Dan Dare

You don't need a finger training aid. You already have one - the neck of your instrument. Just fret with each finger in turn repeatedly. No need to play or even have the bass plugged in. You can sit and do it whilst watching the TV. The tendon that moves the third finger is linked to the one that moves the second, so it has less independence of movement than the others and needs work to develop it.

9 minutes ago, TimR said:

I'm not sure where I stand with refusing to pay for gear because you already own your own PA. I'd rather pay someone £20 of my gig money to have them store, carry and set up the PA, because I've been that guy carrying speakers and amps into my garage on my own at 3am. And I'd rather be in bed. 

I may be sad, but I still enjoy doing sound. I'm happy to carry my PA (and also to earn a fee for its use). As it's compact and lightweight (class D and neo speakers have reached the PA world, too), it's pretty easy. The heaviest items I own are 2 Fohhn powered subs that weigh a little over 20 kilos each, so hardly a strain for a reasonably fit old geezer like me and I have a trolley. To each his/her own, of course.

9 hours ago, MGBrown said:

Has anyone on here ever paid money up front to join a band?

Me. I joined a busy, established function band with a full diary. I put in (via deductions from my share of gig fees, not as an upfront payment) an amount to make me an equal partner and owner of the band's jointly used gear - PA, lights, etc. It worked out very well. Over the next few years, I got back my original investment many times over. When we split, we divvied up the jointly-owned gear and sold or used it individually.

9 hours ago, Jack said:

Add me to the "giving £600 to some strangers I met down the pub in the hope I'll get some gigs soon seems like a bad idea" camp.

Hardly. We're talking about a situation where you become a full member of a partnership/collective (call it whatever you like), where you receive an equal share of the earnings of said partnership and where, if you leave or it breaks up, you have the right to an equal share of its jointly-owned assets. This can be set out in a written agreement - probably a good idea to do so.

4 hours ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

As an aside. IIRC, Metallica gave $1m to Robert Trujillo for joining the band.

If you were in his class and people were knocking on your door to get you to work with them, you wouldn't be on here arguing about buying a £3k PA. And of course, any large, successful act will own several truckloads of jointly used gear - PA, lights, etc, etc, which will have been bought with the money the act earns.

5 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Yeh, but the band also needs the £2/3k keyboard rack the keyboard player entirely owns, and the band needs the £2k bass and bass rig the bass player entirely owns, the £2-3k guitars the guitarist has soley paid for and all the drums that the drummer entirely owns. So does the singer with his £100 mic also contribute to those?

Read my previous comments and I you will see I suggest what a singer who plays no instrument should be expected to do (which is to provide a reasonable vocal-only PA - should cost about the same as the amounts you mention that other members have spent on their gear). As for a band needing the equipment owned by individual members for their own use, you are correct. However, a band is not simply a collection of individuals/soloists. So who pays for gear that is needed in order for the band to function that is not owned/solely used by individual members? Many on here seem to believe "Not me, guv". Guess they'll have to stick to playing solo.

12 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

And once I’m a member I take on that responsibility happily, and pay my equal share as part of the band collective. 
 

But once again, decisions made prior to me joining are not my responsibility.

 

Would I pay my continued share of upkeep for the PA? Yeah, course. Would I pay upfront for a share of the product that I didn’t buy, nor have any say over? No.

I don’t think my position is particularly controversial, nor unusual. In fact, I’ve never heard of a band member being asked to stump up their share of equipment prior to joining. Ever.

 

You are paying to become a part owner of jointly-used gear. It can be done via deductions from gig fees, rather than as a "joining fee".

Not your responsibility? OK. Consider this. Band works and spends money to achieve a following, create a good sound, etc. Then their bass player departs for pastures new. His ex-colleagues pay him out his share of the jointly-owned PA. You come along and say "I'd like to join". You audition and they say "Great. You're in if you want it. We have a jointly owned PA which is essential to the band's sound. Would you mind contributing as an equal member to its cost? The contribution will be its value at present, not what it cost us when new".

You reply, "No way, man. This is, like, meant to be a collective. I expect to benefit from the work you've already done and the money you've already spent without contributing myself".

Yeah. Good luck with that.

7 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

1. What happens if my PA is better than theirs? Do they pay me to join?

 

2. Plus I am the bass player - maybe I don't want to go through the PA, why should I then contribute if I am not using it? 

