Red & Black Music - Incidents

Slow Payment and Risk to Booking

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 10:09:07 GMT

Hi LD,
Please find attached a revised invoice addressed to Brunning and Price Limited, now including the organisation name, address, and postcode. I have also added a note to the invoice: “Payment required to secure artist availability on 31/12/2025.”
I would like to politely draw attention to the fact that my original invoice, sent on 2nd November, was not acknowledged, and the 30-day payment policy was never mentioned to me—either in writing or during my phone call with you on Tuesday. I regret that I cannot commit to this or any booking without receiving full payment in advance.
I have not included a due date on this invoice, as payment is necessary to confirm the artist’s availability for the requested date. Please note that both enquiries are still active, and bookings will be secured on a first-payment basis. To manage my schedule and prior commitments, if the other client pays first, I may no longer be available for 31/12/2025, which could affect this booking. I hope you appreciate that, in live performance work, time-sensitive matters like these are unavoidable and require prompt action to secure specific dates.
I look forward to receiving payment so that this booking can be fully secured.
Thanks,
RD

Title
Slow Payment and Risk to Booking

Description
The artist’s payment for the NYE 2025 booking at The Highdown Hotel was delayed due to administrative onboarding issues. Despite invoices and supplier forms being sent in advance, the hotel accounts department reported non-response from the artist. The delay created a risk that the booking could be lost, as the artist had other offers for the same date and required upfront payment to secure the booking. Miscommunication between the venue, LMM, and the artist compounded the delay.

Action Taken
Artist repeatedly sent invoices and completed the supplier form.
Followed up via email and phone calls to confirm receipt and clarify payment details.
Communicated with LMM to escalate and ensure the booking was secured.

Resolutions
Payment of £[amount] was received 02/12/2025.
Booking was confirmed and marked as contracted on all systems.
Artist was able to prepare for and perform the event as planned.

Notes Comments
At one point, the hotel incorrectly stated that the artist was not responding; this was clarified immediately by the artist.
The delay highlights the importance of clear communication and confirmation of supplier onboarding for timely payment.
The situation underscores that without proactive follow-ups, misunderstandings could have resulted in losing the booking.

Reported
Reported Date: 01/01/2026
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Responsive, B, Accounts
Involved in payments processes.

Involved, Responsive, C, Accounts
Involved in payments processes.

Responsible, Passive, HSS, Client
Away and didn't relay messages regarding the urgency of the invoice.

Involved, Active, LD, Accounts
Orchestrated the final payment.

Impacted, Active, RD, Artist
Sent multiple invoices, filled in supplier form and phoned venue to confirm payment.

Involved, Active, SJM, Agent
Helped expedite payment by noting booking fee was paid up front.

ORGANISATIONS

LMM
Agent overseeing booking.

THHG
Venue and client.

READ MORE...

This incident was triggered by the following developments...
Implementation of Up-Front Payments for Employment Agency Contracts (2025)

Miscommunication Regarding Meals Provision at Highdown Hotel NYE Booking

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

They did feed me but the parameters weren't clear and there was a moment where they tried to charge me. No matter-I'll make sure my show advance covers this more explicitly in future to avoid any confusion. Thanks very much for the booking! The punters were all extremely nice and engaging with the music. The night went well (despite the ..ahem..venue comms!) and we managed to hit all the right notes. The Oliver Price set was actually spot on. Everyone seemed to enjoy it, dancing, singing along. Hope you had a wonderful Christmas and a musical New Year's Eve!

Title
Miscommunication Regarding Meals Provision at Highdown Hotel NYE Booking

Description
RD performed at The Highdown Hotel on 31 December 2025 for a New Year’s Eve event (booked via LMM, ref LMM26560). The agency contract listed “Food & Drink for Performers: yes”. In advance, multiple attempts were made to secure written confirmation of arrangements; communication from the client (HSS) was minimal and largely unanswered.
Upon arrival on 31 December, RD was verbally told by hotel staff that “breakfast is on us”. A meal was provided mid-afternoon, but no evening meal was communicated or offered, and there was confusion among staff regarding entitlement. After the performance, RD asked staff whether he needed to inform them in the morning that he was the musician for breakfast and was told they already knew.
On 1 January 2026, after breakfast, RD was presented with a bill of approximately £22. When RD stated he was the musician and had been told breakfast was included, the waitress responded that the hotel had already provided a room and a meal and needed to cover overheads. RD expressed discomfort with the lack of communication and explained that had he known breakfast wasn’t included, he would have made alternative arrangements. After reiterating that he had been verbally assured breakfast was provided, the waitress relented and said “ok”, leaving the bill behind and walking away. No manager intervened and RD left feeling shaken.

Action Taken
RD calmly explained the basis for his expectation that breakfast was included.
He cited both the contract wording and the explicit verbal reassurance given on arrival.
He remained professional and avoided escalation, though emotionally distressed.
When the staff member withdrew the charge, RD left the premises.

Resolutions
The breakfast charge was ultimately not enforced.
No further dispute occurred at the hotel.
RD notified LMM and provided a factual account of events, without hostile tone.
No further action is currently required or intended.

Notes Comments
This incident appears rooted in poor client communication, unclear internal hotel policies, inconsistent staff messaging, and lack of written confirmation prior to the event. It caused significant distress despite the performance itself being extremely successful.

Reported
Reported Date: 02/01/2026
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Passive, HSS, Client
Didn't respond to show advance e-mails or specify meal arrangements in advance. There on the morning, didn't engage with the situation.

Impacted, Active, RD, Artist
Charged for breakfast, didn't pay on the basis that hotel was providing food for musicians as part of the deal.

Observer, Responsive, SJM, Agent
Booking agent, responded

Involved, Responsive, TBC, Venue
Waitress responsible for handing the bill. Tried to uphold that the breakfast was chargeable.

Responsible, Passive, TBC, Venue
Water from the previous day who said "breakfast is on us".

ORGANISATIONS

LMM
Agent overseeing booking.

THHG
Venue and client.

READ MORE...

This incident triggered the following developments...
Maintaining Integrity of Show Advance Template and Preventing Loss of Critical Information

Payment Irregularities and Lack of Transparency – Nova Boss @ The Stroud Hotel / Jazz Stroud (NW, SVA)

Mon, 20 Oct 2025 09:38:27 GMT

[07/06/2025, 11:51:58] RD: Hi NW it wasn’t about the dates as such, it’s more about how the communication around confirmations was handled. When dates are agreed I need to be able to trust that they’ll hold especially when it involves hiring musicians. Going forward to keep things clear I’d need any future bookings to be confirmed with payment upfront. Totally understand if that’s not possible.
[07/06/2025, 12:00:14] NW SVA: ‎Missed voice call, ‎Tap to call back
[07/06/2025, 12:07:55] NW SVA: Would be easier to chat RD.
The Hotel holds the cash till the day so you would need to sign and collect on the day
Apart from the gig on 25 May which SVA paid for.
The last gig was paid by and organised through SVA and JS so needed to be invoiced for. every artist SVA works with is paid through invoicing.
Anyway give me a call
NW
[07/06/2025, 12:11:23] NW SVA: I haven’t actually cancelled any of your dates. I was looking to fill some new dates
[07/06/2025, 12:13:09] NW SVA: Give me a call when you can. NW
[07/06/2025, 12:55:35] RD: Hey NW I’m in bham this weekend was out shopping earlier on my way to gig now. In any case it sounds like it’s not going to work with the payments. Do appreciate you outlining it though.
[07/06/2025, 13:21:43] NW SVA: 👍
[07/06/2025, 13:24:14] NW SVA: Doors open in future so let me know if you’re interested

