• 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.

Overloaded myself and it got sketchy.. Any tips?

#21
Sounds like a _good_ problem, to have three nice opportunities to work, all of which reward the effort you put in. (Hang, music, or money.)

Managing conflicting demands on your time is a potential problem, true--but I'd continue with all three projects and see where they go.
 
#22
With so many prospects, it might seem that you will be too busy, but in my (limited) experience, it's the gigging band(s) that gets the most attention. So, until you're there, there is no real problem.

I would make sure that you make at least some money though. If Band B puts all of their earnings into a band fund, I would suggest that each member get paid and have only a portion of each show's earnings going toward the band bank. If not, you're potentially investing into a band that you may not be part of long term. If not, you'll need to pre-arrange an exit strategy (i.e. if you're buying band equipment, do they pay you out if you leave?).

The other thing you might consider is having some capable subs lined up in the event that all your projects get busy at the same time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bfields, DrayMiles and Wesley R
#24
Do as many as you can, but I would prioritize and male it all known. Your friends would understand if you get a bigger gig and should be happy for you. Your passion seems to lie in band C, and that is where the money is at. Go with your gut, what you love. I am guilty of picking the safe, more secure route before, and I regret it. I got burned out. And it ended anyways. Do what you love and what gives you a return. Be on notice to stay and fill in with the others. Make good friends with other bassists, so you can send good subs if there are conflicts, and who will call you for theirs. I get half my gigs from other bassists I'm cool with. That's basically all of them around here.
 
#25
band C is for sure a keeper as they are making money.

Band B sounds good (more talented players, name recognition) but despite those advantages it seems like they really aren't any further along than Band A (One album released, no take-home pay despite 10 years in). Also, though this may just be a language thing I really doubt anyone is "on standby" just waiting for these guys to get their poopie together so they can book them to an international tour.

I'd probably try to keep all three through the end of the year. It sounds like you have at least a couple of months before work starts, so give it at least that long. Set some realistic goals with (not for) both bands A and B. If it gets to the point you need to drop one try to base the decision on which of the two bands seems to be progressing towards their goals more. If neither band is making progress you might consider keeping C and looking for a new side project that also generates income.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hrodbert696
#26
One of the truly pro musicians I know once told me that he had 62 W2's from the prior year - 62 different clubs, churches, bands, etc. had paid him to perform, arrange, or whatever he did musically for them in one year. Although I often think simplification is helpful, in the music business, diversification is more where it's at.

I'm a volunteer, and in a typical year, I play at 6-8 churches - I'm pretty small potatoes at diversification, but there are times I do understand your dilemna - too many directions calling me for the same date. Still, if I want to play at places, I have to do my best to say yes to as many situations as I can - your gig calendar (which you need more than I do, if you're going to make a living at it) needs to be pretty full, and that's unlikely to happen with one or two bands.

The thing you have going for you is that you're a bassist. We're few, far between (at least the good ones) , and typically more employed than most musicians. Work with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Groove Doctor and HolmeBass
#27
Band C is fun and bread and butter, but hopefully they also understand your aspirations. Since they make money you should be able to lineup a sub for when A or B have a gig. So C is a definite keeper.

Between A and B, I would favor B because of potential and because it fits well with allowing your session work.

Band A I would be frank with. Tell them you love them and love the music but if band B comes through you will have to take that opportunity.

The other question: which of A or B is really the better band? Not the better players, but the better songs, better front person, best opportunity for big success? Could be hard to know, but it might be worth prioritizing the better band - the one with the better songs - in terms of career growth.

Good luck! I hope things work out that you can stay in all three bands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaseyVancouver
#28
Since i can't account for which band you will LIKE playing with the most, i'll approach this more so from the financial standpoint as it sounds like you want to cover some of your living expenses with musical jobs. Not a bad goal.

Band C is the band i would prioritize personally. Band C is also the type of group i would try to join more of. It actually pays and doesn't even require you to travel to do so. The music sounds fun and satisfying as well. I would likely be trying to replace band A and B with a couple more band C's.

Band A is stagnating, as you said. Also is an original rock band, a type that is notoriously hard to make a successful financial venture. But you do enjoy playing with them and they are friends. I would keep playing with the band but it would take a back seat to band C since band C pays. I would limit the time spent with this band in favor of paid opportunities. I also hate "band pot" pay setups, enough that i won't join a band that has one.

