How was your PA last night?

[mrtcat]

Venues are well aware they sound bad. They just have to comply with the local authorities regarding noise pollution. The problem is that they sell it to the clients as a positive thing. Conversely we advise them of the limitations of the system at the point where they book us. There is a whole section of our contract dedicated to absolving us of blame for the quality of the final sound when these systems are involved. It also covers them not informing us at the time of booking. 

In the world of wedding bands you just need to accept limiters and in house systems. If you refuse to play the game you just get far less work. Its part of why function bands charge more than pub bands. We are essentially just a pub band that are prepared to put up with more grief.

[EBS_freak]

11 hours ago, Phil Starr said:

No come on, say what you really think

 

I guess this gives @mrtcat a professional problem. If people commented on the band sounded at the sound at the event then the band's reputation is at risk. If the band start to highlight the problems with the sound then the venue could lose bookings and revenue. I can imagine that having invested £10,000's of pounds on this system the venue are going to be reluctant to re-visit the sound system. Equally the clients might eventually twig that the sound at this venue is never good. There are some delicate conversations to be had here. If the system is new the venue might have some redress with the people who sold them the system and the earlier they realise thay have an issue the easier that would be to deal with.

 

 

In reality, most punters wouldn't know what a good or bad sounding band at a wedding sounds like. And if it sounds rubbish and the punters notice, they won't say anything - they are guests at a wedding and unlikely to have picked up the bill. Nobody will tell the bride or groom, cos nobody is going to be that person that potentially ruins their day... hence the problem goes unchallenged, the venue is paid, the band gets paid... and everybody is happy... kinda. Lets face it, for most couples and guests, it's a one off event.

[EBS_freak]

11 hours ago, mrtcat said:

Venues are well aware they sound bad. They just have to comply with the local authorities regarding noise pollution. The problem is that they sell it to the clients as a positive thing. Conversely we advise them of the limitations of the system at the point where they book us. There is a whole section of our contract dedicated to absolving us of blame for the quality of the final sound when these systems are involved. It also covers them not informing us at the time of booking. 

In the world of wedding bands you just need to accept limiters and in house systems. If you refuse to play the game you just get far less work. Its part of why function bands charge more than pub bands. We are essentially just a pub band that are prepared to put up with more grief.

The problem - well, it's morally bankrupt. I always smirk when I see "that pdf" which shows all this top end equipment listed. There's always the narrative "top end system", "sounds amazing", "no complaints ever"... lies lies lies.

 

Anyway, these "great" setups dont mean anything... pricey setups don't defy physics.

 

I think the golden era of making a living via being in a function band is well and truly over. Or maybe it's just cos I got sick of it all... Dunno. But it was definitely getting less enjoyable every gig I did.

[mrtcat]

1 hour ago, EBS_freak said:

Or maybe it's just cos I got sick of it all... Dunno. But it was definitely getting less enjoyable every gig I did.

It's very rare that I really enjoy the playing side of it these days. Venues are getting harder to deal with, I've never liked the indie pop rock type covers that we play and brides / grooms / wedding guests annoy me more and more as time goes by. I do it because £400 for hanging out with my mates is better than sitting on the sofa. I have young kids so my wife and i wouldn't otherwise be going out on a Saturday night. The money pays for nice family holidays etc. I earn well enough away from music that I don't have to do it and im not playing in pubs which i have absolutelyno desire to do. I have other musical projects ongoing that I really love but thankfully they're not week in week out type things as there's no real money in it and I just want that to be for fun.

[Phil Starr]

11 hours ago, EBS_freak said:

 

I think the golden era of making a living via being in a function band is well and truly over. Or maybe it's just cos I got sick of it all... Dunno. But it was definitely getting less enjoyable every gig I did.

 

9 hours ago, mrtcat said:

It's very rare that I really enjoy the playing side of it these days.I do it because £400 for hanging out with my mates is better than sitting on the sofa.

