#1
Over the past month or two my band have accumulated some money from gigs and such. Overall theres about £400, which isnt much, but to us it's important knowing that we have that should we want to record, or it could contribute to a short tour or even just to cover the use of a practice room. Regardless... it was always intended to be put back into the band, as opposed to being split equally between us.

Untill yesterday.. OUr singer (typical singers eh?) demanded his share as hes skint at the minute and struggling to pay some bills. He didnt say hed return the money and when we refused to give him his money he got pretty agressive about it, not violent but.

Given that he didnt say hed return the money.. and that he proposed splitting all the money, rather than just taking his share then returning it when he could (which, again is not something I like the idea of) do you guys think we were unreasonable to refuse his request. Sure, we should help out a friend, but his attitude did him no favours, no garauntee of getting the money back and the fact that allowing it sets a precedent.. if one person takes money, somebody else will follow suit and it quickly gets ot of hand.

He has since decided to 'end the band' rather than just leave it. And its going to get messy. I dont think we were out of order refusing him, given the circumstances. He, naturally feels pretty different about it. Ironically ending the band would mean splitting the money, so maybe hes only doing it to get the money.

Any thoughts? Are myself and the other members of the band being unfair?
#2
its tricky handling money
i found the best way to do it is like this
if there are four people in the band split it fiveways
so if you make 100 bucks from a gig
everyone gets 20 and then you deposit 20 into "band" funds.

i feel your singer did deserve the money since he technically earned it too. I dont see what the big deal is of lending him his own money when hes in need for it
#5
mainly owing to the fact that he's always skint, and the chances of us ever getting it back are slim to none. I do think that way youre suggesting is a good idea, but we need more money to be going into the band fund regularly, and we dont want a 'wage' as such.
I understand that as a member of the band hes entitled to a cut, of course he is. But his attitude of basically demanding the money, then throwing the toys out of the pram didnt persuade us in any way to make an exception.
Put it this way, if i was stupid enough to ask for the money, i would expect to be told to get lost on no uncertain terms. The mney was agreeed to be for band use only, and it wasnt to be dipped into or split for anything non-band related.
#6
I believe the 5 ways deal is the bast way to go. Persuade those that are not really bothered about money to put their share into the 'band bank' so you can buy gear etc. and make a better band. Perhaps prioritise buying for the ones that are willing to share with the band.
#7
Well... a few things here....

If he quits, who is to say that the rest of the band can't just find a singer and continue on without him?

I think you were right in having an agreement beforehand about how the money would be dealt with. That's smart. It's extra smart that you had all agreed to sink it back into the band.

Let's look at that for a sec. If your singer is having money issues, by putting money earned by the band into an account for band use, you will have money - as you said - for recording, rehearsal space, etc. If you do NOT put money into a fund, then you all have to dig into your own pockets when it comes time to do that. That puts a financial burden on your singer. What if he can't afford it? THEN watch the arguments start!

I also agree that, if one person is drawing money for personal purposes, the other members of the band should be entitled (assuming equal contribution) to draw the same money for their personal use. Yeah, before long.... bye-bye band fund. Not that you should never do that. It's nice to get paid now and again, but you need to be diligent.

Where is the money? If this sort of thing is going to be a potential issue, maybe put it into one of those accounts that requires a certain number of signatures on a cheque before the bank will release the funds. That way, he can demand all day long, but if the majority of you refuse to sign a cheque, he's out of luck. It does become a band decision.

Now, if he does quit, he IS entitled to what he contributed. This would, presumably, be his 20-25% - depending on whether you are a 4-piece or a 5-piece band. You are obliged to do that. It's his. Now, if he takes his money and later wants back in, that will need to be looked at.

When the new singer comes in - even if it is the old singer returning - is this new person an automatic equal member when it comes to access to the existing band assets? Let's say you take on a new singer, and a week later, the band breaks up. Does the new guy take as much of the band money as the rest of you? Or do you agree on a time frame, at which point he becomes an equal member? Or do you each split up the existing assets before taking on the new singer, and start again from zero, as if it were a new band? Lots to think about there.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#8
Quote by Vitor_vdp
Seems like you messed it up. So he's struggling with bills, and you won't give him the money that he worked for?

Think about that...



Fair point, and its not somthing that we intended to do. We thought hed understand that we agreed not to split band money for reasons like this.