Band B is much like band A, but further along. Still though, and original rock band and no real prospect of money, but more prospect than band A. Just because they are organizing a future tour doesn't mean a pay day. Even internationally recognized groups sometimes tour at a loss or at just covering expenses. I think band B needs to show you the money to gain any type of priority with you. But you can still participate as time allows and cross your fingers. Also, band pot sucks, and i wonder why they have a revolving door of bassists. That might be a sign that there is nothing there, but not sure.

So if you can't tell, i much prefer the band C model to an original rock band model. I find original rock bands are very time consuming, require alot of effort, and function at a loss most of the time. They can be great fun and satisfying, but usually fizzle out due to lack of forward motion. If you have the free time for it, great, but if you are juggling then they may not be worth it.
 
#30
Those all sound pretty fun honestly.
  • Can't see A ever making money but it could be fun to do a creative thing with friends even if it ends up costing you a few bucks here and there for practice space, recording, etc.
  • Can't see B really making much money but it might get to the point where you can play fun shows and travel at band expense, which isn't the worst thing.
  • Sounds like you're pretty into C which is cool, but playing the same repertoire in the same (steady paying) places could get old if you're the kind of player who enjoys bands like A and B as well.
I'd say keep A and C going if you have time, and do B on a trial basis until you get a sense of whether things will get interesting with a real bassist (which seems to be what everyone's hoping) or whether there are other reasons that records and tours haven't happened. If it starts to seem like there's always a reason touring and recording get pushed back, pack your bags!
 
#31
I would make band A band B
and band B band A, band C stays the same.
Start networking with bass players and establish some good subs
as you juggle all 3 bands.
I freelance with 5 bands and its mostly due to low amount
of work available. I do have them rated A B C D E.
 
#32
Band A is over. These things happen.
Flat out refuse to go into a band fund with B. Set a price for gigs, insist on being paid that rate. Don't talk percentages or shares, a flat rate. They might refuse, they might love the idea.
C is your thing, grow it into a real deal. You might as well take the reins with your partner and drive. Cultivate players and gigs.
Until push comes to shove, just be upfront about when you are available and what you are thinking.
Band funds almost never work out. The idea that you are going to be the sixteenth bass player/investor in band B's long running fantasy is weak.
 
#34
Go ahead and devote yourself fully to music. Keep all the bands active. Maybe band B will become your main gig. Band C won't take too much of your time. Keep it small. Band A sounds promising. If you can manage to organize your three bands properly, you'll have plenty of room. Two rehearsals per week for band B, once per week for C and A.

Edit: you need to become a full time member of band B. What if they find someone else, and you get replaced while you quit band A.

Forget it. I don't know what the heck I'm writing and it sounds like bad advice. Carry on.
 
#35
Oh by the way, on the "band pot" - that's often code for, "never pay the musicians." If you are thinking about this being a professional thing, and want to make a living making music, you need something spelled out, explaining when the band pot gets distributed, and in what shares, etc. Bringing someone on board without pay when a band is trying to get traction, and then dumping them as soon as it starts to succeed, is the oldest play in the music industry's dirty book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcake, Groove Doctor and Seanto
#36
Band C is where the money is, stick with it. You can make as much money (or more) on these small setups than you can a full band sometimes.

Band B - Ditch them unless you want to drop everything and go on a tour... that will stop Band C for a while, and maybe the girlfriend will find someone else to play with, if you know what I mean. And definitely would not go on tour without guarantees/contract for minimal payment for each gig. Something sounds fishy here, no matter how good they are.

Band A - If you like the guys, and are having fun, make this what it really is, a hobby band... if it falls apart, that was just what was meant to happen.

So I vote Band C and session/fill-in with Band A being the hobby and ditch Band B because it sounds more like a diversion.
 
#38
Wesley R said:
1. get a good online calendar
2. give viewing access to those who need it
3. do all three until one or two have to go either to their performance or your level of activity in another band
Click to expand...
Yep this. I haven't been involved in fewer than 3 bands since I graduated from college. At one point I was in 6 actively gigging bands (albeit while unemployed).

If something's worth finding the time for, you'll find the time for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadRanger

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back