I've never aspired to function band work. I've probably not got the skill set anyway. The only functions I've done have been for friends who know what we do and are happy with our normal set. I've never seen the attraction of weddings. There's often a lot of travelling involved. There's usually lots of restrictions about setting up and knocking down at the end so it tends to be a very long day. The band is inevitably a bit of a side show, you work hard to fill the dance floor and then someone has to make a speech or there is a cake to be cut or whatever and you have to go again. They can be fun but more are just a chore, you aren't really encouraging me to start looking for weddings now

 

[Al Krow]

5 hours ago, Phil Starr said:

 

I've never aspired to function band work. I've probably not got the skill set anyway. The only functions I've done have been for friends who know what we do and are happy with our normal set. I've never seen the attraction of weddings. There's often a lot of travelling involved. There's usually lots of restrictions about setting up and knocking down at the end so it tends to be a very long day. The band is inevitably a bit of a side show, you work hard to fill the dance floor and then someone has to make a speech or there is a cake to be cut or whatever and you have to go again. They can be fun but more are just a chore, you aren't really encouraging me to start looking for weddings now

 

 

Haha, allow me to put the counter! Being invited to play at someone's wedding is a real privilege and can be a huge amount of fun! The guests are there to have a great time, all you need to do is play your part and it can be an absolute blast! And, nope, I don't agree that a function band is just a pub band in a different better-paid setting, well not the better more successful function bands anyway. One of the things that disheartened me most initially was taking our material and approach that worked really well at pubs and finding that it fell flat at functions.

 

Personally I think if you're looking to get into function work you need to step up from a hobby / "bit of fun" mindset, which you can get away with as a pub band, to looking to be a more professional / slick / tightly performing set up. Sure, it will usually mean arriving earlier than you would need to for a pub gig, and we're also prepared to travel quite a bit further for functions than for pub gigs as they will pay 2 to 3 times as much as a typical pub gig - the £400 each / function gig figure @mrtcat shared is very decent indeed, fwiw we're typically on less than that for most of our function gigs.

 

Edited Sunday at 15:11 by Al Krow

[Chienmortbb]

On 16/08/2025 at 08:55, mrtcat said:

noise pollution

Can we ban this term? Rock n Roll ain't noise pollution.

[Phil Starr]

Hi Al, I don't really disagree, I think both things can be true at the same time. Let's face it the band really isn't the main event at a wedding  It is a privilege to play and for the couple it is a one off event they can never get back. For the band it is just one event amongst many. but it is a huge responsibility to make it work. The audience generally just want to have a good time and are pretty much always on your side so there are lots of positives. The money is nice and when you are paid that much you expect your client to call the tunes. I admire the musicians who go this route, it is more demanding than the pub gig. For me though it's not something I'd actively go out and look for.

 

 

 

[Stub Mandrel]

To me, weddings and functions is what you do for moneyn there's so much extra responsibility and hassle. Pub/club gigs are what you do for love of playing. 

[Woodinblack]

10 hours ago, Al Krow said:

Haha, allow me to put the counter! Being invited to play at someone's wedding is a real privilege and can be a huge amount of fun! The guests are there to have a great time, all you need to do is play your part and it can be an absolute blast! And, nope, I don't agree that a function band is just a pub band in a different better-paid setting, well not the better more successful function bands anyway. One of the things that disheartened me most initially was taking our material and approach that worked really well at pubs and finding that it fell flat at functions.

 

Well, I can be the counter counter!

We are a pub cover band, but regardless to that we do get asked to play peoples weddings. we are not a function band and not 'professional' in the function band sense, but we are professional in the 'turn up and play what people want' way. We have played a fair few weddings, 2 in the last couple of months, we charge a fraction of what others charge, so more the £200 each than the £400 each you are talking about, but people have always seemed happy and we have had nice messages after the weddings. 

The common thing in all the weddings is that we have been specifically asked by people who have seen us, so there is no surprise, we aren't advertising ourselves as a wedding band but if people want us, we are happy to do it, and they know what they are going to get.

[Al Krow]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Well, I can be the counter counter!

