#1
When starting to build a PA system for yourself or your band, the most important thing to have in mind is what you actually need. Do not start a thread asking what you need. We, the people, do not know. Only you can.

Ask yourself the following questions:
How much money can you spend on this band while remaining fiscally responsible? Is the band going to break up and leave you with expensive, useless equipment? If your band hasn't been around very long, or is composed of "poor" members, then you may want to think twice about investing $4,000 into a system.

Are you going to rely on this PA system for gigging, or only rehearsing? Think of the venues that you'll be playing at. Most of them have PA systems. But are you going to be playing any parties or barbeques, etc? If you need to use your PA system in these places, you want it loud enough, but portability also becomes an issue.

Are other bands going to be using this PA system? Do you need to accomodate bands that are larger and more complex than you are? Will you be renting this PA system out to places where you are not playing?

Are you competent enough to operate a PA system? Will you be breaking a complex and expensive peice of equipment? Should you go for ease of use?

Where will this PA system be stored? Where will it be used? A PA for vocals in a small room may actually need to be louder because of how close all the other amps and drumset are. On the other hand, if you practice or gig on huge stages, monitoring systems become more important. You also must have a place to store the system.

And finally, the question a lot of people are unsure about. How loud, or how powerful, does this PA system need to be? You should always go for more power than you need, obviously, but let's say for rehearsal you need 300 watts. The power requirements of gigs vary widely, so I'll skip that here.
Last edited by Spazz128735 at May 19, 2008,
#2
Components

Mics: You know what these are. Moving on.

Mixer: This will serve as a preamp for all of your microphones. It will also take all of the signals from these mics, any keyboards, perhaps bass and guitar, cd players, ipods, etc. and route them to various places. With a mixer, you can send all your vocals to your monitors, send everything at various volumes to your main speakers, mute everything to play some music from a CD, and many other things.

They look kind of scary, but most of the knobs are the same thing, only repeated for every channel.

Equalizer(graphic): useful for reducing feedback, correcting the "tone" of your speakers, etc. A giant, really specific tone control.

Compressor: This quiets down really loud signals, so that you can raise the lower signals in volume. Useful for making vocals louder and more intelligible, as well as protecting your speakers. A Limiter is just a really extreme compressor.

Gate: Mutes signals that are under a certain volume. Useful for getting rid of minor feedback "ringing," and making sure you don't pick up your drummer farting inbetween songs.

Power amp: Goes inbetween your mixer and your speakers. You probably know what this does. Never turn it on without the speakers connected.

Speakers: Mains are the big ones pointing at the (lack of?) crowd. Monitors are the ones pointing at the musicians so you can hear yourself.

CHOOSING


The hardest thing for most people is setting up the relationship between your power amp and the speakers it will be driving. There is a lot of good literature on this on the internet and in the manuals for this gear, but let me put it simply. Get a power amp that can put out the "peak" rating of your speakers, and NEVER TURN IT UP all the way. RMS ratings are "average" and tells you how much wattage you could constantly pump into the speakers, never doing any damage. It is okay to go above this.

RMS and Peak ratings are given for each load the amp can drive. Only look at the rating for the amount of ohms that your speakers are (assuming you are not wiring anything in series or parallel, which I won't get into here).

Choosing a mixer. Get the biggest one (most channels) you can afford. You WILL find more uses for the channels than you have now. Every person in the band will want a vocal mic for singing or speaking between songs, the bass drum will eventually be mic'd, the guitar amps will be mic'd, the bass player will have his amp mic'd and be DI'd, the singer will have a pedal he wants to run in parallel to his dry voice, etc. Trust me and get a nice big one with a lot of mic pres on it.

You also want to look for routing options. Having a few output busses will allow you to send certain things to subwoofers or onstage monitors if and when you expand.

