A financial band situation, just wondering what others think about this…

This sort of thing is one of the reasons I have no desire to be in a band...

Are you happy with the amount of money you make for the amount of work you do? If so great. If not, the PA is not you main problem.

If you just want to look at ways to maximize the business related expenses, price similar rentals. Are you prepared to pay a bit of a premium for having the PA where you need it, when you need it with no questions and no drama? I would think you should be.

Answer these two questions and you're done. Don't dedicate any more mental bandwidth to the subject.
 
Additional hauling cost (both vehicle & fuel), upkeep, & storage of a reasonable size PA is quite thing.

The $250 / night fee is also contextual with band earnings. If taking $250 / night leaves each member with $50 that’s one thing. If it leaves each band member with $300 / night, that’s another. What is the average band fee / gig when using his PA?

One thing I’m certain of, the basis of the arrangement should be transparent from the get go.
 
dcrigger said:
I really don't see how this "is not right to begin with". This band leader took $20k of his hard earned money and invested in PA to serve the band's needs - insuring that it would always be ready for them to rent as needed - something that can't be said for likely any other PA that might want to rent ("Sorry, our PA's are already rented for those dates")

So again he invested a bunch of his money - so the band would always have a PA available. He could've left his money in the bank - or in his kids' college fund - he could've made money with that money (his money) any number of ways. But he didn't - he started a side-rental business - for his band's benefit.

And yet, somehow he's "selfish" for not using his money for an interest free loan? He's selfish for not gifting the earning power of his money to his band??? The only way this investment is an investment (and not just a charity) are the rentals that come after the PA is paid off. To change the arrangement now, would just make him the sucker that ponied an interest free loan of $20K to band of freeloaders that ponied up nothing at all.

All of this is why I have always avoided "group owned" bands like a plague. Give me a "leader owned" band - that owns the gig, the music, the ancillary gear - and calls and offers a decent wage to play.

I get original bands are more difficult in this regard - though not necessarily.
Click to expand...
unless i didnt read the OP correctly, it was paid off with gigs already and he continues to want the 250 per gig...yes thats selfish and uncalled for.
 
Jasta 11 said:
unless i didnt read the OP correctly, it was paid off with gigs already and he continues to want the 250 per gig...yes thats selfish and uncalled for.
Click to expand...
In my mind it doesn't matter if it's paid for or not, the band (every member) is using the PA the owner is also transporting and storing it and is responsible for it. So if everyone is using it, every one should pay something, maybe not $250 but something. Like Andy said it depends on how much money is being made. We had a speaker go out and the owner replaced it so I don't mind paying extra to that person.
 
Jasta 11 said:
unless i didnt read the OP correctly, it was paid off with gigs already and he continues to want the 250 per gig...yes thats selfish and uncalled for.
Click to expand...
and what would they have done, if he hadn't fronted the money for the PA? Wouldn't they have had to rent one? In which case, would the rental company be selfish as well?

Consider this - let's say each member of the band had $20k in savings. Your suggesting it is selfish for the one member to spend his $20k on a PA to profit from that purchase, that investment? That it is selfish from him to want to profit from his investment. Haven't the other band members - hypothetically each holding onto to their $20k's - been making money by keeping their money invested for solely their benefit?

And yet it is the band member that bought a PA that is selfish??

How is it one member's obligation to contribute more? And how does it work - that if I rent your PA a bunch of times then it eventually becomes mine??? And if you don't give it me, then you're being selfish.

Sorry - I don't see how this band has any more claim on that guy's PA - than I did on the house I rented for 5 years... sorry it can really only be "All for One and one for all" if everyone pitches in equally - or at least pretty darn close to equally.

My 2 cents....
 
I think another factor is this: Is the music fun to play, and is everyone cool to hang out with? I tend to be able to put up with a lot more financial BS when the music is good and the band members are good folks.
 
Agree, with the above.

But I'm really curious too, about what type of band uses a $20K PA. This must be a serious production. Obviously I'm comparing to what most players here are involved in.
 
Bozozoid said:
In the situation I'm in the band owns none of the sound system. The owner of it runs sound for a variety of bands in the area. It's hauled in a sizeable truck similar to what furniture stores use. He has help setting up the system and I do know one thing...compared to what band members make (and I'm not complaining) it makes me think I should have been a soundman owning my own gear. He DOES have alot of work to do though. Without what he provides our band is done.
Click to expand...
For much of the bar sized local shows in my area, the sound crew are the only people making any real money. They're getting checks, bands are getting beer and tips.

I've invariably made more on a gig to gig basis providing backline, set up, and cartage than I did as a performer. In many ways, it felt like cheating. Like, I get to basically do the same thing, except I don't have to learn any songs or even stick around for the show.
 
dcrigger said:
and what would they have done, if he hadn't fronted the money for the PA? Wouldn't they have had to rent one? In which case, would the rental company be selfish as well?