We are a pub cover band, but regardless to that we do get asked to play peoples weddings. we are not a function band and not 'professional' in the function band sense, but we are professional in the 'turn up and play what people want' way. We have played a fair few weddings, 2 in the last couple of months, we charge a fraction of what others charge, so more the £200 each than the £400 each you are talking about, but people have always seemed happy and we have had nice messages after the weddings. 

The common thing in all the weddings is that we have been specifically asked by people who have seen us, so there is no surprise, we aren't advertising ourselves as a wedding band but if people want us, we are happy to do it, and they know what they are going to get.

 

Nothing there I disagree with Woody! My key "counter" point was that playing weddings can be a lot of fun...the thrust of the earlier posts was that they are a chore and done mainly for money, which was putting the likes of Phil off.

 

(And if you re-read my post I was saying our figures per head, like your band, are also below £400 each).

 

We do plenty of pub gigs too!

Edited Sunday at 23:38 by Al Krow

[tauzero]

21 hours ago, Al Krow said:

Nothing there I disagree with Woody! My key "counter" point was that playing weddings can be a lot of fun...the thrust of the earlier posts was that they are a chore and done mainly for money, which was putting the likes of Phil off.

 

I've only done a couple of weddings with what were normally pub bands, and they were for friends of band members and were OK. However, I did a few with the ceilidh band and they were very hit and miss, sometimes waiting for ages to set up because we were going to be playing in the room that the speeches were being done in, sometimes having to cope with extremely drunk dancers. 

[casapete]

10 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

However, I did a few with the ceilidh band and they were very hit and miss, sometimes waiting for ages to set up because we were going to be playing in the room that the speeches were being done in, sometimes having to cope with extremely drunk dancers. 

That’s just two reasons why wedding bands get paid more money than pub bands though?

 

I spent around 15 years in a pro function band and played probably thousands of weddings in that time.

My band would usually play 4 sets throughout the day, starting with a walkabout jazz set when guests

arrived, then some cool stuff during the wedding breakfast, followed by two evening sets to get them

all dancing. This would mean we’d often have to arrive around noon / early afternoon and finish maybe

12 hours later. All this after maybe a 2 or 3 hour drive to the venue. Factor in hotel managers who saw

the band as an annoyance / wedding planners who had no idea how long it took for an 8 piece band

to set up / learning first dance tunes for the bride and groom / drunk guests etc etc, then it made the 

difference between us and pub bands very apparent.

 

In the mid / late 90’s we would get £250 /£300 each, often more for longer sets / far away gigs etc.

We certainly earned it , and could see why pub bands wanted to get in on the action. They would seem

financially more attractive, undercutting us by a large margin etc. and we did lose some of the lower

end of our business to them.  However by then our reputation had grown so the bulk of our work

remained intact. Scroll on a few years though as finances got squeezed everywhere , pub bands

benefitted from this and pure function bands started to suffer. Our band’s work got hit quite badly,

so I eventually jumped ship into the rising tribute / theatre band world, and never regretted it.

2 x 1 hour sets, my own dressing room, no lugging gear into damp marquees, start playing 7.30pm

and done by 10pm, pro sound engineers / PA, what’s not to like….😁

 

[Chienmortbb]

16 minutes ago, casapete said:

Scroll on a few years though as finances got squeezed everywhere , pub bands

benefitted from this and pure function bands started to suffer.

I wonder whether the “professional karaoke” singers are now doing the same to pub bands. Play in clubs and pubs where bands, trios and above, are featured once a month with the other 3/4 Saturdays being “solo singers”. 
 

it may also add to the death of good singers in bands these days. Why work with  a bunch of musicians who steal your fee? Backing tracks don’t need weeks to learn a new song, don’t fall out and do not want a say in the set list. 

 

They charge £125-150 and we, as a four piece, struggle to get £300 between us. However that £150 difference is a lot of wet stock to sell for the landlord. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Chienmortbb

[Al Krow]

25 minutes ago, Chienmortbb said:

However that £150 difference is a lot of wet stock to sell for the landlord. 

 

It's about £215 extra booze at typical 70% wet margins.

 

Personally I'd go see a decent live band over a solo act + backing tracks, every time!

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Al Krow