New PA for band - who should pay?

[TimR]

That's the difference between being in a partnership and being a member. A partner has to be bought out by the other partners/new partner.
A member just leaves....

The Market value is the important part there. Cables get lost, cones split, amps blow up. Just because you spend £5k on PA over 10 years doesn't mean you get £1k back when you leave. If the PA is worth £500 you get £100. Which is why I say write it off against gig money.

[merlin]

I have my own PA and lights,being a singing bassist,I have the tools to do the job,which I paid for. But years ago we all brought into a PA system,we toured with it for years,and I think the guitarist got to keep it,when the band stopped,Thinking about this I must have brought into quite a few systems over the years, and never got any cash back when I moved on. The way I think now is that if your a singer you should have a PA of sorts mic at least,....but Im just an old git.

just getting my coat..

Edited May 21, 2012 by merlin

[TimR]

A singer only needs a 300w PA. If the band is any louder than that you need to start micing other kit up.

[LawrenceH]

Doing sound I have gone from mixed set-ups, through putting everything through the PA/monitors with absolutely minimal backline, through to a much more old-school set up with PA devoted largely to vocals/keys, and perhaps reinforcing drums where necessary. Which is best depends totally on the application and the musicians involved, so I respectfully disagree with Monckyman that it'd necessarily sound 'mediocre'. It can, but if people have decent amps/cabs and know how to control their volume/dispersion there are a lot of clarity benefits to restricting what goes into the PA, especially with cheaper/mid-priced speakers (eg typical Mackies, JBLs).

I think the people who're arguing that a PA makes the band sound better even if just for vox are ignoring the point that a good bass amp/cab also makes the band sound better, and also costs a lot of money. If you want to put that money into a small/cheap combo for stage monitoring and the rest to PA, that's a different solution - maybe a better one but that depends on how much you as an individual prioritise that band over anything else musical you may be doing.

[dmccombe7]

Guitarist bought the PA and he owns it outright. That gives him the ability to PA Hire. We agreed that some % of any gig money would be set aside to cover cost of PA a bit like hiring from guitarist.
I bought and own the lights and same for them.

It seems to work for us.

I agree that each person owns a major bit of kit rather than shared costs when it can develop into a major issue if someone leaves.

Dave

[BottomE]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1337604379' post='1662552']
Doing sound I have gone from mixed set-ups, through putting everything through the PA/monitors with absolutely minimal backline, through to a much more old-school set up with PA devoted largely to vocals/keys, and perhaps reinforcing drums where necessary. Which is best depends totally on the application and the musicians involved, so I respectfully disagree with Monckyman that it'd necessarily sound 'mediocre'. It can, but if people have decent amps/cabs and know how to control their volume/dispersion there are a lot of clarity benefits to restricting what goes into the PA, especially with cheaper/mid-priced speakers (eg typical Mackies, JBLs).

I think the people who're arguing that a PA makes the band sound better even if just for vox are ignoring the point that a good bass amp/cab also makes the band sound better, and also costs a lot of money. If you want to put that money into a small/cheap combo for stage monitoring and the rest to PA, that's a different solution - maybe a better one but that depends on how much you as an individual prioritise that band over anything else musical you may be doing.
[/quote]

^ this is it really.

Its a vocal PA. My bass rig cost about £1500. How much does a 300 Watt Vocal PA cost? Probably not that much.

[thebrig]

I think that it depends on what type of band you are in, to really make a decision on all this.
I'm in a five-piece band and we only do pubs and small clubs, probably about once a month (for fun & peanuts), so we would never need a full/powerful/large PA system.
In most of the poky venues round my way, we would probably struggle to fit everything in if we did, so a smaller PA is a better option for us.
We have a couple of open-air gigs lined up in the summer, but the venues will be supplying the PA, and if they didn't, then providing we were being paid enough, we would hire one for that particular gig.
We have all spent around £3,000/4,000 each on gear, so it seems reasonable for the singer to shell out less than £1.000 on a PA, as we will never need to go through it in a small pub/club. Lights and other effects would obviously be split by the whole band.
If we were a function band demanding upwards of £1,000 per gig, and playing large venues on a regular basis, then the shared option would be the route to take.
But because all us BC's have different needs, it is hard to come up with a solution.
As for the OP, quite simple, the duo buy their own PA!