He didnt help his case by spending the last 2 nights out drinking (last night in the bar I work in). If hes so skint surely he shouldnt be out wasting money like that, then coming to us for band money?
#9
Okay, it should also be agreed upon before hand (and it sounds like it was) whether people are going to be depending on the band for income. That should even factor into things before you even select members. Having some people that rely on the band for income and others who want to reinvest entirely back into the band leads to exactly this.

About having a "phantom sixth member" called a band fund is kinda pointless. Let's say you make $180 and split the money six ways instead of five. Each member either takes home $36 with no money to the band fund, or each member takes home $30, with the band fund getting the extra $30. Fine, nobody is really going to miss the extra $6, but you're going to have to play quite a few gigs before that $30 really adds up to anything worthwhile. Let's see... duplicating 500 CDs would mean playing about 30 gigs. If you're playing twice a month, it's going to take you over a year just to save up for the duplication!

Having an agreement where all the money goes back into the band, playing twice a month at the same rate would mean that your duplication is covered in a little over 2 months! NOW you're getting somewhere!

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#10
Great breakdown CT.
That was why we agreed on a band fund. Pulling 200quid for recording every now and again was becoming a problem when money wasnt being reinvested in the band. So band funds were put back into the band, its a sensible decision.
The money isnt in an account as such... our manager has it. And I think it's good that a totally neutral party has the money. so while the cheque signature idea is good, its not applicable here.

As for new members. Due to the singer writing a huge portion of the lyrics, i doubt hed be happy with us continuing with his stuff. It wont come to that. I think were more likely to disband and myself and the drummer may try to start something else, but its not at that stage just yet.

Yes, if he does quit he will certainly be given his share of the money. Which i think is part of his motivation for quitting.

And just to add.. being singer he doesnt have to buy strings, guitars, leads, pedals, cymbals, drum skins.. the list goes on. All these come out of the other members' pockets, not out of the band fund. However, this has never been a problem, and none of us have ever complained as its trivial. So if we were to be bitchy about it... we should be due money fr those costs. But it wont get to that.
Last edited by gibbfg at May 30, 2010,
#11
If you have a neutral third party who controls the money, that's really just as good. For my original band, I held the money in a separate account under my name, but the members trusted me enough that I was just as reliable as any other neutral third party. It's whatever works for you.

As far as him writing significant portions of the songs.... that might be significant. He can NOT stop you from playing his songs live any more than Robert Plant can stop you from playing Led Zeppelin tunes live. He doesn't like it? Too bad. However, he CAN stop you from recording them, or can allow you to record them on the condition that you pay licencing fees. If they have already been recorded and you are already selling them, he is entitled to income from the sales, but cannot stop you from continuing to sell them. Once permission is granted, it cannot be revoked on a whim.

I was just suggesting that, unless he has registered the band name as a business under his name only (which would mean he owns the name), then he cannot stop you from continuing on without him. David Lee Roth was probably not thrilled that the rest of the guys in VH continued on without him, but whoever registers the name gets to keep it. This is why it is usually advisable to register the name of the band as a business with all members, which would require a majority to approve it's continued use.... or to approve it's demise.

One band I know of had their manager register the name and the logo. They went on to sell probably a few million copies of their albums around the world - going gold and platinum in various countries. When they parted ways with their manager, they had to negotiate the right to continue using the band name. That went fine, but it took a few years before they were allowed to continue using the logo.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#12
Well we're nowhere near as professional as that, but it is interesting, and for sure helpful. Thanks.
The band isnt registered at all, some songs have been recorded and have been credited undiplomatically on EP covers and such.. with myself, bassist and drummer not credited and the singer and 2nd guitarist (who in fairness contribute the most, but far from 100%) are given full mention.
I'd say if this isnt resolved the band could split up, but we;re starting to get a bit of a reputation and it'd be a pity. BUt its becoming more dramatic than its worth.
#14
Quote by gibbfg
I'd say if this isnt resolved the band could split up, but we;re starting to get a bit of a reputation and it'd be a pity. BUt its becoming more dramatic than its worth.
There are worse things than a band breaking up. Trying to work with uncooperative people, to name one.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#15
I don't think that the singer has a rightful place to drag his personal financial worries into the realm of the band. It was previously agreed between all of you that the purpose of the money was for the band. As Axeman says, by leaving he can get his entitlement, but that's the only situation where I can see that happening.

He'd receive 80 pounds to cover whatever he has going - doesn't he have a job?
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#16
With my band...we split it up after gigs, but thats mainly because we're younger and I'm the only person in the band with an alternate source of income.