Choosing mics. Pay attention to the polar pattern of the mics, above everything else at this point. Hypercardioid mics are sometimes difficult for people to sing into if they move around, because you have to be almost PERFECTLY on-axis to the mic. Also, if you choose a hypercardioid, be aware that it picks up sound directly behind it as well as infront of it, so place your monitors to either side.

As a side note, buy sm-57s and sm-58s. They are great microphones, they are indistructable, and they retain a lot of their value. You can sell them for $60-$70 on ebay if and when you can out of the music business.

FISCAL TIPS
Buying this crap is expensive. You might be tempted to split the cost of that $500 power amp between your bandmates and you. Don't do it. Make sure that every component has a definate owner. Maybe your bassist owns all the speakers, and your singer owns all the mics and stands, and the guitarist owns the mixer. That's cool. Your band will break up one day, and when that day comes you don't want to be arguing over who gets what.

Buying things in steps can be extrememly useful. Try to buy things that will remain useful. Rather than buying really cheap things, then moderately good things, then really good things, buy the best you can afford at all times. For your first go around, buy speakers with enclosures that enable them to be used both as mains and as monitors. That way, when you buy better, bigger speakers, the old ones retain use as your monitors.

Band Money
You will find throughout your adventures that band members will have to contribute money that they earned independantly to the band. This money, after being donated, should not be considered "theirs." Make sure this is clear to yourself and your bandmates. If one of you contributes $20 willingly to a T-shirt printing fund, it does not mean they neccesarily get that $20 back after the T-shirts are sold.

I also try to maintain that all "band earned" money is divied up equally between the band members. This includes ticket sales, gig money, t-shirt and merchandise sales, etc. I suggest this to reduce competition between band members, among other things. Using ticket sales as an example; You and your band members are selling tickets primarily through your high school. You have many shared aquaintances. If band members made money only for the tickets they sold, you would be competing against each other to sell to these common friends. You might actually sell fewer tickets because you are worried about getting the easy dollar before your friends do. You might actually do things like stake out "territory" that only you can sell it.

If the money is divied up communism style, there is no destructive competition between the suppliers of tickets.
Last edited by Spazz128735 at May 19, 2008,
#5
Quote by Spazz128735


FISCAL TIPS
Buying this crap is expensive. You might be tempted to split the cost of that $500 power amp between your bandmates and you. Don't do it. Make sure that every component has a definate owner. Maybe your bassist owns all the speakers, and your singer owns all the mics and stands, and the guitarist owns the mixer. That's cool. Your band will break up one day, and when that day comes you don't want to be arguing over who gets what.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I have to disagree there. When everyone in the band simply has an equal share in the PA system, it's makes it much easier after a band split than relying on people owning different components. That way, you just end up with people both claiming to own the same speakers or amps or the PA split will be very unequal or one sided.
This would probably be fine if the PA was actualy built by people who just happened to have different components like amps and speakers that were compatible with each other. But that's not how a decent PA is usualy put together.
To start with, it's easier to buy the PA equally as a group in the first place. The band makes money by playing gigs, selling CDs, T shirts, ect. The money gets put to one side and saved up, the band eventualy uses this money to buy a PA system.
When the band splits, the PA system is sold as an entire system and the band simply splits the money equally between it's members.
What could be an easier way to do it?