Edited May 21, 2012 by thebrig

[JTUK]

If I was looking for a singer.... them having kit might be an issue and if it is, then they either own it or should buy it as they aren't much use without one.

If, at a later point, we needed something else to be able to do a job, we would either hire it at a extra cost to the client....which is what we started doing and still do once or twice a year for the bigger gigs, or embellish our own to that degree so we can charge back the band for supplying it ...which in reality means we charge the client the extra and share that amongst the owners of the kit. This inculdes lights.

[TimR]

Or hire the band's one

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='LawrenceH' timestamp='1337604379' post='1662552']
I think the people who're arguing that a PA makes the band sound better even if just for vox are ignoring the point that a good bass amp/cab also makes the band sound better, and also costs a lot of money. If you want to put that money into a small/cheap combo for stage monitoring and the rest to PA, that's a different solution - maybe a better one but that depends on how much you as an individual prioritise that band over anything else musical you may be doing.
[/quote]

If your band has distorted vocals because you're using a cheap PA, that's a huge problem and will cost you gigs. If your bass sounds a little muddy because you're using a cheap amp, it's not ideal but it's far better than screwing the PA up.

It's always joked about on here but there's an element of truth when people say that punters don't listen to the bass. There aren't a lot of people out there that will say "the bassist is only using an Ashdown Evo 300w? Nah, let's get someone else" compared to "whenever I see them the vocals are quiet and sound horrible, let's get someone else".

The OP's on about 2 bands sharing the PA (same members I know, but 2 bands none the less) and between the two bands (bearing in mind that covers bands and acoustic acts can easily get paid several hundred a gig) it shouldn't take long for the PA to be paid off. If you have to use your own PA, all the better, charge them for rental for that too and get a bit more towards it, my band charges for PA rental when we use our own, generally an extra £50-100 depending on how much we're being paid for the actual gig.

The biggest thing for me is when people are expected to pay money into the band (and it sounds like that's what's happening here) it becomes an argument about who should pay for it (which again, sounds like it's happening here). It's a tool for the band, it's not the singer getting GAS over *that* desk or *those* cabs, it's something that the band feels it needs to get better gigs. The band paying for the PA is just the band paying it's own way. That's a different situation to a bassist thinking "I really want that amp" then spending thousands getting their ideal set up.

If I were in the OP's shoes, I'd be annoyed that the guitarist is basically saying that he wants the band to pay for a new PA for him, that's unfair, it should be the band's PA, not his, but the singer is being more than fair offering to buy her own monitors. Bass and guitar amps are mostly for onstage monitoring, her buying her own monitors is very fair, then having the whole band pay for the desk and FOH cabs sounds like a good deal to me.

Edit:
Just to be clear (because I don't think I've said it outright yet) I don't think the OP should end up giving money to the band. Once someone puts money into the band, then the band owes them and it'll inevitably get messy, especially if someone leaves.

Taking money from gigs before it's been given to members, though essentially the same, feels different. As long as expenses are covered and the money's going towards getting better gigs, it shouldn't be an issue to take the money from band earnings.

Edited May 21, 2012 by ThomBassmonkey

[markstuk]

Nice to see common sense returning to the discussion... As I've said before I'm in the situation where in one band I provide the PA and the monitoring FOC and in two others where someone else provides it FOC... This works beautifully as long as I don't have to remind people to help me unload/load and I'm switched on enough to help the other guys when they've brought the PA.. I'm happy either to provide a major element of a bigger PA and/or help fund it assuming it's clear what I'm getting into and how I'm getting out.. If we get a bigger PA I think I'd want a person rolled into the setup as well...

I think OP is right to be infuriated to ask to pay towards something that is going to be used to make money elsewhere... There are so many ways this could go wrong....

[BottomE]

Seems to be 2 schools of thought here.
[list]
[*]Those that use the PA should pay for it
[*]Everyone should pay for it
[/list]

I think after looking at all the posts...