Title
Payment Irregularities and Lack of Transparency – Nova Boss @ TSH / JS (NW, SVA)

Description
Between 07/06/2025 and 09/06/2025, following booking discussions for Nova Boss performances at TSH, Stroud, Gloucestershire, it became apparent that payment arrangements for artists booked through JS / NW (SVA) were unclear and potentially irregular.
In the course of conversation, NW stated that payments for hotel gigs could only be made directly by TSH, not by SVA or JS. This raised questions as to why bookings were being arranged through NW if he was not in a contractual position to administer payments.
This lack of financial transparency caused significant confusion and anxiety for RD (Nova Boss), as it appeared that NW was operating as an informal intermediary without formal authority or accountability.
Despite repeated attempts to clarify, no documentation, written agreement, or direct contact from the hotel was provided to confirm the financial structure of the engagement.
The revelation that JS did not hold artist funds in a dedicated or separate holding account, combined with the insistence that artists be booked “through NW,” created a perceived conflict of interest and undermined professional trust.
The uncertainty over who was legally responsible for payment – and whether any payment guarantee existed at all – led to the withdrawal of Nova Boss from the scheduled June 2025 performances at TSH.

Action Taken
RD directly queried payment procedures with NW (SVA).
Upon learning that payments were issued directly from TSH, RD withdrew from the booking on ethical and professional grounds.
No financial transaction occurred; no deposit or contract was issued.
The incident was documented for reference.
Future policy established: Nova Boss will only contract directly with the paying entity or promoter holding a confirmed payment channel.

Resolutions
Withdrawal communicated respectfully, without escalation or hostility.
Clarity obtained that NW / JS do not handle artist payments directly.
Nova Boss’s position formalised: all future bookings to be confirmed in writing, directly with the paying party (venue or promoter).
No outstanding debt or contractual dispute.

Notes Comments
This issue connects to a wider pattern of gatekeeping, whereby artists were required to communicate through NW even though he had no financial control or responsibility.
The arrangement placed artists in a precarious position, effectively liable to perform without clear payment assurance.
It also created potential reputational risk for TSH, as artists could perceive the venue to be disorganised or untrustworthy, despite the confusion originating externally.
The situation compounded emotional stress and undermined confidence in local music administration.
This incident highlights the necessity for clear financial governance in arts and event programming.
Any third-party acting as a booking coordinator should be formally authorised to handle or guarantee payments, or else artists must contract directly with the funding source.
In this case, the lack of clarity around financial responsibility and payment channels reflected poor administrative practice and avoidable opacity.
Nova Boss’s withdrawal was therefore both ethically and professionally justified.
Moving forward, Nova Boss will continue to champion fair pay transparency and direct contracting as standard practice.

Reported
Reported Date: 20/10/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Passive, NW, Client
To communicate booking and payment terms transparently

Observer, Responsive, NK, Guitar
Subject to same gatekeeping / uncertainty

Impacted, Active, RD, Artist
To seek clarification on payment and ensure fair compensation

ORGANISATIONS

JS
To communicate booking and payment terms transparently

TSH
To issue payments directly to artists

Communication and Booking Irregularities – Nova Boss @ Jazz Stroud / The Stroud Hotel, Stroud, Gloucestershire

Mon, 20 Oct 2025 09:25:43 GMT

[04/06/2025, 20:52:17] NW SVA: Thanks for that RD, they loved you 🙏
[04/06/2025, 21:34:35] NW SVA: Wanted to talk to you about more of the Sunday sessions and maybe getting some regular Sundays confirmed
[05/06/2025, 09:25:02] RD: Hi NW
Here are the Sundays we could do
June
15, 29
July
13, 20
August
03, 10, 31
[06/06/2025, 17:31:04] NW SVA: Sundays 15 and 29 are available
[06/06/2025, 21:56:51] RD: Great let’s do those
15/06/2025
29/06/2025
I’ll get them booked in 👍
[07/06/2025, 00:48:14] NW SVA: RG got back to me on 29 and it’s confirmed so can we confirm 15 June please
[07/06/2025, 06:07:28] RD: Hi NW thanks for counting on me but best if you get someone else in on these gigs.
[07/06/2025, 08:23:52] NW SVA: That would be a shame RD. The other dates in July and August look good apart from 10 Aug. The arrangement at the Stroud Hotel is now 200 plus lunch ‎
[07/06/2025, 11:06:55] NW SVA: ‎Missed voice call, ‎Tap to call back
[07/06/2025, 11:47:40] NW SVA: Hi RD, I’m sorry if you’re feeling a bit frustrated. I sent out the available dates to a few people and when people respond it’s a question of trying to create a balance and also inclusive but I’m happy to free up 29 to ensure you remain part of the programme because I think what you’re doing is pretty special. Let me know. NW 🙏
[07/06/2025, 11:51:58] RD: Hi NW it wasn’t about the dates as such, it’s more about how the communication around confirmations was handled. When dates are agreed I need to be able to trust that they’ll hold especially when it involves hiring musicians. Going forward to keep things clear I’d need any future bookings to be confirmed with payment upfront. Totally understand if that’s not possible.
[07/06/2025, 12:00:14] NW SVA: ‎Missed voice call, ‎Tap to call back
[07/06/2025, 12:07:55] NW SVA: Would be easier to chat RD.
The Hotel holds the cash till the day so you would need to sign and collect on the day
Apart from the gig on 25 May which SVA paid for.
The last gig was paid by and organised through SVA and JS so needed to be invoiced for. every artist SVA works with is paid through invoicing.
Anyway give me a call
NW
[07/06/2025, 12:11:23] NW SVA: I haven’t actually cancelled any of your dates. I was looking to fill some new dates
[07/06/2025, 12:13:09] NW SVA: Give me a call when you can. NW
[07/06/2025, 12:55:35] RD: Hey NW I’m in bham this weekend was out shopping earlier on my way to gig now. In any case it sounds like it’s not going to work with the payments. Do appreciate you outlining it though.
[07/06/2025, 13:21:43] NW SVA: 👍
[07/06/2025, 13:24:14] NW SVA: Doors open in future so let me know if you’re interested

Title
Communication and Booking Irregularities – Nova Boss @ JS / TSH, Stroud, Gloucestershire

Description
Between 4–7 June 2025, communication and booking irregularities occurred in relation to Nova Boss’s proposed performances at TSH under the JS / SVA programming, coordinated by NW (SVA).
These issues occurred despite a prior direct approach: Nova Boss first applied directly to TSH on 16/12/2023, following up again on 17/03/2024, with no response. Later developments revealed that NW was acting as an intermediary or “gatekeeper” for bookings at the hotel.
This added an element of irony and frustration, as none of the later issues would likely have arisen had communication been handled directly between the artist and venue.
On 04/06/2025, following a last-minute unpaid video shoot request from NW (accepted by RD as a goodwill gesture), NW invited Nova Boss to perform at the hotel’s Sunday sessions.
RD submitted a list of available Sundays (June–August 2025) on 05/06/2025. NW confirmed 15 June and 29 June as available. On 06/06/2025, RD confirmed both dates for Nova Boss.
At 00:48 on 07/06/2025, NW messaged to say that 29 June had now been given to another musician (“RG”), but asked RD to confirm 15 June instead. This caused confusion and raised doubts about the reliability of the arrangements, as both dates had previously been confirmed.
Following this inconsistency and perceived lack of professional clarity, RD withdrew from the engagements on 07/06/2025 to protect Nova Boss’s integrity and mental wellbeing.
NW later denied cancelling or mishandling bookings, but by that point the trust and working relationship had broken down.

Action Taken
RD formally withdrew from all current and future bookings with NW / SVA on 07/06/2025.
Communications were documented and retained.
No public statement was made, and all interactions remained courteous to avoid reputational damage.
Subsequent related invitations (e.g., via RG or mutual contacts) were declined to maintain professional boundaries.

Resolutions
Withdrawal communicated clearly and respectfully.
No fees exchanged; no financial obligations outstanding.
Matter closed without escalation or conflict.
Nova Boss to pursue bookings directly with venues to ensure professionalism, clarity, and emotional safety.

Notes Comments
Initial direct contact with TSH (Dec 2023 and Mar 2024) predates the involvement of NW. The later “gatekeeping” dynamic created unnecessary barriers, confusion, and distress.
The inconsistency between confirmed dates and final allocations undermined confidence and contributed to emotional fatigue.
The unpaid nature of the 04/06/2025 video shoot, coupled with informal communication practices, further reinforced the perception of disorganisation and lack of respect for artists’ time.
This incident highlights the importance of transparent, direct communication between artists and venues. Delegating coordination to a third party without structure or accountability can lead to misunderstandings, unacknowledged labour, and emotional strain.
Nova Boss acted in good faith throughout, maintaining professionalism and goodwill. The experience has underscored the value of boundaries, self-respect, and direct relationships when managing live music engagements.
While regrettable, this outcome ultimately strengthened Nova Boss’s resolve to uphold fair working practices and protect creative wellbeing.

Reported
Reported Date: 20/10/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Responsive, NW, Client
To manage bookings and communicate transparently

Observer, Responsive, NK, Guitar
Consulted for availability

Involved, Passive, RG, Artist
Accepted alternate 29 June booking

Impacted, Active, RD, Artist
To confirm availability and uphold professional standards

ORGANISATIONS

JS
Promoter responsible for booking live jazz.

TSH
Venue hosting live jazz.

Accidental cancellation and reinstatement

Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:44:30 GMT

On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 at 11:17, RD wrote:
Hi JMO,
No problem at all, happy to reinstate! Let me know if you need to chat through anything regarding the contract, deposit, or if you need any further details added in there.
Thanks,
RD

On 1 Oct 2025, at 11:13, JMO wrote:
I will send all final details over this evening Thankyou

Begin forwarded message:
From: "JMO"
Subject: Re: Contract - RD - 18/10/2025
Date: 1 October 2025 at 11:12:37 BST
To: RD
Hi RD I’m so sorry I didn’t mean to cancel this booking I mistook your email for a venue booking I previously booked, I definitely still want you to play at the baby shower on the 18th please

On Wednesday, October 1, 2025, JMO wrote:
Hi I’m sorry I’d like to cancel this booking, sorry for the inconvenience

On Monday, September 29, 2025, RD wrote:
Hi JMO,
I hope you enjoyed your weekend.
Please find attached and below contract for the event on 18/10/2025.
Please do take a look and let me know if any adjustments are needed. Once happy, you can either reply to the e-mail with written confirmation, or sign the attached PDF.
I have also attached an invoice for the deposit payment.
Anything else you need, please feel free to let me know!
Thanks,
RD

Title
Accidental cancellation and reinstatement

Description
On 29/09/2025, RD issued the performance contract and invoice for the event RD @ The Courts, Penarth, Cardiff – 18/10/2025, to client JMO O’Sullivan. The booking included live saxophone performance for a baby shower, scheduled 18:00–21:00, with a total fee of £350 and a 50% deposit payable to secure the engagement.
On 01/10/2025 at 11:09, JMO emailed to cancel the booking, writing, “Hi I’m sorry I’d like to cancel this booking, sorry for the inconvenience.” Later that morning, at 11:12, she followed up to explain the cancellation had been made in error, stating, “Hi RD I’m so sorry I didn’t mean to cancel this booking, I mistook your email for a venue booking I previously booked, I definitely still want you to play at the baby shower on the 18th please.”
RD promptly reinstated the booking, replying at 11:17, “Hi JMO, No problem at all, happy to reinstate! Let me know if you need to chat through anything regarding the contract, deposit, or if you need any further details added in there.” JMO responded later that day at 11:13 to confirm she would send over final details that evening.
On 03/10/2025 at 14:15, JMO confirmed the deposit had been paid, writing, “Hi RD that all sounds perfect, I’ve sent over the deposit just now, it would have come from an account jmo studio. Thanks, Jmosullivan.” This payment officially reinstated and secured the booking.

Action Taken
Upon receiving the accidental cancellation, RD maintained professionalism and responded immediately to clarify and reinstate the booking without penalty or issue. The artist ensured all contract and deposit terms were still valid, re-confirming the details in writing to maintain the paper trail and uphold the original agreement. The reinstatement was successfully processed within the same day.

Resolutions
The matter was fully resolved, and the booking was reinstated without disruption. The client paid the deposit and the performance proceeded as planned on 18/10/2025. Both parties maintained positive communication thereafter.

Notes Comments
Clients occasionally make administrative errors when managing multiple bookings. It is advisable to request written confirmation before acting upon any cancellation notice to avoid unnecessary confusion or lost work. Maintaining professionalism and immediate clarification helps preserve client relationships and ensures contractual consistency.

Reported
Reported Date: 20/10/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Active, JMO, Client
Event organisation, payment, communication of booking changes

Impacted, Active, RD, Artist
Contract management, booking administration, client communication

Last minute change of finish time

Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:42:57 GMT

Hi rory it’s J, I booked you for the 18th October,
I’m so sorry I’m rubbish at communicating over email, I did look over your set lists, I absolutely love set 3 but is it possible to take a few songs out of it? Also I booked a dj to start at 8:30 so I only need you to play till then if that’s ok? x

Title
Last minute change of finish time

Description
RD arrived at The Courts, Penarth, Cardiff at 15:30 and completed set-up and sound check in preparation for a confirmed performance start time of 18:00 and finish time of 21:00, as agreed in the show advance and contract email correspondence (29/09/2025, 04/10/2025, and 13/10/2025).
At 16:47, while waiting to begin, RD was approached by the client, J, who requested, “Can you start now?” The artist complied, beginning the performance at 16:47 despite the confirmed start time being two hours later. The client also verbally advised that the performance would now conclude at 18:30 instead of 21:00.
The original email correspondence had clearly stated and reconfirmed the start and finish times in writing. The client had not provided any written notice of changes before the day of the event. This last-minute adjustment also rendered previously booked accommodation unnecessary, resulting in additional cost.
J had earlier messaged via WhatsApp on 07/10/2025, stating, “Hi RD it’s J, I booked you for the 18th October, I’m so sorry I’m rubbish at communicating over email, I did look over your set lists, I absolutely love set 3 but is it possible to take a few songs out of it? Also I booked a DJ to start at 8:30 so I only need you to play till then if that’s ok? x”

Action Taken
RD was early and therefore able to comply with the client’s request to begin the performance immediately. The artist commenced at 16:47 and played continuously until 18:30, ensuring the event proceeded smoothly despite the unplanned change.

Resolutions
The performance was completed successfully, and the client expressed positive verbal feedback on the day. No disruption occurred to the event itself, though the artist incurred avoidable costs due to the timing alteration.

Notes Comments
Future show advance email templates should include stricter wording to emphasise that clients must confirm all performance times and event details in writing prior to the event. This will mitigate confusion and ensure accountability. Clients should also be made aware that last-minute changes cannot always be accommodated, and artists cannot be held responsible for issues arising from unconfirmed or ignored correspondence.

Reported
Reported Date: 20/10/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Responsive, JMO, Client
Communicating event timings and managing entertainment schedule

Impacted, Active, RD, Artist
Adhering to confirmed booking terms, delivering performance

Accommodation booked when one not needed

Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:38:01 GMT

Hi rory it’s J, I booked you for the 18th October,
I’m so sorry I’m rubbish at communicating over email, I did look over your set lists, I absolutely love set 3 but is it possible to take a few songs out of it? Also I booked a dj to start at 8:30 so I only need you to play till then if that’s ok? x

Title
Accommodation booked when one not needed.

Description
Artist was originally booked for a performance from 18:00–21:00 in Cardiff on 18/10/2025. Under the original conditions, the last train back to Gloucester would have been missed. However, new train times appeared on the Trainline app closer to the gig date, which would have allowed same-day travel. The issue was exacerbated when the client, J, messaged via WhatsApp on 07/10/2025 saying, “Hi RD, it’s J, I booked you for the 18th October, I’m so sorry I’m rubbish at communicating over email, I did look over your set lists, I absolutely love set 3 but is it possible to take a few songs out of it? Also I booked a DJ to start at 8:30 so I only need you to play till then if that’s ok? x” The client had not been responding to show advance emails.
A flexible accommodation rate was booked for £34, which enabled cancellation up to two days before. On the day of the event, the artist was verbally informed that the new performance start time was 16:30 and the finish time 18:30. This change had not been communicated in advance. The artist was already on site, set up and sound-checked, and therefore able to comply. The new timing made overnight accommodation unnecessary.
The artist attended the accommodation in person on the day to request cancellation. Reception made several phone calls to five different managers; eventually, one manager advised that the booking was non-refundable at that stage. The artist therefore incurred a £34 loss for the accommodation, and an additional £7 loss for having purchased an open return train ticket rather than a cheaper day return.

Action Taken
The artist had originally chosen the flexible rate at £2 more than the non-refundable rate to allow for possible schedule changes. Upon learning the revised gig timings, the artist approached reception to enquire about cancelling, aware from the terms and conditions that it was unlikely to be possible. Reception initially appeared to be arranging a refund authorisation but, following contact with a manager, confirmed that the booking could not be refunded. The artist therefore complied with the accommodation terms and initially decided to make use of the room.

Resolutions
After confirming the earlier finish time of 18:30, the artist collected belongings and caught the 20:22 train home to Gloucester, accepting the incurred costs as a learning experience. For the next booking on 15/11/2025 in Kingston-upon-Thames (finishing 21:00, after the last train home), the artist has opted to stay up overnight and travel back on the 06:00 coach to offset previous losses.

Notes Comments
Do not book accommodation until the day of the gig, and if possible, only after the performance has commenced. Clients can be unreliable or uncommunicative, and may alter event details at short notice without warning. If advance accommodation is essential (e.g., for remote locations or group travel), continue to use flexible rates and confirm logistics before any cancellation deadlines.

Reported
Reported Date: 20/10/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Passive, JMO, Client
Communicating event details and schedule

Responsible, Responsive, RD, Artist
Booking, travel, accommodation, performance

Saxophone Damage Due to Microphone Attachment Incident – Pre-Show Equipment Failure

Sun, 29 Jun 2025 23:00:00 GMT

Title
Saxophone Damage Due to Microphone Attachment Incident – Pre-Show Equipment Failure

Description
On the evening of Saturday 28th June 2025, approximately 30 minutes before the scheduled performance time, I experienced a critical equipment failure due to an incident involving my saxophone and attached microphone system.
The microphone was securely mounted on my saxophone bell and connected to a wireless receiver unit, which was placed in my trouser pocket. While setting up at the DJ booth, I temporarily placed my saxophone down without realising the microphone cable was still tethered to the receiver. As I walked away from the booth, the tether tightened and pulled the saxophone off the surface, causing it to fall forcefully to the ground. The instrument landed directly on the key stack and sustained significant structural and mechanical damage.
The saxophone is a Yamaha Professional Series Alto Saxophone, purchased new in 2023 for approximately £2,000. The impact rendered the instrument unplayable.

Action Taken
Upon assessing the damage and confirming the saxophone was inoperable, I immediately contacted fellow musician Oli , who was able to travel from Harrow and provide a backup soprano saxophone. This allowed me to fulfil the performance, albeit with a one-hour delay to the scheduled start time. I notified the agent and venue of the delay and coordinated soundcheck adjustments with the on-site technician to accommodate the substitute instrument.

Resolutions
The gig was completed successfully using the loaned soprano saxophone. The damaged Yamaha instrument has since been sent to a specialist repair technician based in Germany for full assessment and potential restoration. The instrument is currently considered near-total loss pending the outcome of the inspection and quotation from the technician. I am in the process of contacting Insure4Music to initiate a claim.

Notes Comments
Wireless microphone receiver units should never be physically connected to the player’s clothing or person without a quick-release or slack system in place.
Future setups should include either:
A stand-mounted microphone to eliminate any physical tethering risk, or
A harness or strap-mounted receiver with a secured cable loop to prevent the instrument from being dragged.
It is recommended that all band members conduct a pre-show gear safety check to ensure wireless connections are safely routed and instruments are secure when not in use.
Insurance documentation should be reviewed annually to ensure all high-value items are listed and current proof of ownership is retained.

Reported
Reported Date: 30/06/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Responsive, JB, Agent
Provided encouragement and reassurance.

Involved, Active, OS, Soprano Sax
Came at short notice with a loan instrument and saved the gig.

Responsible, Active, RD, Alto Sax
Caused the accident and managed to source an alternative instrument.

Hi. My microphone was on the sax. The receiver was in my pocket. I put the sax down on the Dj booth and walked away not realising they were still attached. The sax went down, right on the keypad. It’s a new sax. This happened 30 min before showtime. £2K practically a write off. Won’t play.

Difficulty Securing Percussionist for 11/05/2025 Gig

Sat, 10 May 2025 07:45:31 GMT

Hi all!👋 do we know any cajon players who might be up for joining us on Sunday?
Date: 11/05/2025
Time: 13:00-16:30
Venue: SH, GL5 3AP
Repertoire: Bossa Nova
Thanks, RD

Title
Difficulty Securing Percussionist for 11/05/2025 Gig

Description
Efforts to secure a suitable percussionist for the 11/05/2025 SH gig were unsuccessful until the final stages of preparation, due to short notice, stylistic requirements (Bossa Nova), venue constraints (small space – cajon preferred over drum kit), and low fees. Numerous contacts and networks were activated without success until a referral from DS resulted in a last-minute booking of SM.

Action Taken
Contacted multiple percussionists and drummers, including PB, AY, MF , SRl, JB, Richard Brooke, and CC.
Sought local recommendations from JA (Stroud Forró – no response), TS (S SMba – responsive), and JS’s JS (provided contact info).
Engaged via the SVA Jazz JS Musicians WhatsApp group and Stroud Music Facebook group.
Reached out to several pianists (TC, DT, PB ) – all unavailable – leading RD to cover piano duties and switch between piano and flute.
NK (guitarist) provided SRl’s details.
Public posting led to a lead from RG, who recommended Richard Brooke (ultimately unsuitable).
Final successful recommendation came via DS, who circulated the need among folk contacts, leading to SM being booked.

Resolutions
SM was confirmed on cajon to support the Bossa Nova and Latin material, resolving the gap with a musically suitable solution.
RD covered piano duties due to unavailability of others, rotating between piano and flute as needed.

Notes Comments
Fee of £30 was a significant barrier in recruiting capable, committed musicians at short notice.
Lack of clarity from promoter NW created uncertainty around confirmation and financial accountability.
RD has begun compiling a local database of percussionists and pianists to streamline future bookings.
For future gigs: RD intends to ask for clear confirmation from NW in writing, and offer musicians a top-up fee from his business funds, bringing total pay to a fairer rate (target: £50 minimum).
This incident revealed a weakness in short-notice contingency planning and the importance of cultivating reliable, style-appropriate local contacts.

Reported
Reported Date: 10/05/2025
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Responsive, AY, Percussion
Unavailable, doesn't play cajon.

Involved, Responsive, CC, Percussion
Unavailable, noted for future reference.

Involved, Active, DS, Referrer
Instrumental in resolving the situation via folk network.

Involved, Responsive, DT, Piano
Unavailable for piano, led to the decision of booking cajon instead.

Involved, Responsive, F, Referrer
Conducted independent enquiries off RD's WhatsApp group callout.

Involved, Responsive, JS, Referrer
Provided contact for CC to RD via Facebook.

Involved, Responsive, JB, Percussion
Unavailable, doesn't play cajon.

Involved, Passive, JA, Referrer
Didn't respond to RD's message on Facebook.

Involved, Responsive, MC, Percussion
Unavailable, noted for future reference.

Observer, Passive, MF, Bass
Not involved in fixing process but another member of band.

Observer, Passive, NW, Promoter
Responsible for venue and booking logistics, passive in resolving musician shortfall.

Involved, Responsive, NK, Guitar
Contributor to personnel search (provided SR’s contact).

Involved, Responsive, PB, Percussion
Unavailable, doesn't play cajon but does play reduced kit setup. Also facilitated WhatsApp post.

Involved, Responsive, PC, Piano
Initially didn't respond but later said unavailable for piano after percussionist was booked.

Involved, Responsive, Percussion
Unsuitable, but expressed interest in joining for future.

Involved, Responsive, RG, Referrer
Provided contact for Richard Brooke to RD via Facebook.

Responsible, Active, RD, Bandleader
Responsible for assembling the band, managing communications and repertoire, active in solving the personnel issue.

Involved, Active, SM,
Ultimately booked and responsible for live performance.

Involved, Responsive, SR, Percussion
Unavailable, noted for future reference.

Involved, Responsive, TS, Referrer
Engaged in Facebook messaging with RD regarding potential players.

Involved, Responsive, TC, Piano
Unavailable for piano, led to the decision of booking cajon instead.

ORGANISATIONS

JJ
Contacted as a stakeholder for referrals.

JS
Organising the 11/05/2025 gig.

S
Contacted as a stakeholder for referrals.

SFG
Contacted as a stakeholder for referrals.

TSH
Hosting the 11/05/2025 gig.

Double Booking at SH – Sunday 11/05/2025

Sat, 10 May 2025 07:21:54 GMT

Hi NW,
Just wanted to thank you for being so lovely and understanding about this Sunday, 11/05/2025. I’m really sorry you and your musicians have been messed around—especially with some of them travelling from Ross-on-Wye. It’s a frustrating situation for both of us.
Had the roles been reversed, I would’ve honoured my booking and paid my players regardless—so if any of your band members are out of pocket, please know I’m on financial standby 🤠 (we both know the deal!). I’d be more than happy to help—just send over your bank details if needed.
Really appreciate you handling this with such professionalism, grace, and kindness—as you did on Easter Day.
Rx

Title
Double Booking at SH – Sunday 11/05/2025

Description
A scheduling conflict occurred for a performance slot at the SH on Sunday, 11 May 2025. Two bands—one led by RD and the other by NW—were both under the impression that they were booked for the same event. The conflict was only discovered days before the event, after RD spoke with NW directly. NW confirmed that she and her band, including musicians travelling from Ross-on-Wye, had also been expecting to play that date.
The confusion originated from a lack of formal confirmation or clear communication from NWSVA, the promoter and organiser for live music at the SH. Despite RD's previous preparations, rehearsals, communication and web listing for the gig, the booking was not properly confirmed by NWSVA to either party in writing. RD had been informed that the date was his; however, NW had also been verbally offered or led to believe the same.

Action Taken
RD reached out to NW upon discovering the overlap.
NW proactively contacted NWSVA directly to clarify the situation and informed her group to stand down.
NW graciously deferred the performance to RD’s group, given his prior understanding of the booking and preparation already undertaken.
RD offered financial compensation should any of NW’s musicians be left out of pocket due to the cancellation.
NW confirmed with RD that she communicated the change to her group and agreed to perform on a future date (Sunday, 1 June 2025).
No direct communication was initiated with NWSVA by RD at this stage, to avoid potential escalation or tension.

Resolutions
NW’s band withdrew from the Sunday 11 May performance. RD’s band will fulfil the engagement as originally understood. NW's band will take the following available date. RD offered to provide financial support for any out-of-pocket musicians in NW’s band, though NW has not taken up the offer at this time.

