New PA for band - who should pay?

[BottomE]

The busy covers band i play in does about 70 gigs a year. Typical functions, corporate stuff and weddings etc. In the last 5 years we have been using the PA that the guitarist has for his duo. It is used for a little bit of keys and 3 to 4 mics for vocals and one horn. Sometimes the guitarist puts a bit of guitar through - don't know why but he does. At certain gigs the PA is struggling to provide enough power. A discussion will take place next week about how we can upgrade the PA and of course central to the discussion will be money. The PA is also used by the singer and guitarist when they do their duo work and the equipment belongs to and resides with the guitarist.

Several emails have already been sent.
[list]
[*]Guitarists idea is that we all pay an equal share and if someone leaves they don't get any money back. He retains the gear.
[*]Singer is along the same lines but is willing to buy her own monitors as she feels she benefits from them most.
[*]Keys player wants everyone to chip in and then get money back when they leave
[*]The drummer and I are yet to offer any suggestions.
[/list]

How do you guys do this and remain friends?

[bumnote]

Shared gear is a disaster. Try and agree to each of you owning a specific bit of kit. In mine I own the speakers, the guitarist owns the desk and a power amp, The drummer the cross over and another power amp. That way if one person leaves, he has a specific bit of kit he can take with him, or agree a price to leave it with the band.

[crez5150]

Difficult..... several options really I guess.

The function band I play with is owned by the band leader (keys player) who also handles all the bookings, so not really an issue

My disco band I own the FOH system and the guitarist owns the monitors..... we have no issues as we are all good friends.

Last function band I played with the Guitarist owned the pa and took a small extra cut to cater for the upkeep of the PA (leads/replacement Diaphragms etc...)

Things you have to bear in mind.... if you all pay then get a cut when you leave the band.... the pa is not worth as much as to when you bought it. so you need to work out what the cuts are going to be.

I would personally look to take money from each gig you do in the future to pay for said PA.

[JTUK]

If it was a band P.A, ie used by all, then I'd contribute to a degree..but I'd want to know if my bass was going to be able to go through it. If not, then no thanks, I have MY gear already bought.
If I pay, I get bought out should I leave...I don't give my share away.
If the gtr and Vox want to use it for THEIR purposes then they should pay most or hire it/pay a small fee....and ditto keys and gtr..and poss drums.

Basically, I don't think it good enough for the vox to just own a mic.. and the monitors that they use are their bills alone.

[BottomE]

Thanks. Its going to be difficult.

I kind of feel that i am being cornered into buying gear for someone else who will really get a lot more benefit from it than me. Yes, the band will sound better but maybe they should have had better gear to begin with? The PA will be used as much for the duo as the covers band.

I do backing vox (under duress) on about 3 songs. I don't mind but could take it or leave it. I don't feel that it constitutes me paying for a new PA as i have already shelled out quite a bit on bass gear.

Once of the comments that has got my back up is "c'mon you have already been benefiting from the existing PA for 5 years"? What does that mean. If you sing you need a PA - i didn't quite get how i was benefiting from it.

[chrismuzz]

If it was me;

I would say everyone chips in equally, except the guitarist and singer who will be using it more for outside stuff. If someone leaves, they forfeit their share as the PA belongs to 'the band'

[chrismuzz]

[quote name='BottomE' timestamp='1337433683' post='1659892']
Once of the comments that has got my back up is "c'mon you have already been benefiting from the existing PA for 5 years"? What does that mean. If you sing you need a PA - i didn't quite get how i was benefiting from it.
[/quote]

They've been benefiting from your bass equipment for 5 years too, totally invalid point.

[skankdelvar]

As is so often the case, the answer is "It depends..."

If the guitarist intends to flog off the old PA and use the new one for the duo, then the covers band should theoretically be exposed to a [i]proportion[/i] of the cost of the new PA. And - to my mind - if one pays for something one should have part-ownership of that item. If one ceases to enjoy the benefits of said item, one should be entitled to a refund.

Allowing for depreciation, one might then expect a refund of a lesser value than the initial payment - maybe 25-75% less - depending on the period that elapses between the purchase and one's departure from the band. This would reflect both the decreased value of the PA and the benefit one has derived from it.

