New PA for band - who should pay?

[markstuk]

In the best of basschat traditions folk seem to be taking embedded positions and implying dogmatic postions on other posters behalf...

In my opinion (and I supply the entire PA/Monitor setup for one of my bands FOC simply because I have the stuff already) we have two extremes - A. one where the vocalist turns up after the sound check with a smile on his/her face and then disappears before breakdown.. B. The other where the vocalist is responsible for the purchase, transport, setup and breakdown of the PA..

I have never seen option B. Ever.

I have seen option A. a number of times with friends bands and a tendency, soon squashed, to try it on with bands I play in..

In an ideal world contracts should be drawn up stating what happens to ownership in joint band assets as and when a member leaves or a band disbands.. I've seen new members of a band effectively paying an entry fee with no cash out available and also seen band members walk with (steal?) equipment as part of an acrimonious band breakup.,..

The idea that everyone should contribute towards something that makes the band sound good is lovely in principle.. Except that no-one else wants to pay for my expensive keyboard rig or bass stuff, and most of you would balk at buying a guitarist a mesa boogie or your drummer a large collection of cymbals, chimes, cowbells and other knicknacks .. Or does a PA have some form of special status? If I wanted to use a sansamp solely it would be a different matter of course, but I bet the chances of getting monitors that can cope with Bass properlly bought for me mostly by other band members are approximately nil...

This argument reminds me a little of the gear sharing discussions.. It's a great idea until someone behaves like a t*at and leaves you holding the damaged/broken baby... Does any of this apply to a touring band, of course not.. Does this apply to a stable band of mates with 10 years playing together, no... What I have discovered is that 50% of musicians are wonderful people.. A significant proportion of the rest are badly damaged, but it takes time to work out which is which.. :-)

[BottomE]

[quote name='Monckyman' timestamp='1337553771' post='1662017']
JUST THIS
I really don`t get the "I play bass and I have an amp so you lot can buy your own f***ing P.A" sh*t.
The P.A is for ALL of you.
What next?
" Well I only sing backing vocals on a 1/3 of the set so I only have to pay £2 a gigh towards the P.A"
f*** me, are you a business or not?
What exactly is the point of turning up with your barefaced f***off cab and your 1200watt TC head when the punters can`t even hear the vocals?
Short sighted selfishness.
Rant over
[/quote]

LOL @ rant. Fair enough if you believe this - thats up to you but as you can see their are lots of different approaches to this. "The P.A. Is for All of you"? - as mentioned before, why is this treated differently to other gear? Nobodys been able to explain the special status of the PA. Not saying this is wrong but i want to understand.

[quote name='dave_bass5' timestamp='1337554429' post='1662026']
Im in complete agreement with the last two posts.

Will people be basing how much they have spent on their own gear to get a discount off the cost of the PA. It can easily get out of hand. I really dont get the im all right jack mentality. Try going out without a PA and see if it effects all of you in the band. If it does that shows its the whole bands responsibility, at least as for FOH.
[/quote]

Sorry thats just silly. Try going out without a drum kit or guitar amp. That would effect everyone in the band too but nobodys suggesting that we all chip in for a new drum kit etc.

I want to re-iterate that all we are trying to do is find the most equitable solution for us and i am open minded to suggestions. I do recognise a theme that there seems to be a "special status" accorded to the PA for some of you but not others.

Thanks for all the positive contributions so far.

[TimR]

It's because as I said earlier. It starts off as just a vocal PA but has the potential to become a lot more. Already they want to put keys through it.

The next step is harmonica or acoustic guitar.

[markstuk]

As a keys player, playing keys through a small PA without your own backline makes as much sense as playing bass through the same PA without backline.. Of course there could be a harmonica, massed violins, gamelans, horn sections and so on.. But surely best to ask the OP whether this is likely in his case?

Edited May 21, 2012 by markstuk

[TimR]

For me it's the initial cost.

Who is going to loan the band the money to buy the PA. It doesn't make sense for everyone to chip in a bit because then no one owns anything. As soon as the PA leaves the shop it's halved in value.

The problem is that there is an 'illusion of worth'. A PA exists and so it must be worth some money. If everyone has the attitude that it's just a cost, like fuel, or advertising that has to be paid for it becomes a bit simpler. It's a pile of electronics that no one owns and the punter pays for. No one in the band is paying for it because it should be covered in the band's fee.