But, we are booking a studio for a one or two song recording and when the latest gig was coming up we decided to put the studio money on the side and just split the rest so that we arent scrambling to put togethre money in the future.

The drummer has to make car payments, etc. And can't get any money because he has to stay at his house and make sure his siblings don't burn it down so, with this understood, we know he needs to get his share.

Basically, just know if youre bandmates NEED that money or if it can be used to further the band.
Hey!Everyone!
Come and See how good I look!



You Stay Classy, Ultimate Guitar
#17
Quote by mr gOiD
The drummer has to make car payments, etc. And can't get any money because he has to stay at his house and make sure his siblings don't burn it down so, with this understood, we know he needs to get his share.


Although off topic, consider the implications of this statement. This person doesn't have a job, yet still has put themselves in a position to be in debt due to their car. Then they claim they can't get a job because they're afraid the house will burn down. Sounds like just a slacker to me.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#18


Although off topic, consider the implications of this statement. This person doesn't have a job, yet still has put themselves in a position to be in debt due to their car. Then they claim they can't get a job because they're afraid the house will burn down. Sounds like just a slacker to me.


Why can't he consider the band his job?

The agreement this band seems to have, which seems reasonable, is that gig money goes towards paying the members, deducting any immediate expenses the band will need to pay to do well, such as studio time.

If you're all treating the band as a pathway to stardom, which you want to make as big and popular and famous as you can, then re-investing money earned is generally a good idea. If you're just seeking to make money from gigs for yourself, then dividing it between the band members most of the time is pretty much what you should be doing.

You can treat your band as a hobby, a job, or a career, and it's only the first and last options that should require you to be making financial sacrifices to keep doing it.
#19
He can't consider it a job because it only makes (assuming a 5-piece band) 20 pounds a week.

Quote by gibbfg
Over the past month or two my band have accumulated some money from gigs and such. Overall theres about £400, which isnt much,


Otherwise, I agree with your post.

I had the same thought as Alan about the car payment thing.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#20
Quote by BlitzkriegAir
its tricky handling money
i found the best way to do it is like this
if there are four people in the band split it fiveways
so if you make 100 bucks from a gig
everyone gets 20 and then you deposit 20 into "band" funds.

i feel your singer did deserve the money since he technically earned it too. I dont see what the big deal is of lending him his own money when hes in need for it



I agree with this. Some money should be allocated to the band fund and the rest should be split. I can see wanting to use some of the money you worked hard for the way you want to use it. There are always exceptions to the rule too.
#21
Quote by Samzawadi
Why can't he consider the band his job?


Well, a job, by nature, give a reliable, constant flow of income. A job will constantly pay you as long as you put effort in.

A band however, is more like a form of gambling, but with less financial pay offs. You have to invest time and money, and rarely receive financial benefits from it at all. If you weighed up how much money you have invested into a band, including gear, transport, studio costs and your own time, then compared it to how much money you have made off the band, you'll realise that you're probably in debt.

Why do most gigging musicians have day jobs? Because they need money to play in bands.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#22
Quote by BlitzkriegAir
its tricky handling money
i found the best way to do it is like this
if there are four people in the band split it fiveways
so if you make 100 bucks from a gig
everyone gets 20 and then you deposit 20 into "band" funds.

i feel your singer did deserve the money since he technically earned it too. I dont see what the big deal is of lending him his own money when hes in need for it

this sounds like it would work
Quote by asator
YOU'RE A CUNT AND STUFF LESPAUL1216.


It's okay because whatever, forever
#23


Well, a job, by nature, give a reliable, constant flow of income. A job will constantly pay you as long as you put effort in.


Except for all those jobs which pay on commission or where you're self-employed. I do take your point, but saying that it can't be a legitimate way of earning money where the income stream is unreliable isn't entirely accurate.

The point made above about it only paying £20/week is valid, but I've had part-time jobs that gave me about that much a week.


A band however, is more like a form of gambling, but with less financial pay offs. You have to invest time and money, and rarely receive financial benefits from it at all. If you weighed up how much money you have invested into a band, including gear, transport, studio costs and your own time, then compared it to how much money you have made off the band, you'll realise that you're probably in debt.

Why do most gigging musicians have day jobs? Because they need money to play in bands.


Firstly, your gear's more of an investment, as opposed to a specific cost that you will need to pay every time you play in a different band.