Consider this - let's say each member of the band had $20k in savings. Your suggesting it is selfish for the one member to spend his $20k on a PA to profit from that purchase, that investment? That it is selfish from him to want to profit from his investment. Haven't the other band members - hypothetically each holding onto to their $20k's - been making money by keeping their money invested for solely their benefit?

And yet it is the band member that bought a PA that is selfish??

How is it one member's obligation to contribute more? And how does it work - that if I rent your PA a bunch of times then it eventually becomes mine??? And if you don't give it me, then you're being selfish.

Sorry - I don't see how this band has any more claim on that guy's PA - than I did on the house I rented for 5 years... sorry it can really only be "All for One and one for all" if everyone pitches in equally - or at least pretty darn close to equally.

My 2 cents....
Click to expand...
you are reading way too much into this. he is asking if its fair to keep paying..i say no. you seem to think otherwise because the guy buying the PA is the Bernie Madoff of finance and wont earn a ton of money on that 20k with his fianlcial wizardry. ive never been in a band without a PA, which the singer alreay owned. just lucky i guess.
 
Jasta 11 said:
you are reading way too much into this. he is asking if its fair to keep paying..i say no. you seem to think otherwise because the guy buying the PA is the Bernie Madoff of finance and wont earn a ton of money on that 20k with his fianlcial wizardry. ive never been in a band without a PA, which the singer alreay owned. just lucky i guess.
Click to expand...
"Reading way too much into this"? Really not. I get he's asking if it's fair - and folks are weighing in one fair/not fair - including myself. But with further thought, I think the only "fair" involved is the one wherever comes to agreement on "the deal" or "the arrangement". What I don't get - or what I don't subscribe to - is the moral judgement regarding this seemingly sacred creed that seems to go along with band membership for some.

I'm not saying there can't be commitments to be honored with being in a band - but it is still at its core, a business-like enterprise between musical colleagues. And as such - what is "fair"? - what is "right"? - what is "uncalled for"? - is totally defined by the parties involved.

This band had an arrangement with the member owning the PA - now some of them wish to change that arrangement. There's no moral dilemma here.... there's just a pending negotiation. In short, they need to ask him - can they collectively come to a new arrangement? Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Heck, fair has nothing to do with it.

IMO he has no moral obligation to stop charging rent for his PA (and what a thousand other bands have done is neither here nor there).

But also - the band has no obligation to continue the current arrangement if it displeases them.

So what's there to do.... simple negotiate. Starting with each side figuring out what they want and what they are willing to give up. Is the PA owner willing to give up part of the PA or risk losing the rentals altogether (I can't imagine him giving up all - when he maintains, stores, transports and partially sets up the PA). AT the same time, is the other band members willing to go back to renting from other sources, if the PA owner says no.

Making this a morality discussion is utter nonsense in my book - or simply a ploy to guilt someone into doing things, they wouldn't otherwise do. When in reality, all it is, is a business negotiation - a re-negotiation of a contract between the band and the PA owning member.

The PA is wrong from wanting to continue things as they are.

The band isn't wrong for wanting to change things.

All that matters is coming to an agreement (which generally never happens from trying to convince the other side that they are "wrong") IMO
 
Sammy Hagar started a travel agency because he felt the band could save money on travel. The band saved money overall but Eddie got mad because Hagar was making more money. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
 
The OP should meet with the band to discuss the arrangement and decide if it should be renegotiated. I agree that it's not unreasonable for the PA owner to take a cut. And it doesn't matter if the PA is paid off. It's a lot of work to load in, set up, tear down, and load out. And there's the maintenance, storage and transportation aspect. Price local rental fees for an equivalent PA to help guide you.

In my band I'm the drummer, PA owner, and host rehearsals at my house. I usually don't get extra compensation, but it's an arrangement that I accept. For most gigs it's SoS, several monitors, and digital board. On a few gigs it's the full PA with subs.

A few have mentioned about a $20K PA system. Unless you use entry level and MI gear, $20K does not go that far for decent mains, subs, monitors, mixer, cables, stands, DIs, mics, etc. My system is right about at that $20K mark. It's more than enough for local bars and just adequate for smallish outdoor gigs.
 
It's not hard to spend 20k and maybe necessary for larger venues and higher paying ones. But if it's bars, it seems self indulgent.
If I was in a tribute band, sure. Maybe even 'expected', although many of those venues have a house PA.
 
I think we don't need to get hung up on the 20k element. The question is valid regardless of the actual value of the system. A viable answer would just scale up or down with the price of any PA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top