[TimR]

[quote name='markstuk' timestamp='1337593459' post='1662318']
As a keys player, playing keys through a small PA makes as much sense as playing bass through one....
[/quote]

Exactly. Which is why this is leaning towards a big PA and not just a vocal PA. 15"s or even subs....

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='BottomE' timestamp='1337591739' post='1662280']

Sorry thats just silly. Try going out without a drum kit or guitar amp. That would effect everyone in the band too but nobodys suggesting that we all chip in for a new drum kit etc.

I want to re-iterate that all we are trying to do is find the most equitable solution for us and i am open minded to suggestions. I do recognise a theme that there seems to be a "special status" accorded to the PA for some of you but not others.

Thanks for all the positive contributions so far.
[/quote]

Thats just twisting what i said. I was just trying to point out that the band needs the PA, its not just the singers domain. I assume you play music through it? What happens when you play a venue that needs the kick drum or back line mic'ed up?
Ive also seen plenty of bands without a drummer and/or guitarist but never one without a PA unless they also dont have vocals.

[TimR]

I think the main thing to establish is whether you are a band or whether you are just musicians supporting the duo.

If it's the latter then the duo should be paying you a set fee to perform and taking money from the gigs to pay for their overheads. They should also be up front about it.

That way when anyone leaves they're not owed anything and don't owe anything.

The grey area is when you consider yourself a band with everyone on equal status. Which it never is. People's personal situations have a habit of suddenly changing when you least expect it.

[BottomE]

[quote name='dave_bass5' timestamp='1337593675' post='1662327']
Thats just twisting what i said. I was just trying to point out that the band needs the PA, its not just the singers domain. I assume you play music through it? What happens when you play a venue that needs the kick drum or back line mic'ed up?
Ive also seen plenty of bands without a drummer and/or guitarist but never one without a PA unless they also dont have vocals.
[/quote]

Dave i don't think you have read the whole thread. There is no intention of using the PA for anything but Vox and some Keys. It will never see Bass and Drums so no, i will never be mic'd up through the thing.

[pietruszka]

I still maintain the easiest solution is for one person to have the PA, theres no complication over ownership. What I won't have with my PA is for individual pieces of it to be at different houses, it all stays in the one place so I know where every part of it is at all times. Again this leaves no complication. It also allows me to hire it out as it's my PA, the other band members have use of it to if needed. We have all our own 'breakables' if you like, the singer has her own mic, the guitarist his own and cables to. The drummer a full set of his own drum mics, with cables I believe to. I have my own mic and cable. What ever they plug into it is theirs and they're responsible for that, not me.

I can see the point raised of "I don't go through the pa so do I really need to financially contribute?". We'll yes, if thats the agreement. You may not use it, but you benefit from it by being in the band. For those that have called the PA a tool have described it very well, it is as much of your own gear the tools of your trade. Theres no 'I' in team!







Dan

[markstuk]

but there is a 'U' in group :-)

Edited May 21, 2012 by markstuk

[pietruszka]

[quote name='markstuk' timestamp='1337596617' post='1662382']
but there is a 'U' in group :-)
[/quote]


Haha!! How very outward and considerate for the others!





Dan

[markstuk]

And five I's in "Individual Brilliance"

[markstuk]

Or the keys player can have a decent backline of his own.. Like wot I do....


[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1337593673' post='1662326']
Exactly. Which is why this is leaning towards a big PA and not just a vocal PA. 15"s or even subs....
[/quote]

Edited May 21, 2012 by markstuk

[TimR]

Ok. The PA isn't just used to make stuff louder.

You have 4 vocals, need to be louder than amplified instruments and drums.
You have guitar, doesn't need to be louder but putting it through the PA makes it clearer to people further back.
Keys, same as guitar.
Horn, again loud enough if you stand in front if it but you need PA to distribute it more evenly.

Guitar and keys are fine through backline at small gigs but floor level amps won't carry to the audience at bigger gigs.

In your situation you should agree a minimum fee (each) that you will play for. Then you add extra for PA. The duo get a loan and buy the gear and pay back the loan. That loan could come from you or the bank. After the loan is paid off the extra money goes into a pot to maintain the PA. If the band splits this money is split. The PA is owned by the band and is written off after it has been paid for. No one owns 'part' of it. The punter contributed towards it not the members of the band.

Edited May 21, 2012 by TimR

[yorks5stringer]

About 5 years ago we hit the same issue. 3 of us set up a Band and we bought the PA jointly ( actually I paid for it all and the others paid back their share from gig earnings over time).