Or even better, the band may have split, but you still have a perfectly good working PA that can be used as a source of income. So hire it out.
Let's say there were 4 of you in the band and you're hiring out your PA system for £100 a time. One person accompanies the PA to whatever venue it's being hired out to, to make sure it's being used correctly or even to operate it themselves.
That person get's a bigger percentage of the £100 than the rest of the band because it's his work that is making money for the band. So let's say that the person who accompanies the PA get's £40 and everyone else in the band get's £30 each.
But rather than just splitting the money after each PA hire job, it's better to put it all into an account where it builds up over time, and once a year, everyone who owns an equal percentage of that PA gets a nice, big, fat payout.
It's even easier to simply employ someone to operate the PA for you rather than having a band member doing it whenever it's hired out, this way, the band all get an equal share and it gives your ex roadies a piece of the pie too.
Of course some sort of note needs to be made of who accompanied the PA to whatever job and how much the band was paid. Otherwise known as 'accounts.'
Putting money to one side in this manner also ensures that there is always a fund that can be used whenever any repairs need to be carried out on the PA or if anything needs replacing.
This all also means that as you all move on and put your own new bands together, you will each still have access to a good working PA system. Which as part owners of the PA, should mean that you get to use it for free. As long as you keep a diary for the PA with a 'first come, first serve' basis in place ie, you get a gig, you check the PA diary, as long as the date is free, you get to use the PA, if someone else has already booked it, then you have to hire another PA. It may seem harsh but it's the fairest way to do it.
So, you may not be in a band together anymore, but what's to stop you remaining business partners?
My own band did this when we decided to split a while ago. We'd actualy split because of silly arguments that happen when you're all living in a van together touring all over the place every day. But keeping the PA together and hiring it out in this way kept us all in touch with each other, we became more relaxed with each other and the band eventualy got back together again 12 months later with all our gear, PA and stage show still intact ready for our return to the gigging scene.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at May 19, 2008,
#6
In Response to Slacker Babbath.

When a band breaks up or a member is kicked out, it is often not friendly. Also, it often happens that some or all of the members will go on to join or create other bands. Taking this into account:

My method: a bandmate has bought a power amp. He gets that power amp back after the break up, and can sell it, using HIS OWN marketing and barganing skills, using whatever method he wants. He can also use this power amp in a PA in his next band. He can also sell it to other members of the band he was previously in. He gets exactly what he paid for, with no bank accounts, percentages, or math to do. Members do not argue over what they get, because they have all paid for each component they own in it's entirety.

Your method: a bandmate has paid 25% of a power amp's cost. He waits after the breakup until it is sold by committe or by one of the other members. He relies on the member selling it to get decent money for it. As the power amp is used, they get much less for it than they gave. The bandmate gets his 25% of let's say 80% return from the sale. Instead of a working poweramp, he now has one fifth of what would be needed to buy one and start his own PA system. Arguements could also arise if the percentages were not always 25-25-25-25, as they rarely would be. Some members might claim that they paid the vast majority of money for that microphone, and they don't want to sell it, so tough. You also assume here that the breakup will be friendly and that you will be able to stand speaking to the previous members of the band.

You also involve bank accounts and possibly other people, reducing the amount of return on the initial investment.

The best of all cases would be one in which one members owns the majority of the PA, and after the breakup successfully buys the rest off of the members that decide to get out of the music industry. The losses of the exiting members are minimized, and the member that remains in the industry has a full-fledged working PA with which he can make a profit or join/start another gigging band.

To those reading this thread: I feel both I and Slacker Babbath have made good points about our respective views, and I encourage you to read through both viewpoints and choose the one that makes the most sense to you.

I am also going to edit in a section about what I consider "band earned money." Slacker Babbath had not read this portion before his post.

edit: on my second reading of your post, I also notice you refer to members getting paid based on extremely subjective things like who worked the hardest. That's kind of risky.
Last edited by Spazz128735 at May 19, 2008,
#7
i gotta agree and disagree with bith of you. i think that for a power amp, a mic or 2, amps or mixers one member shud buy it and be the "official" owner and for bigger things such as an entire PA or a drumm set the band can seel and split the cash or do what slacker sed: rentem out.

it really depends on the importance of the gear (ur not gna split the money of a smal 7 pound cable lol)
#8
I totaly agree if members of a band already have PA equipment before joining the band. It's their gear, they paid for it. they should keep it. But when it comes to a group paying for equipment for the group, it's hardly fair to have one member paying for it. Plus, if one guy owns most of the PA, with use, and wear and tear, (done by the rest of the guys in the band) the value of the PA is gonna depreciate and money will be lost. I think it's only fair that a band spreads the cost of this depreciation and the easiest way to do that is for each member to own the same percentage of the PA.

