Pay disparity

[Jakester]

I was just wondering if I could sound out the collective on this situation:

 

I have been doing some jazz gigs with a band; it started off with three main members who all used to work together, and I was invited to play bass with them as I know one of them. There are also other people who come and go from time to time. It's nothing special, just playing standards in a local pub. Two of the main three live in the Midlands, the rest of us down here in wurzel country. 

 

However, it seems to have hit a spot because each time the pub is rammed, and so last time the landlord told us he'd put £100 behind the bar for the band. Of course, with most of us driving that was never going to be used up. 

 

For the next gig, the chap organising has suggested that we instead ask the landlord for that money, and pay it as expenses to the two who are travelling. Now, I don't really mind that - it's a low pressure gig, nice crowd, I'm learning as I go to play jazz so I'm not so fussed about it. 

 

However, one of the two who are travelling can't make it, so I've agreed to play his part and have asked someone I know to fill in on bass for me. He, not unreasonably, asked if there was any money/expenses for it, and I said I'd ask. 

 

I was told by the chap organising that he'd spoken to "the others" and they'd decided "it wasn't fair to pay one person, and the money should be used for travel expenses [of the other two]", so no, there wasn't any money for him. I presume that means that the one travelling gets the lot. 

 

Now, this seems a little unreasonable to me; my friend is doing us a favour - although he's local, he's from the next town along, so will have to travel so will have *some* expenses. My friend accepted this as he wants to do the gig. 

 

I mean, I'm not going to blow it up or have a rant at anyone about it - but does this seem a little, well, unusual, to anyone else? 

[Muzz]

Before anyone gets near sorting out who might get what, bear in mind that £100 behind the bar from the landlord won't equate to £100 handed over by the landlord; £100 in drinks will be costing the landlord much, much less...and a rammed pub should translate into proper gig money for the band...round these parts that's £300. Cash.

[Jakester]

12 minutes ago, Muzz said:

Before anyone gets near sorting out who might get what, bear in mind that £100 behind the bar from the landlord won't equate to £100 handed over by the landlord; £100 in drinks will be costing the landlord much, much less...and a rammed pub should translate into proper gig money for the band...round these parts that's £300. Cash.

 

Oh, yes, that's a whole other debate.

 

I'm happy enough not to get paid for this particular gig - it's down the road, lots of friends drop by, it's not too late etc etc. I know the pub's making a killing out of it but given how often you hear of pubs going to the wall, it's hard to begrudge this particular one the extra money. 

[jrixn1]

24 minutes ago, Jakester said:

He, not unreasonably, asked if there was any money/expenses for it, and I said I'd ask. 

 

1 minute ago, Jakester said:

I'm happy enough not to get paid for this particular gig

 

I don't understand... when you previously did gigs with this group, before the "£100 behind the bar" was ever mentioned, were you all doing the gig for no fee at all?

 

[woodyratm]

I’d much rather the cash. None of my band drink due to living out in the country or carrying loads of gear. Or my case, trying to be healthier.
 

Collectively we probs spend less than 10 quid the 4 of us. 

But saying that, we’re an original synth metal band. £20/30 total usually. Though we did make £80 a few weeks back. Picked the gig up the same day and didn’t manage to invite many people but the folk there apparently enjoyed us. We genuinely didn’t expect a penny for that show ha.

[Jakester]

5 minutes ago, jrixn1 said:

 

 

I don't understand... when you previously did gigs with this group, before the "£100 behind the bar" was ever mentioned, were you all doing the gig for no fee at all?

 

 

Yes. 

 

[woodyratm]

5 minutes ago, Jakester said:

 

Yes. 

 

You guys should defo be getting paid IMO. I’d imagine the barstaff and sound guy all get paid. You should too. 

[franzbassist]

The easiest solution, and fairest IMHO, is to divide the "money behind the bar" equally between those playing on the night.  If money is starting to change hands now, just because you're local doesn't mean you shouldn't get paid.

 

[Jakester]

9 minutes ago, woodyratm said:

You guys should defo be getting paid IMO. I’d imagine the barstaff and sound guy all get paid. You should too. 

 

As I said - that's a different discussion. Happy not to get paid in this particular instance.

 

My issue is with what money there may being paid to two people only for expenses, and then when someone is doing us a favour and will have some small but genuine expenses, he's told "nope". 

[howdenspur]

Parking any comment about the odd arrangement the band have remuneration/expenses wise, I would share your discomfort. There is money available, none of which will be going to the dep who is doing everyone a favour.

[Dad3353]

If your fellow band-mates don't want to offer anything to someone helping them out, I'd suggest that he/she desists, unless he/she is up for doing it pro bono like yourself. If they can do without him, there's no issue. If he is needed, however, they would have to reconsider...

I'd agree, too, that '£100 behind the bar' is really a beer slate, and may well not be available as cash in hand. Any cash going, however, has to go to all who participate, that want a share of it. We don't have these problems, as we all play for kicks, but if we needed to call upon someone, they would, of course, share any payments received, or be paid for by ourselves. 

[jrixn1]

27 minutes ago, Jakester said:

My issue is with what money there may being paid to two people only for expenses, and then when someone is doing us a favour and will have some small but genuine expenses, he's told "nope". 

 

1 hour ago, Jakester said:

My friend accepted this as he wants to do the gig. 

 

The dep has the information and accepts the situation.  I would not start getting worried on someone else's behalf - If they are unhappy, they can decline the gig or discuss directly with the band leader.