Here are some alternatives:

* Guitarist pays for all of it, owns it, stores it, gets a larger share of any gig income. Once half the cost of the PA is paid for out of [i]part of [/i]each gig receipts, the guitarist ceases to 'charge' for the usage. Check out hire costs for a similar sized PA and apply a percentage of that to each gig's income.

* Written agreement that each member owns a percentage of the kit and gets a refund on leaving. Staged basis of refunds: Year 1 = payment less 25%, Year 2 = payment less 50%, etc.

* Each member owns a different component of the system - guitarist owns the power amps, singer owns the mixer, drummer owns the mains lead, etc

Of course, it could all end in a hideous row and the band would split up. Cheapest option, really.

[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited May 19, 2012 by skankdelvar

[chrismuzz]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1337434147' post='1659901']
As is so often the case, the answer is "It depends..."

If the guitarist intends to flog off the old PA and use the new one for the duo, then the covers band should theoretically be exposed to a [i]proportion[/i] of the cost of the new PA. And - to my mind - if one pays for something one should have part-ownership of that item. If one ceases to enjoy the benefits of said item, one should be entitled to a refund.

Allowing for depreciation, one might then expect a refund of a lesser value than the initial payment - maybe 25-75% less - depending on the period that elapses between the purchase and one's departure from the band. This would reflect both the decreased value of the PA and the benefit one has derived from it.

Here are some alternatives:

* Guitarist pays for all of it, owns it, stores it, gets a larger share of any gig income. Once half the cost of the PA is paid for out of [i]part of [/i]each gig receipts, the guitarist ceases to 'charge' for the usage. Check out hire costs for a similar sized PA and apply a percentage of that to each gig's income.

* Written agreement that each member owns a percentage of the kit and gets a refund on leaving. Staged basis of refunds: Year 1 = payment less 25%, Year 2 = payment less 50%, etc.

* Each member owns a different component of the system - guitarist owns the power amps, singer owns the mixer, drummer owns the mains lead, etc

Of course, it could all end in a hideous row and the band would split up. Cheapest option, really.

[color=#ffffff].[/color]
[/quote]

I could see a band doing this

[BottomE]

Its going to end in tears innit

There are a couple of themes from the incoming emails that are grating.

The expectancy that everyone should pay for gear primarily used by 3 members of the band - if my bass gear wasn't up to the deal i'd happily upgrade it but not expect anyone else to pay. Whats the difference?

The use that the duo will get out of the PA has been conveniently ignored by members of the duo in all financial conversations

I can see a post in the Bands Wanted section coming up...

[EskimoBassist]

[quote name='BottomE' timestamp='1337432775' post='1659854'] [/quote][list]
[*]Guitarists idea is that we all pay an equal share and if someone leaves they don't get any money back. He retains the gear. [b]This is the worst idea possible, very selfish.[/b]
[*]Keys player wants everyone to chip in and then get money back when they leave. [b]This is more fair, but still [/b][b]doesn't address the multiple usage or the depreciation of the gear.[/b]
[/list]
The real problem here is that there is not equal usage of the gear and nor is there to be expected to be in the future. I don't understand how the guitarist feels he can claim sole ownership of it despite EVERYONE technically being an equal owner.

An alternative - it is paid for directly from the band kitty? Or are all proceeds from gigs split directly between the members?

Clearly the guitarist expects to be in sole ownership of the gear at one point or another. Bit of a problem here because everyone else is thus effectively renting the gear from him. On this basis alone you shouldn't be expected to pay an equal share because when/if you part company then he will still have the asset, which he can then sell if needs be and recuperate costs. From a purely economic perspective, each band member should pay an amount which reflects their perceived future usage, including of course depreciation of the PA - but I'm guessing the problem is that you need to find the funds between you in the first place to actually buy it. Thus the guitarist and singer would pay by far the most as they have double the interest (assuming usage is constant between the covers and their duo thang), and overall the guitarist would pay the most (considering his "ownership" of the gear).

Breaking this up into separate pieces also seems a bit silly, I mean the singer can't do much with just a set of monitors without the rest of the system to run them with.

I once had this problem myself with a band: our mixer broke and we had to fund a new one ASAP. Did my bass go through it? Nope. So did I contribute? Only a small amount relative to everyone else.