Quote by Spazz128735
In Response to Slacker Babbath.

When a band breaks up or a member is kicked out, it is often not friendly.

But that's the whole point, to realise that even though relations may be strained, business is business and we should all be grown up enough to realise that.
When a member simply leaves a band, it's even easier if the band all jointly own the PA, You simply get the PA priced up, find out what it would be worth if you were to sell it in it's current condition, then give whoever's leaving an equal share of that value in cash. In other words, the rest of the band buy him out of his share.
Quote by Spazz128735

Your method: a bandmate has paid 25% of a power amp's cost. He waits after the breakup until it is sold by committe or by one of the other members. He relies on the member selling it to get decent money for it. As the power amp is used, they get much less for it than they gave. The bandmate gets his 25% of let's say 80% return from the sale. Instead of a working poweramp, he now has one fifth of what would be needed to buy one and start his own PA system. Arguements could also arise if the percentages were not always 25-25-25-25, as they rarely would be. Some members might claim that they paid the vast majority of money for that microphone, and they don't want to sell it, so tough. You also assume here that the breakup will be friendly and that you will be able to stand speaking to the previous members of the band.

But you are still relying on one guy having enough cash to own most of the gear himself. Let's say someone does, when the band splits, what does everyone else get out of it?
Quote by Spazz128735

You also involve bank accounts and possibly other people, reducing the amount of return on the initial investment.

No one else need be involved, just have one member hold the cash or have a joint account at a bank.
Y'see, the whole point in being in a band in the first place is the camaraderie, you should have already made sure that everyone gets along OK and that everyone seems to be happy to be involved with the band for the long haul before you all enter into any financial agrements, and above all else, you should all trust one another.
Yes I know that sounds a bit naive, but think for a minute, why on earth would you be in a band with someone you didn't feel you could trust?
Quote by Spazz128735
The best of all cases would be one in which one members owns the majority of the PA, and after the breakup successfully buys the rest off of the members that decide to get out of the music industry. The losses of the exiting members are minimized, and the member that remains in the industry has a full-fledged working PA with which he can make a profit or join/start another gigging band.

So if someone leaves a band that also means they must be leaving the music industry too?
That's not usualy the case, more often than not, people leave bands and either join or form other bands. This method sounds more like setting one person up with all the equipment he'll ever need for a musical career rather than benefiting everyone in the band.
Quote by Spazz128735
To those reading this thread: I feel both I and Slacker Babbath have made good points about our respective views, and I encourage you to read through both viewpoints and choose the one that makes the most sense to you.

Much appreciated.
I feel that your way of doing it is fine for people just starting out and still finding their feet in the music scene, my way is more like how it tends to be done on a more professional level.
I do know that our drummer happened to have some spare cash on him when we started out, so he bought most of the PA system that we started out with, and he couldn't wait for us to each pay him a quarter (there are four of us) of what he paid out. But since then, the PA has had all new speakers fitted, new amps fitted, crossovers added, more amps added, more speakers added, mics, leads and mic stands added, monitors and the amplification for them added, a new multicore added.... and don't even get me started on the light show.
This all cost a hell of a lot of money and the only way we could afford to do it was to play as many gigs as possible for as much money as possible, give ourselves a small wage out of it and put the rest into a kitty to pay for it all. So we all have an equal share anyway because it was paid for out of money that we all equaly put in through our hard work.
Quote by Spazz128735

edit: on my second reading of your post, I also notice you refer to members getting paid based on extremely subjective things like who worked the hardest. That's kind of risky.

