without me even asking, one corporate bandleader that wanted me to be his "regular" was upfront that he pays me and the rest of the rhythm section significantly more than the horn players and singers. But the rhythm section is consistent personnel from the top shelf.

It is economics. If it is not worth my time, I turn it down. No need for me to demand an amount because i understand that the alternative is me sitting at home and I'm fine with that.

 

[buldog5151bass]

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?

If a player insists on a minimum fee, and only subs, then there is nothing unethical about calling for a better paying gig and only giving his rate - the others were taking other gigs for less. If he/she complains, that's how I would explain it.

 

[micguy]

I play in churches. I have a maximum and a minimum rate, and they're the same number. Many times when I found out we were doing a more complicated service - Christmas, Easter, a baptism or something that means more music, I've asked for double the pay, and always gotten it. Can you guess my rate?

Taking the money out of music (granted, I'm at a time and place where I don't need the next dollar) was the best thing that ever happened to my musical career.

 

[Fxpmusic]

I think it is ok to have a minimum and those conversations need to be had earlier on the professional relationship. I’m in a band with guys who charge more in other projects but the income expectations of this band have been set clearly from the get go. Sometimes, when a sub is needed, a higher rate may have to be paid and that’s for me as a BL to know how to balance that. Whether from my own income or from the bands savings (which is there for many reasons including this).

I did have a drummer show up highly unprepared for an audition. He could’ve worked out if a second chance was given but I was trying a couple other guys out. When I let him know we had one guy scheduled and was gonna give him the opportunity, he replied he understood but also informed me his minimum rate was $300 a show... expecting that, you should show up to an audition with the songs in your bag and know them back and forth. Sorry, haven’t vented about this since last year lol.

 

[Sparkl]

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.

There sure is, although let me tell you it is a big difference waking up every morning, having a fixed job, monthly salary, as opposed to playing late hours with a band for 10$ and investing all the knowledge and time for diminishing returns, having to constantly worry where on the street will you play next to cover the bills.

Price dumping in music industry is real. It is REAL.

Edit: Let alone myself, coming from a 2mio country where it is extremely easy to play most of the good paying venues in less than a year. Much less in fact. So the constant need of bringing something fresh on the table is extremely tiresome honestly. Otherwise, a year after, you have nowhere to book, since everyone heard you recently already.