My response isn't really that much help. I thought about making an equation to try and work out an equitable solution but my brain is tired and I've got Russian Economics to revise. All I'll say further is that your Guitarist has the most to gain by the sounds of it, so don't let him take you for a ride.

[EskimoBassist]

Just read Skankdelvar's response: good ideas, very practical.

[MrTaff]

This almost killed the band I'm with now, singer & guitarist wanted a new PA with each of us paying 25%, what happened in the end was the singer, guitarist & drummer paid a third each and when one of them leaves the other 2 buy him out at market value, I don't sing and don't use the PA so refused to pay which didn't go well but meh.

[BigRedX]

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.

[JTUK]

[quote name='BottomE' timestamp='1337434929' post='1659916']
Its going to end in tears innit

There are a couple of themes from the incoming emails that are grating.

The expectancy that everyone should pay for gear primarily used by 3 members of the band - if my bass gear wasn't up to the deal i'd happily upgrade it but not expect anyone else to pay. Whats the difference?

The use that the duo will get out of the PA has been conveniently ignored by members of the duo in all financial conversations

................
[/quote]

If you buy it...or contribute and the duo use it and devalue it with knocks etec etc and general use, then they pay to hire it. No obviously they hire off themselves as well...
but £50 for dry hire gets nothing in terms of a P.A, IMO...so that sounds like a £10 a gig, minimum.. depending on the P.A spec.I

In our band, the singer, gtr and me own all the P.A and lights and we take an extra fee from the bigger gigs to account for the initial outlay.

There does, of course, need to be some give and take... but not the pi$$... whcih is what I think you help buy the P.A and they use it for outside gigs, is, IMO.
I assume everyone loads the P.A in and out..?

[steve-bbb]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1337434147' post='1659901']
...drummer owns the mains lead, etc ...
[/quote]

you wouldnt be trying to tempt the drummer to get his fingers near those little square holes in the wall would you now?!

[BottomE]

[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]

You've obviously seen us

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1337435889' post='1659945']
If you buy it...or contribute and the duo use it and devalue it with knocks etec etc and general use, then they pay to hire it. No obviously they hire off themselves as well...
but £50 for dry hire gets nothing in terms of a P.A, IMO...so that sounds like a £10 a gig, minimum.. depending on the P.A spec.I

In our band, the singer, gtr and me own all the P.A and lights and we take an extra fee from the bigger gigs to account for the initial outlay.

There does, of course, need to be some give and take... but not the pi$$... whcih is what I think you help buy the P.A and they use it for outside gigs, is, IMO.
I assume everyone loads the P.A in and out..?
[/quote]

We do share the loading. I bring along some lights too.

Yes, its all about give and take but how much to give and how much to take is the question. Some really good ideas though so thanks guys.

[skankdelvar]

Revisiting the 'rental' option where the band dibs a percentage of gig fees to the guitarist to pay for the band's proportion of usage. Here's how to sell the idea to him.

If the band (5-piece?) [i]eventually[/i] covers half the cost, each will have paid 1/5th of 50%. As a band member, he'll have paid out 10% of the cost. As himself, he'll have paid out the other 50%. So he will [i]eventually[/i] be proud owner of a PA which cost him 60% of the cost price.

If - as the outright owner - he flogs the PA on, he might get circa 60% of the value, so [i]eventually[/i] it will have cost him (and the duo) [i]nothing[/i] to have a nice PA for as long as they want it. If he also flogs the old PA, he's actually quids up on the deal!

Of course, this financially disbenefits the other band members - you each pay 10% of the cost but end up owning nothing. But this may be a sacrifice you are willing to make if it spreads the cost out, keeps the peace and enhances the quality of your gigs.

It's quite a noble thing to do really, giving him a PA

[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited May 19, 2012 by skankdelvar

[oggiesnr]

How much is the group planning on spending on the PA? Is the end result going to be that you all need to go through the PA with all the extra that that entails or is it just a small upgrade? Is the guitarist planning to use the new PA for his duo or will he keep the one you've already been using? Do you actually need to upgrade or would it be simpler to hire in odd extra stuff for the bigger gigs?

Steve

[Jacqueslemac]

In one of my bands we all agreed (well, told by the main guitarist actually) that gig money would be reinvested in kit (PA, monitors, speakers and cables and, when necessary, lights). The guitarists bought their own instrument and vocals mics and their own mic stands. The singer and drummer also bought their own mics and stands.