1. That's the position I'm in. People like us have two options We can tell the band:

a) "I won't contribute to your jointly-owned PA. I own a better one, which I'm happy for us to use provided you pay me a (reasonable) fee to use it". Or:

b) "I am happy to provide my mixing desk, FOH or whatever to use with the rest of your PA as my contribution to it". That's the advantage of my original suggestion - that band members should own parts of the PA as individuals. It's simple to replace whatever piece of jointly-used gear the departing band member takes with them.

If they don't want to go with either of those options, that's fair enough. They can look for another bass player.

2. And the guitar player is the guitar player, the keys player is the keys player and so on. They may not "go through the PA", but the PA is needed to ensure the band as a whole can function and be heard properly. You won't get many gigs if that isn't the case or the band sounds terrible.

You pays yer money and takes yer choice.

11 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

Let’s say that prior to joining the band, I’ve just dropped several thousand pounds on new gear. The band are going to benefit from my top-tier rig. Would I expect a share of the cost from the band when I join? No.

 

A band is a collective - we work together to create our unique product. We’re not individuals who sell our wares to each other for the benefit of the individual members. 
 

As I say, each to their own, but I’ve never paid to join a band in my life, and I’d not start now.

Every member of that band will have spent good money on quality gear for their own individual use. That's just the way it is. Have you seen how much quality guitars and guitar rigs cost? Keys? Saxes and wind instruments?

We're talking about buying equipment that the band needs as a whole to function. It won't matter how good you are as individuals if nobody can hear what the band is doing, the singer is singing, etc. That's where a PA comes in.

If your band is truly a "collective" and you are not "individuals", then you will share the cost of what you need to function properly as a unit. Unless you want to flip flop between being part of a collective and an individual depending on which best suits your pocket, of course...

7 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

I prefer a different way.

 

Each member owns a specific bit. 1 person owns the desk, the next the speakers etc. Split as best as possible to keen values similar. Each person responsible for repair, insurance etc of their bit.

Thank you. That was my original point. It doesn't seem to appeal to those who believe someone else should pick up the tab for them.

6 hours ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

 

Please remember your latter statement. What may be peanuts to you may be a couple of months food budget to other people, or maybe their heating over the winter. 
 

not everyone can justify £3k on an “entry level” PA. 

I realise that. I didn't always have money. It's amazing what working for 50 years and not wasting money on frippery can do for the state of one's bank balance...

Yes, £3k is very much entry level in PA terms. Add it up. You need some modest but not rubbish powered cabs (say a pair of 15s or a pair of 10s plus a sub, which is what one would need to cover any small to medium sized venue without the system sounding as if it's about to self-destruct, You can go the passive cabs plus power amp route if you want, but the cost will be about the same), a mixing desk with proper eq and onboard fx, monitors (being able to hear yourself does wonders for the ability to remain in tune), some decent microphones and DI boxes (garbage in, garbage out, remember), stands, cables and sundries. Buy new and you'll see little change from £3k unless you buy tat.

£600 a head for a band PA is actually something of a bargain. "It's only a hobby", I hear you cry. OK, name a hobby that you can pursue properly for £600 or less. If you have any aspirations to make music into a part or full time occupation, you won't get far if the band sounds like sh1te or nobody can hear what you're all doing, regardless of how good the individual players are.

That's the reality.

4 hours ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

No I’m not going to pay for a decision the band made prior to me joining. 

Then you cannot expect to share in the benefits of that decision.

1 minute ago, Dad3353 said:

All of this one of several reasons why we play for free, as this removes any of the hassles, pitfalls and anguish from these pecuniary matters. It's just for fun, for us, and not a job; we don't need (nor would we want...) the income. Life can be simple. 

I'm in a similar position. I've made my money, am comfortably retired and do not need to earn from playing (or anything I do, for that matter). I have all the toys I've ever wanted and, crucially, own my home. I suspect you are in the same position. Relatively few are in our fortunate position. The hippy idyll is not a realistic possibility for most. Life can only be simple if you can afford to make it so, which you and I can.

3 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

“Guitarist wanted. Must have pro gear, the right attitude and £600 to pay for the PA.”

 

Not sure it’ll be a huge success!

Let's flip it on its head - "Guitar player seeks band. I will not contribute towards any jointly used equipment or expenses, but I expect to enjoy the benefits of the money the rest of you have spent and be treated as a full partner and receive an equal share of anything the band makes".

Not sure that'll be a huge success, either. Is that what is meant by "the right attitude"?

£600 is peanuts. For a 5 piece band, that equates to a PA that cost £3k, which is a little (but not much) above entry level.

4 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

There is next to no band I would join on that basis ever, unless I guess they were a name group with a recording deal and the job had a guaranteed minimum payback. Happy to pay a share going forward of my pay for the use of the PA, but I would hope that if that situation happened it would be clear before the auditioning as I wouldn't want to waste my time. 