Imagine that you owned a share in the PA system, and the band was hiring it out for the night. Everyone else stays at home with their feet up while you, because it's your turn, go loading it all up into a van, driving it to it's destination, unloading it once you're there, setting it all up, making sure it all works, soundchecking it, staying all night to do the sound engineering and to make sure your PA isn't abused in any way, then stripping it all down again at whatever godforsaken hour of the morning it is, loading it back in the van, taking it back to wherever you store it, unloading it from the van again and packing it all away... as well as keeping an inventory of what went out and making sure it all comes back.
And you still think that everyone else should get an equal share of what money was made for the band that night?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at May 19, 2008,
#9
All quotes are Slacker Babbath.

You simply get the PA priced up, find out what it would be worth if you were to sell it in it's current condition, then give whoever's leaving an equal share of that value in cash. In other words, the rest of the band buy him out of his share.
This is no different from the people still in the band buying the gear the guy left with. In my scenario he has the option of keeping his share, selling it, trading it, or using it as bathroom tissue. In your case he gets his (depreciated) share of the PA, while the remaining members still get to use the functioning equipment. The guy leaving comes out behind.

Yes I know that sounds a bit naive, but think for a minute, why on earth would you be in a band with someone you didn't feel you could trust?
Why on earth would you be in a band that you knew was going to break up? Why would you enter a marriage that was going to end in divorce? You don't predict, you prepare.


But you are still relying on one guy having enough cash to own most of the gear himself. Let's say someone does, when the band splits, what does everyone else get out of it? ... So if someone leaves a band that also means they must be leaving the music industry too? That's not usualy the case, more often than not, people leave bands and either join or form other bands. This method sounds more like setting one person up with all the equipment he'll ever need for a musical career rather than benefiting everyone in the band.
I was simply proposing that as one possible instance. As I said, it is of course rare that everyone stops making music on the day they leave a particular band.

Imagine that you owned a share in the PA system, and the band was hiring it out for the night. Everyone else stays at home with their feet up while you, because it's your turn, [do everything]. And you still think that everyone else should get an equal share of what money was made for the band that night?
Not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if you are in the "work harder, get paid more" camp, who determines who works harder? If one of your buddies spent days on the phone getting that gig, and another member was the one who knew the person using the PA in the first place, which one worked the hardest ""? You also mention it being a turn-based thing. Assuming this is a long term thing, with many nights involved, would it not be fair for all members to get paid for every gig, if they are all playing an equal part in turns? Doing all the work one night is the same as a quarter of the work every night, more or less.

I think this basically boils down to: An actual PA component in your hand is worth more than the money you could sell it for. You take an oftentimes drastic loss in selling something old and used, and taking that money and buying something new. It is easier and cheaper to have 1/4th of a PA system and need to buy 3/4, than have 1/5 of the money needed, and need to come up with 4/5ths.

edit: one more point to consider. When purchasing with multiple persons' money, who decides what to buy? Doing anything by commitee is hard, but spending money is doubly so.
Last edited by Spazz128735 at May 19, 2008,
#10
It's great that SlackerBabbath showed another way to divide equipment. There is no "right" way to divide up equipment in bands.

In my band me and my friend (actually my best friend) first split buying a PA system and mics and stands, we also split buying a mixer. We agreed that when the band did split up we would either try to divide the equipment equally or pay for the other half. But even though I knew we needed the equipment for the band I didn't feel happy about buying it because I played drums and he was singing, so really all of the gear was for his use. When it came time for us both to go off to college, he asked if he could take the mixer and I would get the PA, even though the PA was more expensive, I could have gotten more use out of the mixer. So I feel as though I got the raw end of the deal, even though I received the more expensive item.

Now whenever I buy equipment I buy it myself and let my band mates use it. It feels better knowing that it is mine and I can do whatever I want with it.

So I'd want to agree with Spazz128735 it's a lot easier if there is definite ownership of the equipment. If I feel that I got an unfair deal and it was with my best friend, who I would have given all the equipment if he said he wanted it, I can't imagine how it would work out if all the band members were bitter towards each other after a bad breakup
#11
Quote by Spazz128735

This is no different from the people still in the band buying the gear the guy left with. In my scenario he has the option of keeping his share, selling it, trading it, or using it as bathroom tissue. In your case he gets his (depreciated) share of the PA, while the remaining members still get to use the functioning equipment. The guy leaving comes out behind.