The PA belongs to the whole band an - in theory - no-one else is allowed to use it. In practice, the guitarist lets his wife use it every now and again when she needs music for her belly dancing troupe. We agreed that if anyone left the band, they'd get an agreed proportion of the value of the PA, reflecting wear and tear etc.

Funnily enough, I'm the only person in the band who doesn't plug anything into the PA (I don't do backing vocals, unlike everyone else). All I do is store it and transport it everywhere. On the other hand, without some kind of PA the band wouldn't get gigs, so I'm not too worried about the finances.

In the other band, the lead guitarist is the main force in the band (although much less of a dictator than the one in my other band!). He does all the bookings, currently hires the PA and is talking about buying a PA for the band out of his own pocket. If he does this, I'll suggest he keeps more gig money than the rest of us to help pay for wear and tear of it.

To my mind if you put money into the PA, whether it's up front or via gig money, then you also have a part-share in the PA, so have a say in who uses it and have a financial stake in it if you decide the leave the band.

The best way to avoid trouble later is to have a good discussion about it beforehand and, if necessary, write the agreement down.

[discreet]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1337438132' post='1660010']
If the band (5-piece?) [i]eventually[/i] covers half the cost, each will have paid 1/5th of 50%. As a band member, he'll have paid out 10% of the cost. As himself, he'll have paid out the other 50%. So he will [i]eventually[/i] be proud owner of a PA which cost him 60% of the cost price
[/quote]

The drummer will never be able to understand this.

[dave_bass5]

Never found this sort of thing to be a problem, maybe I've been lucky
We have always paid equal amounts in to the and for lights and PA. if anyone leaves we will offer what we consider a fair amount, based on the resale value divided by the number of band members.

I've never looked on the PA as just being for the singer, we play background music through it, mic the kick drum and it's needed for a backing vocals so it's quite integral to the band.
I dont pay towards anyone's mic leads, mics etc, thats down to them to supply their own gear.

I have thought about this in the past, and sometimes I've started to feel a bit resentful that I have paid towards the PA as well as buying my own gear but if you start trying to count and justify every penny it can lead to even more problems IME. It's the bands PA, it's something we all need so it's all our responseability.

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed the duo bit. That does complicate things a bit. Two of my band started going out as a duo with CD's. Never asked about using "our" PA, even used the same name and I did feel some resentment.
Unlike the rest of you I was a bit childish and started taking home any leads or adapters that I had personally brought, including the one for the monitor, and being the one who normally sets up the PA I would not take their calls on gig days.
I have grown up now but I felt If they were using our gear and not offering any money, or even asking, then I was not going to just be walked over like that.

Edited May 19, 2012 by dave_bass5

[musophilr]

The entire band benefits from having it. Not just those whose instruments go though it, the PA facilitates the gig, and hence the earning. Ergo everyone chips in. A proper partnership agreement (see the MU) is necessary to record what agreements were made about who gets what if the band splits or what happens if a member leaves. That'll save acrimony later. I recommend that if a member leaves the rest of the band buys him out (there ought to be enough in the kitty to do that anyway). A newly joining member should be given the option to buy in, but even if he doesn't, he'll have the chance to contribute if the band replaces the PA while he's a member. Depreciation of the value of the value of the band's assets should also be taken into account. If someone contributes 20% of a £10k rig it doesn't necessarily mean that he can walk away with £2k when he leaves in 5 years time, he leaves with 20% of whatever the rig is worth in 5 years time.

[Chrismanbass]

personally i think the idea of each of you buying pieces of gear to make up the complete PA system sounds like a good one however the issue is if they want to go out as a duo then they will still want to use all the gear for those gigs maybe if you offer to buy the sub/sub's or something which would be useful as a full band but not really neccisary as a duo? and then everybody keeps their gear when they leave? i think everybody paying their share of the gear and then the guitarist retaining it when you leave is completely unacceptable however i think a written agreement as said above is essential as to how much/ what you get when you leave

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='Jacqueslemac' timestamp='1337438691' post='1660032']
the guitarist lets his wife use it every now and again when she needs music for her belly dancing troupe. [/quote]

Amazed that this one slipped past Discreet.