Things Publicans Don't Get

[Ox Boris]

It's a nice idea, but if hiring a better band -> more profit for the venue, everybody would be doing it. Contrary to popular belief, most owners are not stupid.

That's true. But I'm talking about the owners who do think like that, hence the thread.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Bit different. In the case of your house, it means faster, but offers no improvement in quality. That's not the case for a musical act.

Somebody call Rush and tell them they could have made more as a 5 piece.

 

[Ox Boris]

Somebody call Rush and tell them they could have made more as a 5 piece.

I really thought about adding a caveat about critical mass, just for you. But thought you'd enjoy making a Percy of yourself with a fatuous remark. You're welcome.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Some places book bands when they shouldn't. Two years ago we did a private gig in a large hall. Volume is never a problem for us - we get it.

After first song someone comes up and asks if we can turn it down. After second song someone comes up and asks us to turn down.

At this point, the drummer is using Hot Rods instead of sticks. The mains are OFF - just stage monitors for vocals, no mics on drums or amps.

About 5 people absolutely dug us, and crowded around the stage all night buying us drinks. The workers loved us. The other 150 or so stood on the other end of the room, ate dinner, and went out for a hayride.

They paid a decent fee. The next year they asked us back - we declined.

 

[Ox Boris]

Not a good professional drummer.

Yes, I should have said "a drummer playing with less energy than the song requires".

 

[guy n. cognito]

I really thought about adding a caveat about critical mass, just for you. But thought you'd enjoy making a Percy of yourself with a fatuous remark. You're welcome.

It was just a joke, hence the smilie....but let me scale it down for you:

One of my bands is a 3 piece rock band, comprised of some very talented members. Our sound is big and full, and most people comment that we sound like a much bigger band. We play in venue that normally book larger bands, and we compete head to head with those groups. Since we bring a quality show, great music and stage presence on par with a larger group...why should they get more simply because they are larger?

 

[Ox Boris]

It was just a joke, hence the smilie....but let me scale it down for you:

One of my bands is a 3 piece rock band, comprised of some very talented members. Our sound is big and full, and most people comment that we sound like a much bigger band. We play in venue that normally book larger bands, and we compete head to head with those groups. Since we bring a quality show, great music and stage presence on par with a larger group...why should they get more simply because they are larger?

Just run me through who's been denigrating 3-piece bands here? I'll join you in calling them a pillock.
I've mentioned solos. I might, if pushed, include duos.

 

[pwhalen]

It's a nice idea, but if hiring a better band -> more profit for the venue, everybody would be doing it. Contrary to popular belief, most owners are not stupid.

Not only this, but many people seem to miss the fact that "better" is completely subjective. So the owners tend to measure better via the only objective means at their disposal - the register tape. So the owners base it on the audience, and the audience bases it on some combo of the following: your song selection, your look, the response of others (especially those the came with), how much fun they had, what the rest of the crowd looks like, can they still hear each other, etc.

I've seen a fair number of bands that frankly kind of suck, but everyone has fun at the shows, knows the songs and dances, and therefore they draw a good crowd and get good paying bookings in big rooms, etc. They're able to do this because they understand what they are really getting paid for.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Yes, I should have said "a drummer playing with less energy than the song requires".

Understood, but energy and volume are not the same.

 

[BassUrges]

Bit different. In the case of your house, it means faster, but offers no improvement in quality. That's not the case for a musical act.

Maybe faster is an "improvement in quality" that I'd pay for, but again, I'm paying for faster, not more people. I don't care how "faster" is achieved.

Everyone who parts with money does so in exchange for value (even charitable donations). For a pub, "value" is most likely measured in drink sales. That is the "improvement in quality" you need to bring. And if you do, you can demand more money and expect to get it.

 

[guy n. cognito]

2. Forget how much the band is costing and work out the hourly rate per member. Now hang your head in shame at your bleating over paying highly skilled workers the same as the cleaner.

Just run me through who's been denigrating 3-piece bands here? I'll join you in calling them a pillock.
I've mentioned solos. I might, if pushed, include duos.

Your very first post infers that "pay per member" is somehow a better idea than "pay per band". I was defeating that concept, as most club owners did sometime in the 70s

Almost everywhere I've ever played has different pay scales for solo acoustic and bands. If your band is making the same money as a solo acoustic.....