But you're missing the point that the gear he's taking away was probably bought by the band to suit a particular setup. A PA after all is a piece of gear made up of lots of pieces of gear. If he leaves and takes his part of the PA with him, the band are only going to have to replace that gear anyway.
My way, you simply give the guy the money he's due. Everything depreciates so unless you wish to treat the guy to more than he's due, you give him the depreciated amount.
The guy leaving then comes out of the band with more than he had when he joined.
Let's say the band built up an 8K rig, even at a depreciated price, somewhere between £2000 and £4000 is pretty reasonable for a second hand 8K PA system.
That means the guy is leaving with somewhere between £500 and £1000.
Now, I know that if I was given a choice between a couple of speakers or an amp or a couple of mics or whatever gear that I would have to add more equipment to to get any effective use out of, or some cold hard cash, which I could go and buy a small but complete and perfectly servicable PA system, I know which I would choose.
Quote by Spazz128735

Why on earth would you be in a band that you knew was going to break up? Why would you enter a marriage that was going to end in divorce? You don't predict, you prepare.

That's my point entirely, if you were going out with a woman who you didn't trust, would you marry her?
If you were in a band with guys you didn't trust, would you enter into any financial arrangements with them?
You're right, you don't predict, but an educated guess is usualy involved somewhere.
Quote by Spazz128735

Not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if you are in the "work harder, get paid more" camp, who determines who works harder? If one of your buddies spent days on the phone getting that gig, and another member was the one who knew the person using the PA in the first place, which one worked the hardest ""? You also mention it being a turn-based thing. Assuming this is a long term thing, with many nights involved, would it not be fair for all members to get paid for every gig, if they are all playing an equal part in turns? Doing all the work one night is the same as a quarter of the work every night, more or less.

But what have you got to show for it? Hiring out a PA system is HARD WORK, and if you've just worked your ass off for the band by yourself and making that band money, you deserve to get paid for it. That's how it works in every other job or industry. Why should music be any different?

My own band do pay out regarding how much work we all do.
Our guitarist drives us everywhere so if we are on a long haul and he has to drive for most of the day, he get's a mileage allowance because the rest of us think that he deserves it and that it is only fair.
I generaly do all the ringing around, which costs money on my phone bill. I cirtainly expect the money I paid out ringing around on behalf of the band to be repayed, because I've got a family to support and limited finances. I may not ask to get paid for the hours I put in on the phone, but it's nice to know that the rest of the band respect me enough that if I were to ask for a little something for my time, I'd probably get it.

As for the turn based thing, the way we do it, it's not actualy a case of people taking equal turns, it's more based on who's available and who could really do with an earner at the time, f'rinstance, our bass player is a single dad with limited resorces. Doing a PA hire job to him means he can afford to spend a little more on his kid. So if he's skint, we generaly let him have the earner because we're nice guys and we look out for each other.
That's that camaraderie thing I was talking about earlier. A band should be like a family.

The monitary reward also acts pretty well as an incentive for all of our guys to want to do the work and at the same time, make money for the band. If it wasn't for that, no one would want to do it and arguments would ensue.
As it stands, we have no such problems and quite often all muck in anyway on a particularly big job.
Quote by Spazz128735

edit: one more point to consider. When purchasing with multiple persons' money, who decides what to buy? Doing anything by commitee is hard, but spending money is doubly so.