Notes Comments
The incident reflects a broader concern around unclear and inconsistent communication practices by the promoter.
The lack of a formal booking system or calendar appears to have contributed directly to the double booking.
This is not the first time issues of communication have occurred in this context, indicating a potential pattern.
RD expressed that, had the roles been reversed, he would have honoured the commitment to his musicians and covered their pay regardless.
The professionalism and tact shown by NW was instrumental in de-escalating the situation and should be acknowledged.
Clearer systems, written confirmations, and proper advance communication are necessary to avoid future incidents of this nature.

Reported
Reported Date: 10/05/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Impacted, Responsive, JC, Tenor Sax
Saxophonist in NW’s band, potentially impacted by the cancellation.

Responsible, Passive, NWSVA, Promoter
Responsible for booking and coordinating live music events at the SH.

Impacted, Responsive, NK, Guitar
Guitarist in RD’s band, scheduled to perform on 11/05/2025.

Impacted, Active, NW, Bandleader
Bandleader originally expecting to perform, responsible for managing her ensemble and resolving the scheduling conflict.

Impacted, Active, RD, Bandleader
Bandleader responsible for assembling, preparing, and delivering the performance on 11/05/2025.

ORGANISATIONS

JS
Organising the 11/05/2025 gig.

TSH
Hosting the 11/05/2025 gig.

Lack of Acknowledgement Resulting in On-the-Day Lineup Conflict – 20/04/2025 Gig

Tue, 06 May 2025 15:03:30 GMT

Group chat:
[13:49, 11/04/2025] NWSVA: MF can do Sunday with D on keys so could have L, D RD to join
[13:57, 11/04/2025] +44: I cant play sunday unfortunately
[13:57, 11/04/2025] DL: Neither
[13:58, 11/04/2025] RD : Same time arrive 12:30, and then start 13:00?
[17:11, 11/04/2025] +44: if this is the 17th and 20th, i can do?
[08:27, 13/04/2025] RD : Bit confused. Is there a gig today?
Or is it next Sunday?
[10:00, 13/04/2025] NWSVA: It didn’t work out with getting confirmation so will arrange another Sunday. Managed to get someone else to fill the slot
[14:31, 13/04/2025] RD : Am in London this week so can’t do Thursday 17/04/2025, but some other Thursdays will be possible.
Can definitely do next Sunday 20/04/2025, I can bring+play sax+flute, and I could play piano. Time 12:30 arrive / 13:00 start.
[15:04, 13/04/2025] NWSVA: Ok I’ll be in touch tomorrow and we can work on fixing dates in calendar
[15:12, 13/04/2025] RD : Ok thank you
[22:00, 17/04/2025] RD : Back from London now
see you on Sunday 20/04/2025 at 12:30 SH
[12:23, 20/04/2025] RD : I’m here with NW
[12:29, 20/04/2025] NWSVA: Yes NW is booked in for today so I’m a bit confused. Did she get in touch with you RD
[12:31, 20/04/2025] RD : She said come join anyway as I was under the impression I was booked 👆

NW chat:
[12:27, 20/04/2025] NW SVA: Are you playing with NW today. I’m a bit confused
[12:32, 20/04/2025] RD : Yes she just said I could join her, as i’d turned up

Title
Lack of Acknowledgement Resulting in On-the-Day Lineup Conflict – 20/04/2025 Gig

Description
RD declared his availability for 20 April 2025 twice in the WhatsApp group but received no response from NWSVA. With no definitive confirmation or rejection, and recalling the prior week’s issue, RD attended the SH gig to ensure he wasn’t again left out of a gig he may have been expected at. Upon arrival, he found that NW’s band had already been booked. NW, acknowledging the situation, kindly invited RD to join her group. He performed and was paid for the event.

Action Taken
RD clarified his presence with NW, who accommodated him. RD’s mother, who attended, proactively explained the confusion to NW before NW arrived, helping avoid tension.

Resolutions
Although RD was not officially booked, NW’s inclusive approach resolved the situation gracefully. NWSVA was confused by RD’s attendance, underscoring the issue: lack of clear communication or confirmation. RD now understands that appearing unconfirmed risks confusion and must be avoided unless expressly booked by NWSVA.

Notes Comments
The lack of any direct response to multiple confirmation attempts by RD was the root of this issue. Going forward, RD will only attend if explicitly confirmed by NWSVA or the appointed bandleader. NW’s professional handling prevented escalation.

Reported
Reported Date: 06/05/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Active, KD, Advisor
Explained the lack of communication to NW on arrival.

Responsible, Passive, NWSVA, Promoter
Failed to acknowledge or negate RD's communications via WhatsApp group.

Impacted, Active, NW, Bandleader
Didn't book RD for the event but understood the lack of communication and invited him to join regardless.

Observer, Passive, PD, Advisor
Not there on the 20/04/2025 but supported assertion that an enquiry constituted a confirmation.

Impacted, Active, RD, Alto Sax
Under the impression that he was booked and turned up at the event, honouring commitment.

ORGANISATIONS

JS
Promoter booking musicians for the events.

TSH
Venue hosting the live music.

Misinterpretation of Booking Format – Band-Based vs. Individual Engagements

Tue, 06 May 2025 15:02:31 GMT

[23:29, 10/04/2025] NWSVA: There are slots for live music at SH Thursdays and Sundays. I know it’s short notice but there’s a slot this Sunday? 1 till 4 two one hour sets with lunch in between plus £[amount] each or Thursday £[amount] each 7 til 10.30

Title
Misinterpretation of Booking Format – Band-Based vs. Individual Engagements

Description
On 11 April 2025, RD responded to a WhatsApp message from promoter NWSVA offering a Sunday slot at SH. RD expressed availability and asked logistical questions, understanding NWSVA was assembling a lineup as he had during the first edition of the residency. NWSVA later indicated that MF and Dom were confirmed, suggesting RD and others could join. RD interpreted this as a confirmation of involvement. However, no further communication from NWSVA followed. On the day (13 April), RD checked in and was told someone else had been booked. RD’s parents, assuming NWSVA’s message was a confirmation, advised RD that he should have simply turned up — possibly missing a gig that MF’s group may have expected him at.

Action Taken
RD followed up in the chat with two messages of availability for 20 April 2025 but received no acknowledgement. Learning from the previous week, he turned up on the 20th to avoid missing a potential opportunity.

Resolutions
It became clear that NWSVA is now booking pre-existing lineups rather than assembling bands on the fly. RD's parents had incorrectly interpreted NWSVA’s earlier approach (from the scratch band in the first edition) as ongoing practice. The assumption that NWSVA was putting together a group, rather than confirming existing ensembles, led to the misunderstanding.

Notes Comments
Going forward, RD now understands that NWSVA is booking full bands, and he must ensure he is part of a pre-confirmed lineup before assuming a booking. Passive or ambiguous messaging should not be treated as confirmation.

Reported
Reported Date: 06/05/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Responsive, KD, Advisor
Incorrectly interpreted NWSVA's message as NWSVA putting together a lineup rather than booking existing lineups. Misinterpretation was carried forward by RD when he turned up on 20/04/2025.