 

[Metropolis_488]

1. It's not 4hrs work, it's 6 hours' work. Set-up, pack-down.
2. Forget how much the band is costing and work out the hourly rate per member. Now hang your head in shame at your bleating over paying highly skilled workers the same as the cleaner.
3. Solo acts are great value. Yes! For the soloist. For your punters, it's sh!tehouse and they won't drink as much.
4. Now work out the hourly rate for the soloist. Done? Care to display the same outrage as what you did when the band asked to be paid less than half that rate? And you're paying it for a glorified karaoke act.
5. It's not 4hrs work, it's 6 hours' work. This is worth mentioning twice.
6. For what you get, a 4-or-5-piece band is the best value of any of your expenses.

This is, of course, pertinent to Australia where slavery is outlawed.
Feel free to add your own.

Huh, sounds like playing your bass and gigging isn't working for you.

Maybe you should try something else?

 

[Ox Boris]

Huh, sounds like playing your bass and gigging isn't working for you.
Maybe you should try something else?

"Huh" is the most intelligible thing in your post.

 

[Ox Boris]

Your very first post infers that "pay per member" is somehow a better idea than "pay per band".

No, it doesn't. It does exactly as it says, compares hourly rate with a cleaning job and sets up point about the solo hourly rate that is to come.
What you're doing is stretching the point to a nonsensical extreme, then complaining about it. Your own invention, mush, nothing to do with me, perhaps you should start a thread about it.

 

[guy n. cognito]

No, it doesn't. It does exactly as it says, compares hourly rate with a cleaning job and sets up point about the solo hourly rate that is to come.
What you're doing is stretching the point to a nonsensical extreme, then complaining about it. Your own invention, mush, nothing to do with me, perhaps you should start a thread about it.

6. For what you get, a 4-or-5-piece band is the best value of any of your expenses.

You even go on to infer value based on the numbers of members.....infering quality is found in larger bands.

But, I'm sure it's just me stretching....

 

[Milo Spleen]

How about the Blues Danube Waltz?

Are they from Memphis or New Orleans?

 

[Milo Spleen]

I am enjoying BOTH of these threads.

 

[baileyboy]

1. It's not 4hrs work, it's 6 hours' work. Set-up, pack-down.
2. Forget how much the band is costing and work out the hourly rate per member. Now hang your head in shame at your bleating over paying highly skilled workers the same as the cleaner.
3. Solo acts are great value. Yes! For the soloist. For your punters, it's sh!tehouse and they won't drink as much.
4. Now work out the hourly rate for the soloist. Done? Care to display the same outrage as what you did when the band asked to be paid less than half that rate? And you're paying it for a glorified karaoke act.
5. It's not 4hrs work, it's 6 hours' work. This is worth mentioning twice.
6. For what you get, a 4-or-5-piece band is the best value of any of your expenses.

This is, of course, pertinent to Australia where slavery is outlawed.
Feel free to add your own.

One thing I've learn in the last several years on the gigging scene is bar owners really don't care too much about anything but how much they made by night's end. How good you are (or think you are), songs played, crowd size, etc... all take a back seat to that night's receipts. This is one reason solo/acoustic acts are so in demand by bar owners. Why hire a band at $400-500 when you can hire an acoustic guitarist/vocalist for $100 and pull in the same amount? It's a business and they have to operate it as such.

 

[lfmn16]

1. It's not 4hrs work, it's 6 hours' work. Set-up, pack-down.
2. Forget how much the band is costing and work out the hourly rate per member. Now hang your head in shame at your bleating over paying highly skilled workers the same as the cleaner.
3. Solo acts are great value. Yes! For the soloist. For your punters, it's sh!tehouse and they won't drink as much.
4. Now work out the hourly rate for the soloist. Done? Care to display the same outrage as what you did when the band asked to be paid less than half that rate? And you're paying it for a glorified karaoke act.
5. It's not 4hrs work, it's 6 hours' work. This is worth mentioning twice.
6. For what you get, a 4-or-5-piece band is the best value of any of your expenses.

This is, of course, pertinent to Australia where slavery is outlawed.
Feel free to add your own.

The club owner/manager only cares about ONE thing; how much money does the entertainment make? They don't care about your travel, setup, practice, costs, time, how many members you have, hourly rate or anything else. How much money do you make for them? EVERYTHING else is irrelevant to the club owner/manager. If a solo act makes more than a band, he's going to pay the solo act more. Seriously, they are in business to make money, why would you think they care about the entertainment?

 

[lfmn16]

One thing I've learn in the last several years on the gigging scene is bar owners really don't care too much about anything but how much they made by night's end. How good you are (or think you are), songs played, crowd size, etc... all take a back seat to that night's receipts. This is one reason solo/acoustic acts are so in demand by bar owners. Why hire a band at $400-500 when you can hire an acoustic guitarist/vocalist for $100 and pull in the same amount? It's a business and they have to operate it as such.

Great minds think alike. You were posting this as I was typing my response.