Fair pay for band members

[Spudman]

The issue of fair pay for band members recently came up and I thought I'd share a way that I have been using for around 25 years that seems to work and benefits the band unit as a whole as well as each member.

Often a band might jointly own a PA system and or lighting system. That's great until someone leaves. Usually that person just has to say goodbye to the money he has invested because as we all know most bands don't have cash on hand to buy out a member.

Or, one person may own all the PA and lights and the band splits the gig money equally. This really isn't fair to the person who is storing, hauling, repairing, investing etc. They have money out and the other members don't.

So one of the things I've done to eliminate this sort of issue is to initiate an "investment incentive" program. Here's how it works:

1.Everyone is a stockholder in the band by virtue of the equipment they own that facilitates doing a gig.

2.The value of each member's stock is determined by estimated "fair market" value on items not currently under warranty. Items under warranty get full retail value.

3. All members equipment together equals 100%. Whatever a member's total is is his percentage of stock. (example: member A owns $4000 worth of gear. Band total is $10,000. Member A owns 40% stock)

4. A set amount from each gig is set aside off the top as a stock pool. Say a gig pays $500. $100 is taken off the top for the stock pool and the rest divided equally. Member A would then get $40 from the stock pool plus his equal split.

This encourages members to own more equipment and newer equipment thereby benefiting the whole band. Members get paid more fairly based on their contributions to owning equipment that makes the unit fly. This way the slackers can't sit back and get paid the same as the guys that are putting more on the line. You want more money? Invest in the band or update the quality of your own gear. Of course there are limits such as a 2 guitar limit (main and a back up). That way someone won't just keep buying stuff that directly benefits mainly them. It eliminates many problems of joint ownership too.

[tot_Ou_tard]

I know nothing about these issues, but I do know that these types of things are best thought out & a fair solution agreed to by all early on.

It sounds like a great solution. Have you ever had the problem of someone bring gear that didn't work well with the band, just because it is worth more?

For example, you could certainly get more band stock by using an amph other than your new H&K. You could even use it as an excuse to get one of those "Has it Gone too Far?" amphs & you'd be stuck not even vibrating ants off of a mirror.


Of course there are limits such as a 2 guitar limit (main and a back up). That way someone won't just keep buying stuff that directly benefits mainly them. It eliminates many problems of joint ownership too.

Until I read this, I thought that you were revealing the way (& reason) that you've obtained a bumper crop of strats.

[Spudman]

Until I read this, I thought that you were revealing the way (& reason) that you've obtained a bumper crop of strats.

It's still a secret.;)

If a member wanted to buy and use a botique amph in the band then it is only fair that it counts, but it has to be the amp that will be gigged regularly thereby benefiting the sound of the group.

[t_ross33]

Thanks for posting this Spudman. It's a topic that I've been thinking about lately.

My band purchased the basis of our PA system jointly (3-way split) and we put all the money we made on the first several gigs back in until it was paid off. Note: we have full-time jobs and music is not a vocation for us, so we had the luxury of doing this - it would have been different if we needed gig money to put bread on the table.

Since that time, we have individually bought bits and pieces to complement the base system (lighting, powered sub, various rack gear, mics and stands), though it hasn't been an even split by any stretch. I have added over 50% of the original value of the base system alone. Seems when we need something, I am the one that a) has some gig money left over and is willing to reinvest in the band or b) cares enough to implement what we need.

Not complaining. I know that if/when we part ways we will each take what we purchased outright and we will buy out or divide up the base system per our original agreement. We are a pretty close knit bunch and I don't see any problems with this arrangement as things stand now.

I kinda like this formula though. I might have to run it by the guys and see what they think. In our "old" band, we paid our keyboard player for use/rental of the PA, since he owned it all. I had no problem with this, but others felt some resentment that he was getting more per gig than the rest of us (sometimes double).

Trev

[Spudman]

I kinda like this formula though. I might have to run it by the guys and see what they think. In our "old" band, we paid our keyboard player for use/rental of the PA, since he owned it all. I had no problem with this, but others felt some resentment that he was getting more per gig than the rest of us (sometimes double).

Trev

I thought it was the only fair way to do it. Otherwise folks do get a little resentful when one person is making more money and they can't do anything about it. This method gives them the opportunity to equalize the situation and benefit the organization in the process..

[beachhound]

That's pretty good. Money is always a sore spot even (or especially) with musicians. I knew one guitar player who wanted every one else to cover the band stuff and he would cover his beer. That didn't fly.