Observer, Passive, MF, Bandleader
Had his own lineup for the 13/04/2025 event.

Responsible, Passive, NWSVA, Promoter
Responsible for booking lineups/musicians for the SH residency.

Involved, Responsive, PD, Advisor
Incorrectly interpreted NWSVA's message as NWSVA putting together a lineup rather than booking existing lineups. Misinterpretation was carried forward by RD when he turned up on 20/04/2025.

Impacted, Responsive, RD, Alto Sax
Confused about whether NWSVA was requesting RD as a solo musician, or as a lineup.

ORGANISATIONS

JS
Promoter booking musicians for the events.

TSH
Venue hosting the live music.

House System / Amplification Issue — 04/05/2025

Tue, 06 May 2025 11:53:37 GMT

[15:28, 04/05/2025] RD: Hey BH,
Just a quick one — I’ve arrived at the venue and they mentioned they’d prefer me to go through the house system. That wasn’t communicated to me, and as per our messages👆, I brought my amp specifically for today and have been lugging it around for the last couple of days. 😅
I explained this is my 4th time playing here — the 1st time back in August, the house system wasn’t compatible with my setup, so I used my amp. The 3rd time I did go through the house system, but it ended up way too quiet and I struggled to hear the backing tracks properly. So bringing the amp today was a conscious choice.
That said, all good from my end — the girl here seemed chilled and didn’t say I couldn’t use my own (wireless) gear. Just wanted to keep you in the loop i…
[15:31, 04/05/2025] RD: The convo: I (80% sure!) convinced her that it’s fully projecting and I can move around depending on where the guests are. She said something a bit vague about checking, but didn’t seem too fussed. I didn’t show her our messages — just said you’d asked me to bring it.

Title
House System / Amplification Issue — 04/05/2025

Description
On 04/05/2025, at 22C(Bristol), RD was booked to perform a solo saxophone set with backing tracks via his own battery-powered amplifier, as had been agreed upon in correspondence with the booking agent (BH, HP). Upon arrival at 3:00pm, a venue staff member (barmaid, identity TBC) queried whether he would use the in-house sound system instead.
This request was not pre-communicated by the agent or client (E), and contradicted prior messages confirming the artist would bring his own amplification. The artist shared that he had deliberately brought his own amp based on prior performance experience at the venue, where the house system was either incompatible or underpowered.
Following a brief discussion with the barmaid, RD proceeded with his own equipment, which was deemed acceptable on the day.

Action Taken
RD clarified his technical setup and previous experience with the venue's system.
He explained that he had brought and intended to use his own wireless, portable amplifier.
The waitress indicated she would “check,” but did not object, and later confirmed she was happy with the setup part-way through the event.
RD proceeded with the performance using his own gear.
He maintained communication with agent BH throughout, updating him in real-time regarding the situation.

Resolutions
The performance was delivered smoothly with no technical issues. RD received positive feedback from all three barmaids, including the one who initially raised the question, as well as from the door staff, who were familiar with his previous performances at the venue. No complaints were raised by the client or venue. Agent BH acknowledged receipt of messages but did not directly respond to the update regarding the amp issue.

Notes Comments
The performance was delivered smoothly with no technical issues. RD received positive feedback from all three barmaids, including the one who initially raised the question, as well as from the door staff, who were familiar with his previous performances at the venue. No complaints were raised by the client or venue. Agent BH acknowledged receipt of messages but did not directly respond to the update regarding the amp issue.

Reported
Reported Date: 06/05/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Passive, BH, Agent
Agent organising the booking, requested RD to bring amp. Acknowledged RD's promise to bring amp.

Observer, Passive, E, Client
Apparently requested all artists to go through the house system and briefed bar staff accordingly, but this request was not passed on or communicated.

Impacted, Active, RD, Artist
Brought amp but told on arrival he had to go via the house system.

Involved, Responsive, T, Venue
Instructed RD on the day to perform via the house system, but this was an unexpected request.

ORGANISATIONS

C2B
Venue booking live music.

HP
Agent organising the booking.

Request for Name Adjustment and Image Removal from Google Listings

Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:53:11 GMT

Sorry to trouble you. We were in contact in October and I notice that I appear in searches with a different photograph of another singer that you worked with. I was wondering if I could have my artist name Isabel_live removed to anonymize due to my work in teaching. Apologies it is in a red and black music previous gig listing. Still happy to sing on weekends if there are any gigs or you need a piano and voice duo fir latin standards.

Title
Request for Name Adjustment and Image Removal from Google Listings

Description
AB (also known as Isabel) contacted Red & Black Music on October 14, 2020, requesting that her real name be replaced with her artist name "Isabel_live" on previous listings related to Fiesta Latina. This request was made due to concerns about her professional visibility in her workplace. The requested change was made promptly.
On March 29, 2021, she followed up with a new request to remove her artist name, "Isabel_live," from search results after noticing her name appearing alongside an incorrect image of another singer. The request was completed the same day.
On May 10, 2021, AB/Isabel reached out again, expressing concern that Google searches for her name continued to display images related to Red & Black Music events, despite the removal of her name from the website. She specifically mentioned a promotional image that she felt could impact her professional reputation as a school teacher. Attempts were made to remove and re-publish the affected images, but they continued to appear in Google’s search results.

Action Taken
On October 14, 2020, her name was replaced with "Isabel_live" on Red & Black Music listings.
On March 29, 2021, her artist name was also removed per her request.
On May 10, 2021, an attempt was made to delete the images from the website and re-publish, but they remained visible on Google’s cached search results.

Resolutions
The requested name adjustments were successfully made on the Red & Black Music website.
It was explained that Google’s caching process may take several months to update, and that removing images from a website does not immediately remove them from Google’s search results.
AB/Isabel was advised to check again in a few months and explore additional options such as requesting Google to remove specific images through their takedown request process.

Notes Comments
This case highlights challenges in managing digital footprints, particularly in relation to cached search results.
Future policies could include using only stage names for performers on public listings to prevent similar issues.
The incident underscores the importance of balancing artist promotion with personal privacy considerations.

Reported
Reported Date: 24/03/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Impacted, Responsive, AB, Vocals
Requested adjustments to her name and the removal of images due to professional concerns.

Impacted, Responsive, RD, Bandleader
Implemented requested changes and attempted to remove images from the website.