Secondly, it does seem to be being suggested here that if you play in a band, you're supposed to invest in it, rather than it paying you. Many of us have that attitude towards our own bands and our own careers, but it's hardly something to force on everyone as a condition for playing music.
#24
Quote by gibbfg
Over the past month or two my band have accumulated some money from gigs and such. Overall theres about £400, which isnt much, but to us it's important knowing that we have that should we want to record, or it could contribute to a short tour or even just to cover the use of a practice room. Regardless... it was always intended to be put back into the band, as opposed to being split equally between us.

Untill yesterday.. OUr singer (typical singers eh?) demanded his share as hes skint at the minute and struggling to pay some bills. He didnt say hed return the money and when we refused to give him his money he got pretty agressive about it, not violent but.

Given that he didnt say hed return the money.. and that he proposed splitting all the money, rather than just taking his share then returning it when he could (which, again is not something I like the idea of) do you guys think we were unreasonable to refuse his request. Sure, we should help out a friend, but his attitude did him no favours, no garauntee of getting the money back and the fact that allowing it sets a precedent.. if one person takes money, somebody else will follow suit and it quickly gets ot of hand.

He has since decided to 'end the band' rather than just leave it. And its going to get messy. I dont think we were out of order refusing him, given the circumstances. He, naturally feels pretty different about it. Ironically ending the band would mean splitting the money, so maybe hes only doing it to get the money.

Any thoughts? Are myself and the other members of the band being unfair?


No I don't think you're being unfair at all, after all what is the 'purpose' of the band's fund? Obviously to pay for band related stuff such as recording sessions ect as you said. It's purpose is not as a personal savings account that can and should be dipped into whenever someone could do with a bit of ready cash to pay some bills with,... tempting as it may be to use it for such purposes. But we all know that's just a slippery slope that leads to the cash being spent and the band being skint.

Since he's decided to leave, (he cannot decide to 'split' the band because there's not a damn thing he can do to stop the rest of you continuing to play together. If he 'owns' the name, it's simply a case of picking a new name and possibly advertising yourselves as 'formerly...ect' for a while, if he owns the songs, so what? Write new songs.) I suggest you give him his share of investment, wish him well and look for a replacement.
But that could bring another little problem with it, should someone just entering an already established band with an already established band fund be paying a certain amount of money into that fund, so that each current member has payed in an equal amount?

I don't think it's essential, although it may be a good idea if the person can easily afford to do so, but I think it's more important to concentrate on getting the right member for the band based on merit and the right attitude rather than personal finances.
#25
Quote by Samzawadi
Except for all those jobs which pay on commission or where you're self-employed. I do take your point, but saying that it can't be a legitimate way of earning money where the income stream is unreliable isn't entirely accurate.

The point made above about it only paying £20/week is valid, but I've had part-time jobs that gave me about that much a week.

Firstly, your gear's more of an investment, as opposed to a specific cost that you will need to pay every time you play in a different band.

Secondly, it does seem to be being suggested here that if you play in a band, you're supposed to invest in it, rather than it paying you. Many of us have that attitude towards our own bands and our own careers, but it's hardly something to force on everyone as a condition for playing music.


I think trying to argue that your average band is the artist's job may be pointless if we're going to go into the technicalities of what a job means and consists of.

So I'll shift my argument to "relying upon a band for your primary source of income is extremely foolish".
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#26

I think trying to argue that your average band is the artist's job may be pointless if we're going to go into the technicalities of what a job means and consists of.

So I'll shift my argument to "relying upon a band for your primary source of income is extremely foolish".


Yeah, sure. But that doesn't mean 'you can't expect it to pay out when it makes money'. Particularly when you contributed to it making money, and you have none for yourself right now.

I'm not suggesting TS's singer shouldn't have another job, or that you shouldn't pay money made into a band fund in most situations, or indeed that he's not being an asshole for quitting over £100. But if I was struggling to eat or pay rent, I'd hope that money I helped earn might be available on this occasion.
#27
Quote by Samzawadi
Yeah, sure. But that doesn't mean 'you can't expect it to pay out when it makes money'. Particularly when you contributed to it making money, and you have none for yourself right now.

I'm not suggesting TS's singer shouldn't have another job, or that you shouldn't pay money made into a band fund in most situations, or indeed that he's not being an asshole for quitting over £100. But if I was struggling to eat or pay rent, I'd hope that money I helped earn might be available on this occasion.


I was actually making a statement about the band member who didn't get a job because he didn't want to leave his siblings at home while racking up a car debt.

The singer is a different issue, I don't know if he has another job or not. The money was invested in the band to be used for band purposes.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud