Seriously??!!

[eKay]

If the guy was a real pro, he would have told you up front about his cancellation policy.

 

[SodPen]

Agreed (although chances of legal action/settlement are pretty slim, but I get your point).

It seems a lot of folks want to justify a broken promise with fancy spontaneous timeline/statute of limitations acrobatic logic.

No matter how you slice it, it was a broken promise, plain and simple. And whether or not the victim addressed it in a way that you would, or you think he should, does not change that fact. He got burned, and sometimes it takes awhile for the pain to make you yelp.

My exact point. There are two separate concepts at play here - the actual base black-and-white interpretation, and the more nuanced "but this is how it actually works in the real world" spirit version. The actual facts of the issue are not really debatable. However, how we choose to react to those facts and how each of us would behave as we felt was most appropriate in that situation based on those facts is, clearly, up for debate. Once you veer off sticking to the raw facts and start interjecting personal opinion on arbitrary things like "how much time is too long" and "it depends on your interpersonal working relationship with this individual" it becomes nothing more than a reverse engineered narrative to justify a conclusion you already established and are biased towards wanting to reach.

My take on this is to draw an analogy with driving an automobile. If I'm doing the exact speed limit on the dot, and there's a guy behind me riding my arse because he wants me to go faster, for example. Clearly, there are two ways to approach this. First, the strict letter. I'm doing the limit, you want me to break the law and go faster. I'm in the right, you aren't. On the other hand, there is the argument of "But this stretch of road is isolated and off in the middle of nowhere. 99 people out of 100 will choose to ignore the posted speed limit and get where they need to be at whatever speed they feel comfy traveling." At that point, there is a certain unstated motorist etiquette that, although not the black-and-white letter of the law, it's almost universally adhered to and agreed upon.

I merely stated the actual "textbook" response to nothing more than the raw facts. In the real world, once you start figuring in that the OP and the drummer seemed to have a previously established friendship to some degree and working in factors like "how much time elapsed between the agreement and when you let him know he wasn't needed" and "how long before the gig did you let him know" then, of course, personal interpretation, personal ethics, personal morality, and personal responsibility become the guiding factors in how it is handled... and nobody on this forum, myself included, has any validity in actually deciding those things for the OP.

 

[catcauphonic]

My exact point. There are two separate concepts at play here - the actual base black-and-white interpretation, and the more nuanced "but this is how it actually works in the real world" spirit version. The actual facts of the issue are not really debatable. However, how we choose to react to those facts and how each of us would behave as we felt was most appropriate in that situation based on those facts is, clearly, up for debate. Once you veer off sticking to the raw facts and start interjecting personal opinion on arbitrary things like "how much time is too long" and "it depends on your interpersonal working relationship with this individual" it becomes nothing more than a reverse engineered narrative to justify a conclusion you already established and are biased towards wanting to reach.

My take on this is to draw an analogy with driving an automobile. If I'm doing the exact speed limit on the dot, and there's a guy behind me riding my arse because he wants me to go faster, for example. Clearly, there are two ways to approach this. First, the strict letter. I'm doing the limit, you want me to break the law and go faster. I'm in the right, you aren't. On the other hand, there is the argument of "But this stretch of road is isolated and off in the middle of nowhere. 99 people out of 100 will choose to ignore the posted speed limit and get where they need to be at whatever speed they feel comfy traveling." At that point, there is a certain unstated motorist etiquette that, although not the black-and-white letter of the law, it's almost universally adhered to and agreed upon.

I merely stated the actual "textbook" response to nothing more than the raw facts. In the real world, once you start figuring in that the OP and the drummer seemed to have a previously established friendship to some degree and working in factors like "how much time elapsed between the agreement and when you let him know he wasn't needed" and "how long before the gig did you let him know" then, of course, personal interpretation, personal ethics, personal morality, and personal responsibility become the guiding factors in how it is handled... and nobody on this forum, myself included, has any validity in actually deciding those things for the OP.

I read ya about the black and white, but people are grey. Drummer just shot his future business dealings & the friendship in the foot over a lousy $75(?).

 

[mikew31]

Yeah, I'm trying not to speculate, so I'm sure my logic does appear black and white.
What I'm taking from this are the simple facts: OP promised a gig to a sub, agreeing to the verbal terms as outlined (right or wrong). OP took the gig away from the sub and gave it to someone else. The sub feels slighted and that he deserves recompense for a promise broken. Them's the facts. I've done a great job outlining reasons why I think the onus is on OP to do the right thing (because as you stated, we're not here to counsel the sub or fret over his reputation or consequences of his behavior), so I won't redundantly re-state them here.
Now, we can have long protracted conversations about the "maybe's" and we'd get absolutely nowhere.

You're forgetting a very important fact. The OP informed the sub that he was no longer needed and the sub agreed that he wasn't playing the gig. No mention of money being paid. Terms of the original agreement were renegotiated and agreed upon.

In that case, you are also saying that people can agree to the terms of a verbal agreement, and then back out when it no longer suits them.

I'll admit, OP should have stopped the bus when he heard words to the affect, "I'll sub for you unless something better comes along." That should have been an instant deal-breaker.

But it wasn't, and the verbal agreement stood as-is. And something better didn't come along for the sub. And the sub feels burned and that OP broke his promise.

I see a lot of reason there.

In light of the fact that a new verbal agreement was reached, the only one that is breaking a promise is the sub by asking to be paid for something he agreed he wasn't doing.

 

[electracoyote]

My exact point. There are two separate concepts at play here - the actual base black-and-white interpretation, and the more nuanced "but this is how it actually works in the real world" spirit version. The actual facts of the issue are not really debatable. However, how we choose to react to those facts and how each of us would behave as we felt was most appropriate in that situation based on those facts is, clearly, up for debate. Once you veer off sticking to the raw facts and start interjecting personal opinion on arbitrary things like "how much time is too long" and "it depends on your interpersonal working relationship with this individual" it becomes nothing more than a reverse engineered narrative to justify a conclusion you already established and are biased towards wanting to reach.

My take on this is to draw an analogy with driving an automobile. If I'm doing the exact speed limit on the dot, and there's a guy behind me riding my arse because he wants me to go faster, for example. Clearly, there are two ways to approach this. First, the strict letter. I'm doing the limit, you want me to break the law and go faster. I'm in the right, you aren't. On the other hand, there is the argument of "But this stretch of road is isolated and off in the middle of nowhere. 99 people out of 100 will choose to ignore the posted speed limit and get where they need to be at whatever speed they feel comfy traveling." At that point, there is a certain unstated motorist etiquette that, although not the black-and-white letter of the law, it's almost universally adhered to and agreed upon.

I merely stated the actual "textbook" response to nothing more than the raw facts. In the real world, once you start figuring in that the OP and the drummer seemed to have a previously established friendship to some degree and working in factors like "how much time elapsed between the agreement and when you let him know he wasn't needed" and "how long before the gig did you let him know" then, of course, personal interpretation, personal ethics, personal morality, and personal responsibility become the guiding factors in how it is handled... and nobody on this forum, myself included, has any validity in actually deciding those things for the OP.

Well said, I wholeheartedly agree.

In trying to keep the variables and subjectivity in check, and deal more with the known facts, reality, and the value of experience, I am definitely playing it safe. To use your automobile analogy, I've seen enough traffic tickets, impounded automobiles, and even a few people losing their licenses, to advise anyone tempt fate in that way. My advice is based on those real-world experiences.

 

[electracoyote]

The OP informed the sub that he was no longer needed and the sub agreed that he wasn't playing the gig. In light of the fact that a new verbal agreement was reached, the only one that is breaking a promise is the sub by asking to be paid for something he agreed he wasn't doing.

Evidently, according to OP, it turns out the sub actually did want to play the gig, felt deceived, and requested recompense for being dumped.

As we're not privileged to all the actual conversations, and what I just stated IS the final reality, I'm going with that in my assessment.

Moral of the story: Be careful what you promise and who you promise it to. People are squirrelly and waffle like madcaps when put on the spot, but a promise is a promise. Basically, I don't think OP should lower himself to the confused aspect of the sub drummer.

 

[electracoyote]

I read ya about the black and white, but people are grey. Drummer just shot his future business dealings & the friendship in the foot over a lousy $75(?).

I couldn't agree more, and I'll say again, I wouldn't touch that drummer with a ten foot pole.

I also wouldn't want any perception of impropriety to similarly impact OP's reputation, which is why I still think he needs to take the high road for his part in the misunderstanding.

 

[David Jayne]

Evidently, according to OP, it turns out the sub actually did want to play the gig, felt deceived, and requested recompense for being dumped.

.

OK, item by item: "it turns out the sub did want to play the gig" provided a better one didn't come along. "felt deceived." says who? "and requested recompense for being dumped." weeks later. C'mon, man. Really?

 

[electracoyote]

OK, item by item: "it turns out the sub did want to play the gig" provided a better one didn't come along. "felt deceived." says who? "and requested recompense for being dumped." weeks later. C'mon, man. Really?

That's my take on it.

If sub drummer felt everything was cool, no gig, no pay, he wouldn't be coming back waving OP's promise in his face.

OP has the option of saying, "You're right, I first promised the gig to you, come play if you still want to." It would be silly to think the sub drummer isn't aware of that possibility. If not, it would be a great way to force his hand; if he wants to play, let him show up and play. He was good enough at the time the gig was offered. Put up or shut up.

This is OP's call; if he doesn't want to follow through and let the sub play, and if he doesn't want to pay him, sub can run around with impunity telling people how he got stiffed by the OP. And that's the bottom line.

 

[David Jayne]

Well you'll be happy to know that he DID pay him. : D

 

[Addison]

Not trying to derail the thread, but here's a situation that happened to me... just curious as to how you guys might respond...

You get a short-notice fill-in offer to play one night of a two-night gig... the bass player can make the second night and they only need you for the first night. The gig is less than a week away and you're their only solid option. It's a good gig that pays $500 per man for both nights. You have to use all of your own gear, so you'll tear down and load your own stuff at the end of night one.