There is no guaranteed minimum payback in life and especially not in business. You invest in equipment, acquire the right knowledge and skills, etc, work hard and hope you will recoup. If you want a guaranteed minimum payback, you need a job that pays a fixed wage. Would you be happy to join a band on a fixed wage, regardless of how much money the band made? Or would you want to be an equal partner when it came to dividing the spoils? If the latter, you need to make a similar investment as your colleagues. Otherwise, you are expecting a free (or at least subsidised) ride from them.

49 minutes ago, EssexBuccaneer said:

If I’m joining a band, I’ll accept my share of any expenses from that day onwards. I’ll chip in bits myself without expecting repayment (have just knocked up some t-shirts for us, I don’t expect nor ask for repayment) - but if a band asked me to pay up front for my share of the PA, I’m out. 

So if a band had recently spent £10k on a quality PA (less than mine cost, incidentally) and you were invited to join a month later, you'd expect to benefit from it for nowt?

Trivia question. Who played bass on Beat It?

1 minute ago, tauzero said:

 

Have you not encountered TimR before? 😁

Oh yes. See my previous comment about his loving a barney on here. I'm just amusing myself. I don't really care what he thinks or does.

14 hours ago, TimR said:

Precisely because if this situation occurs the remaining members are left having to find a brand new bit of kit as well as a new band member. 

 

Great for the person jumping ship. Not great for those left behind. 

And? The gear was mine. I was free to do as I wished with it. "Brand new"? They could have (and did) bought something used. Had they bought mine, that too would have been used. Actually, I didn't "jump ship". We agreed mutually that I should go - musical differences and all that... Don't you think you're clutching at straws?

8 hours ago, BigRedX said:

The cheapest way to get good quality cables to make them yourself using Van Damme cable and Neutrik plugs.

This. There are a number of alternative good quality cables in addition to VD and you can even use Switchcraft connectors if you're feeling flush. Generally, the words "durable" and budget" don't exist in the same universe. Given that the difference between a high quality cable and a mediocre one is around a fiver, it isn't worth saving when you take the increased lifespan of the decent one into account.

1 hour ago, nilebodgers said:

I used to be an audio professional until I retired and it would drive me nuts if someone else was bodging it.

That's why I decided to get my own PA in the first place. That and the fact that owning a quality PA makes people far more likely to want you in their band.

3 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

it can and does happen that there's a willing dad to do the heavy lifting.

Agreed. Were my daughter ever to have started a band, I would have been in a position to do it for her, but it's relatively rare and not something one can rely on being the case.

2 hours ago, TimR said:

That's handy because the person leaving will have exactly the missing part you need. So no need to go messing around looking and waiting. Of course you just have to negotiate a price... 😆

Which is exactly what I suggest, so why are we arguing (I know you are partial to a barney on here)? 

In most cases, the person leaving will probably be happy to sell their piece of gear to the band. If there is no shared ownership, it makes for a clearer transaction - no need to get the whole rig valued, haggle about what would be a fair price, etc, etc. Make him/her an offer. If he/she accepts, fine. If not, get a new mixer or whatever.

In my case, I didn't want to sell the gear I owned when I left the band I mention above, as I used it as a starting point to put together my first PA (many years ago now). Instead of having part of the used price of an entire PA (which wouldn't have been a lot), I had a perfectly serviceable Soundcraft mixer and fx rack that I could put to good use.

"Who owns all the special cables? That's really going to screw things up when your drummer disappears in a bad mood and takes his cables with him..."

The replacement drummer will need to provide his/her own.

4 hours ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

Wow. Talk about twisting words! We're not relying on the bank of mum and dad. He's a soundman, who just happens to be the father of one of the guitarists (the latter of which happens to be a Director at an Accountancy).We're not a bunch of kids. We're adults ranging from 40 to 60 years old and all financially independent. This is why I said "we're lucky enough to be in the position...". I realise it's not universally applicable.

 

If he did turn up with cheap, unreliable gear that's not up to the task, he wouldn't be our soundman anymore!

 

 

Not twisting your words at all. Yours is an unusual (and fortunate) situation, which you acknowledge tbf to you. However, very few are likely to be in your circumstances - a member of the band having a father who owns a decent PA and who is prepared to turn out for £50. 

Were that not the case, you and the band would have to put your hands in your pockets - either to hire or buy a PA - so the Bank of Dad (not mum and dad) is lending a helping hand, whether you acknowledge it or not.

1 hour ago, TimR said:

 

If one member leaves and takes one of the speakers... or the mixer...