After about 3 years the singer left amicably and I asked her if how she wanted her inital stake back (it was around £180). She replied that without the PA she would have not been able to earn her gig fees and she'd had her inital stake back many times over, so she was fine with that.

A year later the guitarist left amicably and whilst he did not ask for his stake back, he used it as a lever to get me to do the PA for his works function, although I got paid on top as well. In the meantime I'd upgraded the PA at my own expense, using the money received for the old one to offset some of the new ones cost.

I regard the PA as "mine" now and seeing as I'm now 300 miles from him, he's welcome to try and get back his stake! I should also mention that I sourced and organised all our gigs and many occasions, unbeknown to him took no or reduced money in order to keep us going. My shortfall was more than his inital stake for the PA too.

I do like the idea of a shared stake which if someone leaves, the new member pays into, however with depreciation how do you work it out?

[TimR]

70 gigs a year at £50 a gig is £3500. You could get a reasonable PA for that.

[Monckyman]

Well,I`m a bit shocked at some attitudes here.
Maybe as an engineer I`m a little more concerned with the "show" as a whole, and to me that means a decent way of presenting it.
If you play bars and small pubs, and a vocal P.A is the most you ever need, then I can see the point for having it owned by the singer,much as you may spend a grand on bass and rig.
If however, you play weddings and functions, you do, in my opinion need a bigger, full range P.A with enough clout and inputs to properly mix a full band.
As has been posted previously,perhaps this is a one man business where he buys the gear, and hires you as part of that "gear", and so takes more from the shows to pay his overheads and running costs. Fine.
But if you all run the business as a band, then you all should contribute to all the bills, and in my view, the ability to consistently deliver a quality sound is an essential part of that.
Let me tell you my recent scenario.
I joined my present wedding/party band in December 11.
They had some very nice active JBL 500watt tops and a pair of Mackie active 500 watt subs,together with stands,mics,and a mackie mixing desk.
It sounded great, I accepted the position pertly because of the P.A. Seriously, I knew it was important.
The drummer in the band was seriously ill however, and we auditioned a new drummer in January, and started to work the set up.
Fast forward to March.
Singer,"Drummers been on the phone, and says as he`s not earning coz he`s ill, he want us to pay rental on HIS P.A..."
Cue peals of thunder and thoughts of WTF?
Yes, the previous drummer owned ALL of the P.A and after I refused to pay his asking price of £100 a gig, demanded it back.
Since then I`ve been running around like a twat trying to rebuild something that can handle weddings in stately home venues with audiences of app 300 with a band grumbling about their earnings being spent on equipment.
I think I`ve just about got it done, although the sub amp blew up last week and I don`t have a replacement yet...
So, sore topic with me.
If you want to play small bars and pubs, a vocal P.A will do it (in a mediocre way) but weddings and functions need a lot more, and it`s a band tool. Not just the singers.
MM

Edited May 21, 2012 by Monckyman

[oggiesnr]

Many years ago I played in a band that needed a PA. Our approach was to set up a partnership put money in to buy the PA (and also agree stuff like mileage etc for the guy who's van we used), put all the money through the books and divvied up twice a year leaving enough money in the account to cover contingencies. At the end of each year we had a proper profit and loss account with a balance sheet with the PA shown at a depreciated balance. When someone left they were entitled to their share of the book value on the day they left which obviously included the value of the PA plus the contents of the bank account. In one case someone bought in for that amount, in another case the surviving members paid out there share and we each ended up with a quarter share rather than a fifth. Anyone who played with us thereafter got a share of the gig money less agreed expenses (eg the diesal for the van). When we split up we sold of the PA (actually for more than book value) and split the bank account between us.

Three of us were self employed anyway so we each did our own taxes but we paid an accountant (actually a mate who charged mates rates) to do the account for the group.

May seem a hassle but it worked for us. The key was we agreed it all at the start so we knew where we were.

Steve

[BottomE]

Money, itself is not the issue. We can afford to buy a new PA without having to get any loans or anything. Its really how to divide the payment and ownership.

When the conversation about this all began I suggested getting more power to put the whole band through - not for volume but for quality - this was not considered but if it was then i think i would feel differently. I rationalised that the guys in the duo don't want a bigger PA to hump around for the duo gigs.

So, with that as the backdrop, i am just wondering why i am paying for a PA that i will never ever use and in many cases will be used outside of the band. As i see it the overall sound won't improve that much and we are no better off than we are already.