The singer is cool to get her own monitors - agreed. Why she doesn't have any in the first place is up for debate but hey ho its a decent offer.
The guitarist is being a twat for expecting to own something (and use in an unrelated project) that we are all expected to pay for. He can Foxtrot Oscar on that.
If we get a more powerful rig that all can use i'd be happy to pay my share.
If they opt for a shinier newer version of what we already have then they can pay for it.

I thank you

[TimR]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1337606722' post='1662613']


...

Taking money from gigs before it's been given to members, though essentially the same, feels different. As long as expenses are covered and the money's going towards getting better gigs, it shouldn't be an issue to take the money from band earnings.
[/quote]

This is what I've said from the start.

If you agree to do a gig as a bass player for £40 and the band leader can get £250 for the gig then you're not missing that £10 are you?
If you want £50 then the leader should quote £300 and not be quoting £250 and then asking you for the £10.

Edited May 21, 2012 by TimR

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1337606722' post='1662613']
If your band has distorted vocals because you're using a cheap PA, that's a huge problem and will cost you gigs. If your bass sounds a little muddy because you're using a cheap amp, it's not ideal but it's far better than screwing the PA up.

It's always joked about on here but there's an element of truth when people say that punters don't listen to the bass. There aren't a lot of people out there that will say "the bassist is only using an Ashdown Evo 300w? Nah, let's get someone else" compared to "whenever I see them the vocals are quiet and sound horrible, let's get someone else".
[/quote]

I'd agree that vox sound quality is probably the most important thing. But, the scenario I was referring to was comparing vocals only through PA versus the whole band. That's not the same as bad or good PA. A genuinely good quality PA for vocals alone is affordable for about £1000-£1500 now (coincidentally similar to what BottomE's rig cost). If you want to put a lot else through it and maintain the sound quality, that price probably trebles because of the extra engineering complexity required.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='BottomE' timestamp='1337608481' post='1662655']
Seems to be 2 schools of thought here.[list]
[*]Those that use the PA should pay for it
[*]Everyone should pay for it
[/list]
I think after looking at all the posts...

The singer is cool to get her own monitors - agreed. Why she doesn't have any in the first place is up for debate but hey ho its a decent offer.
The guitarist is being a twat for expecting to own something (and use in an unrelated project) that we are all expected to pay for. He can Foxtrot Oscar on that.
If we get a more powerful rig that all can use i'd be happy to pay my share.
If they opt for a shinier newer version of what we already have then they can pay for it.

I thank you
[/quote]

This sounds totally fair and reasonable to me!

[JTUK]

[quote name='BottomE' timestamp='1337608481' post='1662655']
Seems to be 2 schools of thought here.
[list]
[*]Those that use the PA should pay for it
[*]Everyone should pay for it
[/list]
I think after looking at all the posts...

The singer is cool to get her own monitors - agreed. Why she doesn't have any in the first place is up for debate but hey ho its a decent offer.
The guitarist is being a twat for expecting to own something (and use in an unrelated project) that we are all expected to pay for. He can Foxtrot Oscar on that.
If we get a more powerful rig that all can use i'd be happy to pay my share.
If they opt for a shinier newer version of what we already have then they can pay for it.

I thank you
[/quote]

Not unreasonable, IMO.

[icastle]

If the existing PA is powerful enough for the duo then there's no reason for them to use the proposed bigger kit.
If they do want to use the bigger PA then the guitarist needs to buy two 'shares' in the PA.

What we did was split the cost of the PA between us and then put 10% of our earnings from it into a maintenance budget.
Over the last couple of years we've actively sought well paying gigs and built up enough of a cash surplus from this and have paid ourselves back.

If anyone leaves, then they take nothing with them.
If the entire band folds then the gear will be sold off and the revenue split between the founder members of the band,

[NickH]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1337435812' post='1659940']
Like it or not a band is essentially the singer/front person and some backing musicians. The PA is there to make the singer (and any other instruments that need it) heard. This in turn makes the whole band sound good. Therefore it is in the interests of all of band to have a good PA whether or not your particular instrument benefits directly from it. Otherwise you are a bunch of boring musicians playing boring instrumental and no-one wants to see that.
[/quote]
^ this

Pretty much exactly the conversation we had in my band when the lineup was secure, the bookings were coming in, and we looked at some gear. The drummer and I don't sing (I have a mic for occasional banter covering guitar changes etc) but we all agreed that if the band sounds and looks better, our gigs will be of better quality. We'll get better quality and better quantity bookings so we all benefit.