 

The PA will no longer work. 

Really? Replace the missing part with another of the same type and I rather think it will.

2 hours ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

For example, we're lucky enough to have a soundman who owns the PA - the father of one of the guitarists. What he buys and how much he spends is up to him, same as how much I spend on a bass or amp. As such he gets an equal cut of gig money.

Handy if you can rely on the Bank of Dad (yours or someone else's) to insulate you from financial reality, but not universally applicable. As for "What he buys and how much he spends" being "up to him", I doubt you would be happy if he decided to turn up with gear he paid £150 for in Cash Converters...

The PA is not equivalent to your bass amp. Only you use that, but everyone relies on the PA.

2 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

Tim’s got this bang on. Splitting it into 5 makes no sense. And paying to join a band? Absolutely insane.
 

If the band is successful enough to generate a substantial income, you can set it up as a business. We did this when I was in a signed band. We actually took out a loan to pay for assets and recording and paid back from profits. There was no requirement for a new member to pay us. 

 

Also, you have to consider what happens if you treat it as a business. Do you all contribute equally?

 

The person driving the van, booking the gigs, storing the PA and managing the social media can all legitimately state they’re doing more. Do they earn more?

 

Socialism may not work in the real world, but the principles apply here. 

 

 

A PA is not a discreet whole. It's a collection of components - mixer, FOH, monitors, etc. Splitting it isn't akin to buying something like a vehicle jointly, where it would be impractical for one to own the engine, one the bodywork, etc because it operates as a whole and cannot easily be divided. I have just upgraded my mixer. It still works with the rest on my gear.

As far as storage, transport etc of the PA is concerned, if individuals own parts of it, they are responsible for that with the parts they own. It also solves the issue of one person using the PA for their own benefit, because nobody has the complete rig (they are free to negotiate with others to borrow/hire the rest of it if they wish).

If a PA is a small, main vocal only rig, it seems reasonable to expect the singer to provide and maintain it.

In a situation where someone joins an established band with jointly owned assets - PA, lights, etc - it may not be appropriate for them to be charged a "joining fee". However, I would consider it reasonable, were I in that situation, to be asked to contribute over time out of my gig fees in order to put me on a par with those who have done similarly, with the amount to be negotiated. This is especially the case if the band has bought out a previous member's share of jointly owned assets.

These days, I own a PA and charge a fee for its use to bands I play with. They are free not to use it and hire if they choose, but in practice, I'm a lot cheaper than doing that, so the situation never arises. I have to arrive early, set up, mix and then tear down and take it home afterwards, I do more work and have invested a significant amount in my system, so I should see a return on that. If it's a fun gig with friends, I don't charge, of course, but I do appreciate their buying me a pint (which won't break them - I'll be driving, so two is the absolute limit).

Socialism is great for those who put in less than others and not so good for those who put in more...

4 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

It’s going to be impossible to split a PA into shares and unreasonable to expect someone to pay to join a band. I’d consider what we did as an option. Buying individual bits sort of makes sense, but the PA’s value is as a whole system.

 

If a band member demanded payment from me I’d be quite upset.

I appreciate your points. However, it isn't impossible to split a PA into (roughly, but obviously not exact) equal shares. I've done it before, or rather a band I was in did. We did it in the way I described above. Obviously, you don't all go and buy a disparate/ill-matched pile of equipment and hope it works. You agree on the system you want and then purchase it between you, dividing the cost as equitably as is possible commensurate with owning parts of it individually.

That's what we did. Some (I and one other) spent a little more than others, but it didn't bother me (or him), because I owned something of higher value which was mine to do as I wished with if/when I left, as did he.

Why would you be upset if a band member "demanded payment" from you and why is it unreasonable to expect someone to pay to join a band.? You did, in effect, demand payment from the other members of the band when you fronted the cost of buying the PA you describe and they repaid you. To be clear, I think that was entirely reasonable of you and would have done the same in your position.

Surely it depends on the circumstances. In the case of bands that work occasionally and don't earn a great deal, they are unlikely to be spending .serious money on PA, lights, etc. £20 a head each for a few months is no great loss. However, in a situation where you are offered a place in a successful working outfit which has significant jointly-owned assets, is it right to expect to benefit from something the others have paid for without making a contribution? Perhaps so if you are happy to be paid a wage, but if you want an equal share in the profits of the venture, it's right that you should make the same investment as the others have.

If you join a company as an employee, you will earn a wage/salary, but if you wish to be a full partner and earn the same as the other partners/business owners, shouldn't you be prepared to invest in the venture to the same extent as them?