Do you...

A.) Learn the tunes, take the $250 and be thankful you got some work.

B.) Tell them that you think you deserve more than half because you're saving their asses and putting in extra work to learn new songs.

C.) Tell them that you won't do it at all unless you can do the full weekend, knowing that they can't do it without you, thereby forcing them to cancel and nobody makes money.

Thoughts?

 

[jnuts1]

Elecracoyote. how long after the OP informed him he wouldn't be on the gig should it take for him to get back to the OP and tell him this isn't cool and he still needs to be paid? can you really wait a month before saying anything?

 

[christianbassguitar]

Not trying to derail the thread, but here's a situation that happened to me... just curious as to how you guys might respond...

You get a short-notice fill-in offer to play one night of a two-night gig... the bass player can make the second night and they only need you for the first night. The gig is less than a week away and you're their only solid option. It's a good gig that pays $500 per man for both nights. You have to use all of your own gear, so you'll tear down and load your own stuff at the end of night one.

Do you...

A.) Learn the tunes, take the $250 and be thankful you got some work.

B.) Tell them that you think you deserve more than half because you're saving their asses and putting in extra work to learn new songs.

C.) Tell them that you won't do it at all unless you can do the full weekend, knowing that they can't do it without you, thereby forcing them to cancel and nobody makes money.

Thoughts?

A for me....because they are satisfied and realized you're easy to work with, expect more business from them...

if someone will chose B or C, I'll look elsewhere....there are tons of Bass players out there who's willing to do the work.

 

[christianbassguitar]

Elecracoyote. how long after the OP informed him he wouldn't be on the gig should it take for him to get back to the OP and tell him this isn't cool and he still needs to be paid? can you really wait a month before saying anything?

4 days.....

 

[Addison]

there are tons of Bass players out there who's willing to do the work.

Not where I live... and maybe that's what would make the difference.

 

[christianbassguitar]

Not where I live... and maybe that's the difference.

Might be...

 

[electracoyote]

Well you'll be happy to know that he DID pay him. : D

I don't think "happy" is the word I'd use. It's an unfortunate situation that OP had a chance to avoid. Instead, he got wrapped up in a promise he wishes he hadn't made to a sketchy sub.

If anything, I hope justice is served, sub drummer carries the stink on him for awhile, and OP maintains a clean reputation as a man of his word.

 

[Woofer]

Not trying to derail the thread, but here's a situation that happened to me... just curious as to how you guys might respond...

You get a short-notice fill-in offer to play one night of a two-night gig... the bass player can make the second night and they only need you for the first night. The gig is less than a week away and you're their only solid option. It's a good gig that pays $500 per man for both nights. You have to use all of your own gear, so you'll tear down and load your own stuff at the end of night one.

Do you...

A.) Learn the tunes, take the $250 and be thankful you got some work.

B.) Tell them that you think you deserve more than half because you're saving their asses and putting in extra work to learn new songs.

C.) Tell them that you won't do it at all unless you can do the full weekend, knowing that they can't do it without you, thereby forcing them to cancel and nobody makes money.

Thoughts?

Work one night, take one night's pay. Maybe ask if they'll cover your travel expenses if it's a far way to go, since you're doing the job on short notice.

 

[Duder]

Not trying to derail the thread, but here's a situation that happened to me... just curious as to how you guys might respond...

You get a short-notice fill-in offer to play one night of a two-night gig... the bass player can make the second night and they only need you for the first night. The gig is less than a week away and you're their only solid option. It's a good gig that pays $500 per man for both nights. You have to use all of your own gear, so you'll tear down and load your own stuff at the end of night one.

Do you...

A.) Learn the tunes, take the $250 and be thankful you got some work.

B.) Tell them that you think you deserve more than half because you're saving their asses and putting in extra work to learn new songs.

C.) Tell them that you won't do it at all unless you can do the full weekend, knowing that they can't do it without you, thereby forcing them to cancel and nobody makes money.

Thoughts?

A. $250 is $250 to me, but you may feel differently. Also, if you do this there may be more opportunities to sub in the future. Plus, I like to play.

 

[David Jayne]

Not trying to derail the thread, but here's a situation that happened to me... just curious as to how you guys might respond...

You get a short-notice fill-in offer to play one night of a two-night gig... the bass player can make the second night and they only need you for the first night. The gig is less than a week away and you're their only solid option. It's a good gig that pays $500 per man for both nights. You have to use all of your own gear, so you'll tear down and load your own stuff at the end of night one.

Do you...

A.) Learn the tunes, take the $250 and be thankful you got some work.

B.) Tell them that you think you deserve more than half because you're saving their asses and putting in extra work to learn new songs.

C.) Tell them that you won't do it at all unless you can do the full weekend, knowing that they can't do it without you, thereby forcing them to cancel and nobody makes money.

Thoughts?

It would depend on how many tunes I'd have to learn/chart out/level of difficulty/time spent doing it. If it meant a couple of days working stuff out I'd insist on both nights. If just a few hours, I'd do the one.