Would you sign this contract ??

[two fingers]

That contract is a breath of fresh air. Wish more venues made things so clear & put it in all writing up front.

Especially in a place like California, and in today’s sociopolitical environment, they can’t be too careful, and it reads as though they or a peer have been badly burned before.

Only issue / question I’d have, and it may be a dealbreaker, is #8. It specifies “additional” performing rights and licenses. In “addition” to what? Such a vague term really stands out in that otherwise comprehensive well-drafted contract.

So you're OK with everything else?

Liability. They say that no matter what (if I'm reading it correctly) the venue will only be responsible for liability to the band up to the amount of the fee they were going to pay the band anyway.

So, you're playing on their patio. Their faulty wiring causes every amp on stage to blow. A sign they had hanging over the stage falls and knocks over your $1,000 bass. It also bonks your drummer on the head, who (as a result) is in surgery as we speak. No matter what, your band is still only going to see $450.

(By the way, I played a gig years ago where the venue's faulty wiring took out everything on my side of the stage, including my bass amp and our keyboard players boards. The venue had to pay for our equipment.)

And you're OK with this?

Nah. For $450 I'll play somewhere else or just stay home. It would be different (and I would STILL have to negotiate some points of the contract) if we were talking about a few grand. But this is ridiculousness.

Either one of the owners is an attorney, or sleeps with one. This contract basically states "We are responsible for nothing except $450. No matter what nothing is ever our fault. Everything falls on the band."

I would like to have that kind of contract in every aspect of MY life too. But everyone I deal with would laugh in my face if I tried it.

 

[Ekulati]

MAYBE, for $4500, maybe. But not for 450 bucks.

 

[40Hz]

MAYBE, for $4500, maybe. But not for 450 bucks.

If your band is regularly pulling down $4500 per booking you’re not going to be playing a local winery or bar gig to begin with.

And you’re never going to talk to a venue or so much as ever see a contract. Your management will be handling all that for you.

 

[James Collins]

So you're OK with everything else?

Liability. They say that no matter what (if I'm reading it correctly) the venue will only be responsible for liability to the band up to the amount of the fee they were going to pay the band anyway.

So, you're playing on their patio. Their faulty wiring causes every amp on stage to blow. A sign they had hanging over the stage falls and knocks over your $1,000 bass. It also bonks your drummer on the head, who (as a result) is in surgery as we speak. No matter what, your band is still only going to see $450.

(By the way, I played a gig years ago where the venue's faulty wiring took out everything on my side of the stage, including my bass amp and our keyboard players boards. The venue had to pay for our equipment.)

And you're OK with this?

Nah. For $450 I'll play somewhere else or just stay home. It would be different (and I would STILL have to negotiate some points of the contract) if we were talking about a few grand. But this is ridiculousness.

Either one of the owners is an attorney, or sleeps with one. This contract basically states "We are responsible for nothing except $450. No matter what nothing is ever our fault. Everything falls on the band."

I would like to have that kind of contract in every aspect of MY life too. But everyone I deal with would laugh in my face if I tried it.

After reading this and several others, I think this venue has $450 budgeted for the band to play. They have also had some issue in the past where someone had damaged gear or someone from BMI caught them for not having rights and there $450 budget turned into much more and they are trying to avoid that again. At least the contract is easy enough to read.

Also, people have talked about the "original" versus "covers" on the rights, but I have to wonder why if someone is writing original music, they are not a member of one of those groups.

 

[two fingers]

After reading this and several others, I think this venue has $450 budgeted for the band to play. They have also had some issue in the past where someone had damaged gear or someone from BMI caught them for not having rights and there $450 budget turned into much more and they are trying to avoid that again. At least the contract is easy enough to read.

Also, people have talked about the "original" versus "covers" on the rights, but I have to wonder why if someone is writing original music, they are not a member of one of those groups.

Short version on the rights is this. There is NO WAY any venue is never, ever, playing music unless a live band is there. They all play SOMETHING in the background. So they should be paying BMI or ASCAP anyway. You'll never convince me this winery isn't playing music when a band isn't there. BS.

I work in almost 100 medical facilities. Several of them got busted because secretaries had Bluetooth speakers on their desks playing their playlists quietly and it could (barely) be heard by others. If the rules are that strong, this winery had better be paying those fees. Because they WILL play music at some point.

 

[punchdrunk]

This bout of overkill reminds me of the donut bit from Mitch Hedberg….

 

[rtslinger]

Some of it I am okay with and have had to deal with in the past when dealing with County shows such as Festivals and a like. Some are looking like made up stuff to cover issues that the venue has dealt with in the past that have either cost that monetarily, or business due to the band not be what they claim to be. That being said, the contract is a bit overkill and I would not sign it and if others were smart they wouldn't sign it either. That would either cause the place to re-write the contract or not have and live entertainment. Its one thing to cover your bases and hold bands responsible for things they should, but not everything that could run into some legal situation that the venue is responsible for be tossed in the bands lap

 

[sonojono]

You could always anonymously forward a copy of the contract to ASCAP, BMI, etc and have them pay a visit to collect performance rights.