Ahh let me tell you the secret to doing things by commitee.
The secret is.... make sure the members of the commitee are all of a similar mind and would generaly agree on anything anyway.
Honestly, we really haven't had any problems deciding by commitee in all our 8 years as a Sabbath tribute and the many years (about 10) previous to that when me, the guitarist and the drummer were all in a three piece club band together called The Three Amigos.
Most of the time, when we spend money on PA equipment, it's out of necessity, such as replacing damaged or broken parts, so the decision to spend band money on it would seem obvious to everyone in the band. Money needs spending on it, so let's spend the money.
The only things of this nature that we ever disagree on are trivial stuff like how many small, medium or large T-shirts we should have printed and what colour/design are they going to be, but were all grown up enough to discuss stuff rationaly, take a vote on what we all want to do and get on with it. What is important is that everyone, even if they don't agree with the decision, is willing to go along with whatever we voted for, but to be honest, I can't recall us ever doing anything that we didn't all happen to agree on anyway.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at May 20, 2008,
#12
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Now, I know that if I was given a choice between a couple of speakers or an amp or a couple of mics or whatever gear that I would have to add more equipment to to get any effective use out of, or some cold hard cash, which I could go and buy a small but complete and perfectly servicable PA system, I know which I would choose.


With my scenario, you have that choice. With yours, you can ONLY have the money.
#13
Quote by Spazz128735
With my scenario, you have that choice. With yours, you can ONLY have the money.

Well.. not exactly y'see, because, even though we have this arrangement where everyone simply owns an equal financial stake in our PA system, my own band are quite flexible.
If I were to leave my band, I could probably take some of our beat up speaker cabs, or possibly an amp or two and some mics, or I could leave them where they are and continue pulling in a profit from the PA gear by keeping the PA hire business arrangement going even though I've left the band, or I could be bought out by the band and have enough money to buy my own small PA.
To be honest though, if I chose the first one, everyone else would think I'd lost my mind or something because I really would be taking the worst deal.
In my scenario, I have three choices, in yours I'd be left with some second hand, beat up and well gigged gear that would only be any use to me if I spent a lot of money buying more equipment (making sure that what I buy is compatable with what I already have) to go with it.
And what's more, that would put my mates that remain in the band in the position of having to replace the missing PA parts as well as the missing singer, so it would be bad for everyone, not just me.
#15
Quote by AwesomeDrummer
you guys are like the kings of 'wall of texts'.

Yeah, ain't keyboards brilliant.
If I had to write all this by hand with a pen, I probably wouldn't!
#16
I still don't think you get it: in my scenario you can still choose to do exactly what your scenario outlines, OR you can keep the item. We're just going back and forth at this point however, so I'm going to stop in the interest of having time to edit this.

I've sent messages to both mods of this forum to sticky, and haven't gotten replies yet.
#17
Quote by Spazz128735
I still don't think you get it: in my scenario you can still choose to do exactly what your scenario outlines, OR you can keep the item. We're just going back and forth at this point however, so I'm going to stop in the interest of having time to edit this.

I've sent messages to both mods of this forum to sticky, and haven't gotten replies yet.

With flexible band members who are all good mates and wish to do whatever makes everyone else happy, (which is probably everyone's ideal of a band anyway) you'd have the choice anyway.
I'm just saying that I personaly would prefere the cash than some beat up, well gigged section of a PA system.
#19
Quote by DanielQ
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer in regards to who owns what. It'll depend on the individual, how the band breaks up, and a score of other factors.

I'll agree with that.
More often than not, the guys in a band will all own their own instruments, drums guitars, basses, keyboards and guitar, bass or keyboard amps. But the PA system is usualy either just a small vocal PA that is generaly owned by the singer, (in which case it's his and nothing to do with the rest of the band) or it's a bigger affair that's been bought by the band from proceeds gained by gigging.
If each member of the band has paid in equaly to buy a PA system, they should all own an equal amount of that PA, but you can never equaly split a PA between 4 people (for example) unless that PA comprised of 4 identical amps, 4 identical speaker cabs, 4 identical mics and stands, 4 identical mic leads, 4 identical speaker leads and 4 identical mixing desks.
It's just a hell of a lot easier to change the PA into monetary value when it comes time to split the band's assets.
#20
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Imagine that you owned a share in the PA system, and the band was hiring it out for the night. Everyone else stays at home with their feet up while you, because it's your turn, go loading it all up into a van, driving it to it's destination, unloading it once you're there, setting it all up, making sure it all works, soundchecking it, staying all night to do the sound engineering and to make sure your PA isn't abused in any way, then stripping it all down again at whatever godforsaken hour of the morning it is, loading it back in the van, taking it back to wherever you store it, unloading it from the van again and packing it all away... as well as keeping an inventory of what went out and making sure it all comes back.
And you still think that everyone else should get an equal share of what money was made for the band that night?