So far we've bought new FOH, monitors, mixer, and a small lighting rig all taken out of gig money and jointly owned by every band member. It's agreed that if somebody had to leave they'd be bought out of their share by everyone else. There's no friction or hassle at all. A small share of each gig goes into the band account to pay for rehearsals, the website, general admin, and replacement leads / gaffa tape / van hire.

Frankly you can get PA kit of pretty good quality for not much cash nowadays, and if you're band is at all busy doing regular work it'll pay for itself inside of a few gigs.
If you're looking at top-end pro quality kit costing thousands that might be a different story, but at that point let your management company worry about it

[JTUK]

I agree you need to shop wisely but, IMO, an upgrade would be HK upwards. There isn't a lot between PV and then JBL and Mackie in terms of sound Versus reliability, IME and not worth a band investment.

The singer should be able to do a gig with a functioning P.A and then if things progress you look to spend more wisely, At 70 gigs a year, the OP NEEDS a good P.A band-wise so £3-4K or less ..
should be the ticket.depending if your amps and mixer are upto the upgrade.

Anything less than much superior P.A, and the band shouldn't bother. The gtr duo equation should not have any impact on whether the band contributes this or that as he only gets to use..for his purposes what he owns, He may want to borrow it etc etc ..but a couple of thousands on a band P.A by the band is for them to tell him where to go..or not.
Personally a sizeable invetsment by the band should not be risked on other gigs that don't earn for the band
... as they may drop a cab..get beer knocked over etc etc.. and he sounds like the type of guy to think the band should stump up the repair bill

I am all for give and take... but it needs to be reasonable.

[BottomE]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1337683118' post='1663808']
I get the impression people are missing this bit.

Does this seem fair? Sounds like a cheap PA for the guitarist to me.
[/quote]

Threads got long so i get why its been missed but you are right. This is a key part of what pissed me off about the whole thing and made me start this thread.

[TimR]

Even more reason for the guitarist to buy the PA and hire it to the band/duo.

[TimR]

So. How did the conversation work out. If it's anything like the conversation I had, everyone will agree then you'll get an email the next day where someone has had a rethink and you have to explain everything to them all over again.

[BottomE]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1337939409' post='1667606']
So. How did the conversation work out. If it's anything like the conversation I had, everyone will agree then you'll get an email the next day where someone has had a rethink and you have to explain everything to them all over again.
[/quote]

It worked out really well mostly because there was a stroke of luck.

Singer has bought monitors. Guitarist has bought a PA amp and mixer - modular one that can be upsized as and when required.

Turns out that the place that i work was getting rid of 4 x 500 Watt PA speakers! They are in pretty good nick a couple need tweeters but they are modern and will provide a lot more output and headroom that we have currently. I have decided to own the speakers and let the band use them.

I was preparing for a bit of a fight on this one but life decided to make this a pretty painless process. I learnt a lot though through this thread and one decision i made was to keep the PA cabs (not sell them to the band) as i now realise what great currency they are. The band and the duo can use them for nothing - we all own parts of the new PA and share an interest in keeping it all in shape.

Can't think how it could have worked any better.

[AndyBob09]

Nah, if you're playing 70 gigs a year which include weddings and functions, there should be a band 'kitty' or 'petty cash fund'. My function band puts aside 10% roughly of income of weddings and function gigs. This is put towards travel expenses, a newly bought PA system, any hotels that need to be stayed in at gigs far away, dinner etc etc etc. The band looks after the players well in other words.

However, if this isn't happening just now - You should definitely put that to the band, if enough cash passes through hands.

I'd recommend each of you putting up cash for the new PA, equally, and the band introducing a kitty and when there is enough money in the kitty, each player is reimbursed for the PA. This PA is now owned by 'the band' and no one person meaning that if anyone leaves the band, the band owes you nothing. Likewise, if any equipment is sold, it's then income to the band's kitty.

Try to introduce a band kitty. It's a good way of the band looking after you.