I’ll grab my protest signs. Let’s meet up at the local 711 around the corner and march our way to the venue!

 

[Grahams Groove]

On the performing rights piece of the contract…

1) There are a number of businesses that use a business-level streaming service (Pandora, etc.) where the licensing fees are built in to the monthly/annual cost of that service. (The rates/packages are different than staff using personal Spotify/Pandora/etc. accounts in the establishment - that’s not legal for broadcasting music to patrons.) Those built-in licensing fees do not cover music played/performed outside of that streaming service.

2) In the above situation, performance rights still need to be acquired for live bands playing licensed material. Some (maybe all?) of the big 4-5 licensing orgs offer contracts for a limited number of annual performances/events. i.e. Businesses that will have just a couple shows per year.

3) It’s the responsibility of the venue/establishment to pay licensing and performance fees for the music they play and the shows they host. Bands don’t buy/carry their own performing rights in lieu of the venues they play wanting to pay for those rights.

 

[NeonVomit]

Hahaha they smoking crack or something? Get your PRS/Gema/whatever license for your venue and sit down. It's your responsibility to pay the license for performing rights, not the band's.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

I’ll grab my protest signs. Let’s meet up at the local 711 around the corner and march our way to the venue!

Cool story bro.

 

[matthewbrown]

If the gig paid enough money that the band could retain a lawyer, then sure, why not? FWIW, when there's a contract for any gig I lead, I use my own language and run it past the customer. It says nothing about performance rights because that ALWAYS falls to the venue.

 

[matthewbrown]

This is a good guess. Most wineries don't have ASCAP/BMI licenses because they only have live bands a few times per year and don't play music in their tasting rooms. It can be a significant expense. This is why it's in the contract. Note I'm not siding with the winery here, I am just trying to explain why it's there.

Maybe you could play in Sting's winery in Tuscany. I'll be he's paid for all the rights!

 

[pcake]

i'd like to remind everyone that LOTS of people sign things without reading them. i know many people who bought a house or condo without reading anything they signed after the first two paragraphs. is this contact legally enforceable? probably not, but since the average person won't bother to read it, they won't know what they agreed to when signing.

 

[Eric Huber]

Seems like alot of assumption of liability for $450.

 

[TonyP-]

Not for 4 times that...

 

[levis76]

That’s a hard no from me.

Boy am I glad I’m not in a gigging band anymore, too much of a PITA to deal with all the rules and regulations. Seems like soon we’ll have to worry about walking down the street and humming a tune without the proper ASCAP licensing. Sheesh.

 

[two fingers]

i'd like to remind everyone that LOTS of people sign things without reading them. i know many people who bought a house or condo without reading anything they signed after the first two paragraphs. is this contact legally enforceable? probably not, but since the average person won't bother to read it, they won't know what they agreed to when signing.

I'm not sure how things work in your state. Here in NC (I used to do real estate part time) we have to read the contract to buyers at closing. We literally have to read the part about interest rates and possible changes in their payments to them and then have them sign that they understand. This happens in about 15 other places on the contract as well. I read something to them, usually explain it in "regular" English, ask them if they understand, and then have them sign (again) if they do.

Most buyers are so excited about buying a new house that I might as well be a box of doughnuts. They're just drooling.

One young couple was literally bouncing in their seats at closing they were so excited. I made up a section of the contract for fun. I said something like "And if you are late on your payment in October of any year, you will have to cut my grass for the following seven Summers free of charge. Do you understand?" They said yes and reached for the contract looking for the blank to sign. Yes, I let them off the hook and told them they should probably pay attention to the rest of the contract.

But they sign over and over and over again saying that they understand. I had clients coming back to my office during the last crash raising H-E-double hockey stick at me because their variable rate mortgage payments went up by hundreds of dollars per month. I simply told them to go to their file cabinet and read through their contract and get back to me. I reminded them that they singed over and over again that they understood the possibilities of their payments going up.

I imagine your state has similar policies/laws. I could be wrong.

 

[MustangWally]

Butt covering BS. NO.

 

[gln1955]

The problem is it's not whether your band socks, it's whether they think you suck. Something completely different. If they want to hire you they need to do the scouting. And if you are offering to play, they got to listen around whether you are good or take the chance...

Yeah, but will they refuse payment because you did not play like a "first rate" band? Or maybe pay you less?

Exactly. If you don't play Brown Eyed Girl, they'll say you are a crappy second rate band and refuse to pay. They have the perfect way to stiff any band for any reason.