[Burns-bass]

23 minutes ago, jrixn1 said:

 

 

The dep has the information and accepts the situation.  I would not start getting worried on someone else's behalf - If they are unhappy, they can decline the gig or discuss directly with the band leader.

To be fair the dep has asked about a fee which the OP has information about.

 

Personally, if the gig is £100 and there are 4, it’s £25 each (regardless of where you live).

 

But it’s not clear that the landlord will give you £100 (or indeed anything!). 

 

 

[gjones]

Money is the root of all evil.

 

If you were all playing for nothing and everybody was happy, I would recommend you ask for the money, that's being put behind the bar, to be paid to the charity of the landlord's choice (possibly The Landlord's Benevolent Society).

 

Problem sorted.

 

No need to thank me.....

 

Edited May 8, 2024 by gjones

[Lozz196]

If I recommended someone as a dep and then found out that they were to not be paid but the permanent band members were I wouldn’t do the gig. 

[Pseudonym]

At the very least, the dep should not be out of pocket. Any travel costs should be reimbursed. But I find the attitude of your bandmates pretty selfish, to be honest, and I would not want to be in the invidious position of finding a dep who then gets nickel-and-dimed in this way.

 

If the members of the band want to treat this as a hobby, that's absolutely up to them and you. It's a completely reasonable choice, although from another point of view a band that plays for free undercuts all of those hardworking bands that don't. Either way, hobbies cost money, and in this case perhaps one of the costs should be making sure the dep's costs are covered.

 

And yes, asking for the landlord to cough up on a busy night is completely in order.

 

All of that aside, best wishes for a great night for all.

 

 

[ahpook]

5 hours ago, Jakester said:

Now, this seems a little unreasonable to me; my friend is doing us a favour - although he's local, he's from the next town along, so will have to travel so will have *some* expenses. My friend accepted this as he wants to do the gig. 

 

I mean, I'm not going to blow it up or have a rant at anyone about it - but does this seem a little, well, unusual, to anyone else? 

 

It is a bit odd, you'd expect your friend to get the money not going to the now not-travelling member.

 

I think you have the right approach though, but after the gig it's time for a proper think and a chat about how the band gets paid, and how that money is divided up in the future, as you're not too happy about it and I don't think I would be either.

 

Good luck

👍

[TimR]

It's too many originals bands grateful just to be given a place to play that seems to be the problem.

 

Don't know how it's to be fixed but if you have a dep playing on someone's vanity project then the dep should be aware of the package before signing up. That could be; 'the band' pay travelling expenses, drinks or the dep is happy to just be helpful. What the band is getting paid shouldn't come into this. The band are the people who want to play their music, not the dep. 

 

It's different to cover bands where the band are expecting to get paid the going rate. 

 

In short, if the gig isnt paying enough for the dep, the band members pay them out of their pockets. If a member of the band can't get to the gig because they're skint, that's up to the other members of the band (not including the dep) to decide how they continue to support that member. 

 

 

[asingardenof]

16 hours ago, gjones said:

Money is the root of all evil.

 

The love of money is the root of all evil. Money isn't inherently evil, but what people choose to do with it certainly can be.

[Jakester]

17 hours ago, howdenspur said:

Parking any comment about the odd arrangement the band have remuneration/expenses wise, I would share your discomfort. There is money available, none of which will be going to the dep who is doing everyone a favour.

 

I think this puts it fairly succinctly.

[Crusoe]

3 minutes ago, asingardenof said:

The love of money is the root of all evil. Money isn't inherently evil, but what people choose to do with it certainly can be.

I got rid of some Jehovah's Witnesses once by correcting this when they quoted it at me. They must have thought that i possibly knew more about the bible than they did. 😄

[Jakester]

11 hours ago, TimR said:

It's too many originals bands grateful just to be given a place to play that seems to be the problem.

 

Don't know how it's to be fixed but if you have a dep playing on someone's vanity project then the dep should be aware of the package before signing up. That could be; 'the band' pay travelling expenses, drinks or the dep is happy to just be helpful. What the band is getting paid shouldn't come into this. The band are the people who want to play their music, not the dep. 

 

It's different to cover bands where the band are expecting to get paid the going rate. 

 

In short, if the gig isnt paying enough for the dep, the band members pay them out of their pockets. If a member of the band can't get to the gig because they're skint, that's up to the other members of the band (not including the dep) to decide how they continue to support that member. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with the specific situation set out in the first post? It's not an originals band or a "vanity project". 

[TimR]

2 hours ago, Jakester said:

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with the specific situation set out in the first post? It's not an originals band or a "vanity project". 

 

The last paragraph mainly.

 

If you're playing 'standards' that's a cover band, but if you're playing standards no one wants to pay for, then that's a 'vanity project', or if that's too strong, it's just indulgent.

 

I wouldn't worry about 'pubs', it's not the economy that's causing them to suffer it's council business rates and Brewery rents. £300 on onw night won't make one bit of difference. But that's another thread entirely. 

[OliverBlackman]

3 hours ago, asingardenof said:

The love of money is the root of all evil. Money isn't inherently evil, but what people choose to do with it certainly can be.

If buying basses is evil then sign me up for hell 😆

[Lozz196]

46 minutes ago, OliverBlackman said:

If buying basses is evil then sign me up for hell 😆

I`ll book a ticket as well..............