you know you cud just ask for a deposit to be made by the band loaning out the PA system that way u dont need to worry about anyone trashing it.
#21
Quote by TNA
It's great that SlackerBabbath showed another way to divide equipment. There is no "right" way to divide up equipment in bands.

In my band me and my friend (actually my best friend) first split buying a PA system and mics and stands, we also split buying a mixer. We agreed that when the band did split up we would either try to divide the equipment equally or pay for the other half. But even though I knew we needed the equipment for the band I didn't feel happy about buying it because I played drums and he was singing, so really all of the gear was for his use. When it came time for us both to go off to college, he asked if he could take the mixer and I would get the PA, even though the PA was more expensive, I could have gotten more use out of the mixer. So I feel as though I got the raw end of the deal, even though I received the more expensive item.

Now whenever I buy equipment I buy it myself and let my band mates use it. It feels better knowing that it is mine and I can do whatever I want with it.

So I'd want to agree with Spazz128735 it's a lot easier if there is definite ownership of the equipment. If I feel that I got an unfair deal and it was with my best friend, who I would have given all the equipment if he said he wanted it, I can't imagine how it would work out if all the band members were bitter towards each other after a bad breakup



the risk is that if u let someone else in the band own the equipment, he may be too overprotective, i knew sum1 with a band who used ur version and the owner wud be a total douchebag and say things like: dont touch MY PA system i payd alot for it.

this is also a risk to take so i agree with slacker on this one.


EDIT: also wat i think is best is to have a certain member buy equipment until the band itself is making money, u shud then keep all the moey the band makes and use it to buy the PA and stuff, i think u shud atart with Spazz' version and once ur pretty professional use slackers version/method.
Last edited by thedefrockednun at May 24, 2008,
#22
What a great thread. I'm in the process of figuring all this out, and me and the lead singer are trying to decide how we'll work it out...we were never going to include the bassist and drummer in finances since they wouldn't be using any of it...is this wise?

We're juyst starting out, so it'll be a long time till we have any big gigs.
HEY
Do you like anime/manga?
PM me about buying the graphic novels I'm trying to sell
#23
Quote by FoolOnThePlanet
What a great thread. I'm in the process of figuring all this out, and me and the lead singer are trying to decide how we'll work it out...we were never going to include the bassist and drummer in finances since they wouldn't be using any of it...is this wise?

We're juyst starting out, so it'll be a long time till we have any big gigs.



Why shouldn't they help pay for the PA. It is to be used for the band, and should be a band expense. Unless you and the singer just want to keep it between you two, then if you ever part ways with the drummer or bassist, you won't have to worry about splitting the PA with them.
#24
Quote by thedefrockednun
you know you cud just ask for a deposit to be made by the band loaning out the PA system that way u dont need to worry about anyone trashing it.

You could, but if that PA is also the PA you use regularly for your own gigs, any time spent in the repair shop or looking around for new parts could be the same time that you wish to be using it. So you may be stuck having to hire one, which costs the band even more money. Or, imagine if you have another hire job booked. You have agreed to supply a PA system so if your's is in repair, you're gonna have to hire another one to hire to the people you've promised to in the first place... and you'll probably make a loss, especialy if you're the cheapest PA hire company around.
It's safer to just make sure no one abuses it in the first place.