Currently if we do a gig that needs a full PA we hire it and charge the client. I think when we meet later to discuss this i will opt to keep things as they are. No upgrade and to keep charging the client for larger PAs if needed.

[Bigwan]

[size=4]In my previous cover band we started from scratch - everybody chipped in equal amounts for PA and lighting. When I left the band I was payed from the money for the remaining gigs I had left to do to the value of what I originally contributed. My experience was slightly different in that we ALL went through the PA - drummer using an e-kit, guitarist using a POD, me using a small combo amp DI'd for FOH.

I think you need to take a broader view than "I don't use it so why should I pay?"... The band, of which you are a part, need a PA. Leaving the singer/guitarist 2 piece out of the equation for a minute, what would happen if you didn't have a PA? You probably wouldn't get gigs. So the PA is benefitting the band as a whole and you as an individual.

If it were me I'd insist the singer/guitarist sorted themselves out with their own PA for their own work (oh look - he already has one... that's handy), and everybody in the band contributed to a new PA for the band (and only for the band), with the agreement that when somebody leaves they have their contribution repaid [i][b]in full[/b][/i] (what's this market value crap?!) either from gig money (as was the case when I left the band) or by contributions from the other band members.[/size]

[size=4]Hiring a PA for bigger gigs is an option, but it's probably costing your clients more in the long term than you buying it and incorporating that into your overall price.[/size]

[size=4]Just my tuppence worth...[/size]

Edited May 21, 2012 by Bigwan

[TimR]

That's about the size of it. Although with 70 gigs a year you can afford to spread that increased cost across all clients. That way you have the same PA for all gigs and don't have all the additional worry and hassle that goes along with hiring.

I still don't see why people think that they are paying or contributing towards the cost of the PA. This should be a basic overhead.

Some gigs (like pub gigs) there won't be anything to pay the overheads as you need to pay the musicians, other gigs like weddings, there should be lots.

It all stems from the musicians believing that they are entitled to 1/xth of the money that the band is going out for and it should be split equally.

[bassintheface]

I've been reading this wih some interest.
I'm in a working function band with friends - we were friends before we formed this band.
It's run as a proper legit business - I manage pretty much everything.
We play decent weddings and large corporate events so need a decent PA.
All payments for gigs goes into our partnership account - each month, we get paid less band expenses and a bit of a float. I look after this.
We also take a roadie / van driver/ sound engineer with us. His invoices come straight out of the band account also.

Our accountant does all of our returns and P&L account etc.

We hire a splitter van for gigs and we rent a decent set of 6 speakers (Adlibs and GAE), 2 x power amps, crossover and stagebox off a PA hire company locally.
For bigger gigs, we hire in a line array with engineers and an LS9.
The costs for all of this comes straight out of 'the band's' earnings and then goes into our accounts to come off our gross earnings at the end of each year.


We've just bought a new set of Beta 58's, a D112, some new LED parcans, a desk, outboard, xlrs, stands, flightcases etc etc and we also pay for stage suits, fuel, printing, recording - basically anything associated with the running of and promoting of the business.
I play bass only in this band so don't need a vocal mic, and only go in the PA on certain occasions, but for us to sound and look our best, we need this equipment. I wouldn't dream of saying "I'm not contributing as I don't use it".
After costs each month, we get paid.
Simple really. We couldn't work if we didn't have the gear.

If one of us leaves, we will just pay them out 25% of the market value of the gear owned by the band at that point.

They obviously own all their own gear such as guiatrs, drums, amps etc.

[Dropzone]

[sub]This is a tricky one. My head says It could be viewed that if four people wanted to start a band from scratch, each musician would have to pay for their own indstrument and amp. Why should the singer not have an initial investment as well. If other musicians run through it then the band should pay for any maintenance from gig money. If anything goes down whilst the duo are using it then they should pay for it. My heart says we are in this together and need to move forward. I think our band has an unwritten rule of you get £100 as a leaving payment the gear stays with the band.[/sub]

[achknalligewelt]

Our band has 6 members and owns the PA communally. We've never thought about what happens when someone leaves, but I suppose we'd dissolve the partnership and sell the PA, then split the proceeds? Seems fairest - I know I couldn't afford to buy someone out, and if the ad for a replacement drummer said 'To join this band, you'll have to buy our departing member's share of the PA', I predict a respoonse of no people.

Then we form another band with a little mixer, a pair of Mackie powered 12" speakers and forget about buying a full PA again!