Non-Payment of Cancellation Fee Leading to Emergency Stringent Measures

Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:42:57 GMT

I don’t mean to sound like I’m having a go. it’s about principle. it’s about respect. The message I’m getting now is that contracts amount to nothing. Which is fine by me. but I’ll have to make some tweaks going forward. As it’s impossible to work under such conditions.
I appreciate all you’ve done, but honestly don’t know why you put up with it. it’s rudeness. And ignorance. And manipulation. I shouldn’t have to put up with this behaviour and neither should you.
I could see he was conniving from the start. Approaching me direct 15 mins after enquiring via the website. RS will go through his life treating others the same, ducking and diving, bending the rules to his advantage and he’s going to get away with it again and again. unless someone pushes back.
unfortunately his actions now impact on the 99% of people who are genuinely good people. So let that be on his conscience.
If I were you, I wouldn’t fix him up with a harpist, if he can’t respect a contract, but this is your decision and you have good reason for sure.
As for me, I’m now not going to treat a booking as contracted and inked unless i have full payment upfront. This means I’m moving from a “first to return contract” to a “first to return payment” warrants-my-time approach. Those who are genuinely intent will have zero problem with that. This experience has consolidated that for some people a contract can’t be upheld and sadly I have to take this as a given going forward. If clients think that they can get away with it we may as well all quit our jobs now.
Im sorry to hear about your experience with the funeral, that’s sounds really tough and demoralising- both from a financial point of view and from the energy I imagine you put into the show. It’s morally wrong. And that’s why sometimes we need to protect ourselves and vote with our feet. If the law+mu can’t protect us only we can.
Sorry for the poor grammar doing this on my phone late at night after an elongated shift with pizza in hand 🍕

Title
Non-Payment of Cancellation Fee Leading to Emergency Stringent Measures

Description
On 22/03/2025, a confirmed booking was canceled by the client, RS, who refused to honor the agreed £235 cancellation fee, citing legal technicalities post-COVID that have made enforcement of cancellation clauses in entertainment contracts increasingly difficult. Despite the artist (RD) having turned down other opportunities, booked transport, and started preparing special repertoire, the client evaded payment and ceased communication with both the agency (Last Minute Musicians) and the artist.
RS had originally contacted the artist directly just 15 minutes after enquiring via the LMM website, bypassing agency protocol.
Attempts by agent SJM to reason with the client were unsuccessful, and RS ignored all follow-up correspondence. The client’s details were subsequently published on the Red & Black Music Strike Register.
In response to this incident and previous similar situations (e.g., Charlotte Barnfather Henman & Cooper – 28/09/2024), RD formally introduced a mandatory upfront payment policy for all employment agency bookings. This policy stipulates that a booking will not be confirmed unless full payment is received in advance. While this led to complications for other clients (e.g., EC, 05/07/2025, booked through ), the policy was deemed necessary to prevent financial loss and to restore contract integrity.
The situation was further complicated when a conflicting enquiry was received via FM for the same date (05/07/2025), and, in order to safeguard his income and minimise legal risk, RD was forced to both invoice EC and quote to FM. This awkward position arose directly from the failure of RS to honour his contract, and the lack of clear financial security within the traditional booking structure.
Key Issues:
Client ignored follow-up messages and evaded payment.
Artist missed out on another booking for 02/05/2025 due to the ambiguity surrounding an unpaid agency booking that was never secured.
Client’s contact details published to the Red & Black Music Strike Register.
New permanent policy introduced: upfront payments required for all employment agency clients.
This created a clash for another booking (EC / 05/07/2025), when a second agency (FM) enquired about the same date.
RD was forced to manage both simultaneously to avoid financial loss and legal ambiguity — an avoidable situation had the initial cancellation been properly honoured.

Action Taken
Communication with Agent SJM: Multiple efforts to enforce cancellation fee and uphold contract terms.
Policy Shift: Introduction of 100% upfront payment for agency bookings, made permanent following this incident.
Dual Booking Management: Artist quoted for FM while still invoicing EC to protect income and comply with new policy.
Red & Black Music Strike Register: RS’s details added for breach of trust and non-payment.
Legal Limitations Acknowledged: Artist decided to step back from relying on post-performance legal remedies and focus on preemptive measures.
MU Involvement Rejected: Artist had already terminated MU membership in 2022 due to repeated failure to support artists in such cases.

Resolutions
Booking policies updated to reflect upfront payment as standard across all agency engagements.
Client classified as blacklisted and non-compliant.
Future contracts will require full financial commitment before confirmation.
EC’s booking ultimately honoured, but a warning case for dual-agency risk.
Agency partners advised to revise contract templates to include stricter payment clauses.

Notes Comments
Post-COVID legal shifts have weakened contract enforcement, leading to increased exploitation by clients who leverage legal ambiguities to avoid financial responsibility.
The Musicians’ Union (MU) and agencies such as LMM have limited ability to recover losses through the courts, as judges increasingly dismiss claims unless actual damages can be proven on or after the scheduled performance date — even in the presence of signed contracts.
Artists are therefore compelled to implement independent, self-protective measures, such as requiring full upfront payment to reduce exposure to legal and financial risk.
Red & Black Music has adopted a strict prepayment policy for all employment agency bookings, following repeated cases where bookings were canceled unilaterally without compensation.
This policy was upheld in the case of RS, who failed to respond to repeated agency follow-ups and did not pay the cancellation fee, despite the artist having turned down alternative work for the same date.
As a consequence, RD lost the opportunity to accept a confirmed engagement elsewhere on 02/05/2025, and RS’s details were published to the Red & Black Music strike register.
This incident also influenced subsequent protocol on 05/07/2025, where a confirmed client booking via (EC) conflicted with an enquiry from a separate employment business (FM). Due to the new policy, RD was forced to quote to FM and invoice EC simultaneously to safeguard income and minimize legal complications — a direct result of RS’s precedent-setting cancellation.
Clients unwilling to engage with these updated terms will no longer be considered for bookings through Red & Black Music, as the label prioritises contractual integrity, financial accountability, and artist welfare over booking volume.

Reported
Reported Date: 23/03/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Responsive, AH, Agent
Agent responsible for drafting contracts; now reviewing and considering revisions to contractual terms to ensure stronger protections for artists.

Impacted, Active, GR, Client
Client of another event; affected by the new upfront payment policy, needed to make upfront payment for the booking to be inked.

Observer, Responsive, NW, Trumpet
Trumpet player and industry peer; engaged in discussions with RD regarding wider industry implications of contract loopholes and non-payment issues.

Observer, Responsive, RQ, Vocals
Vocalist and industry peer; engaged in discussions with RD regarding wider industry implications of contract loopholes and non-payment issues.

Responsible, Passive, RS, Client
Booked RD for an event, later canceled, and refused to honor the agreed cancellation fee, exploiting legal loopholes.

Impacted, Active, RD, Artist
Directly affected by the non-payment, implemented new booking policies to safeguard future engagements.

Involved, Active, SJM, Agent
Facilitated the booking, attempted to enforce payment from RS, and advised on contractual limitations due to post-COVID legal changes.

Impacted, Responsive, EC, Client
Client of another event; affected by the new upfront payment policy, needed to make upfront payment for the booking to be inked.

Impacted, Active, DC, Client
Client of another event; affected by the new upfront payment policy, needed to make upfront payment for the booking to be inked.

Impacted, Active, LP, Client
Client of another event; affected by the new upfront payment policy, needed to make upfront payment for the booking to be inked.

Impacted, Active, YK, Client
Client of another event; affected by the new upfront payment policy, needed to make upfront payment for the booking to be inked.

Observer, Passive, K, Agent
Not directly involved, but agent in a prior instance where a client cancelled and ghosted.

Observer, Passive, CH, Client
Not directly involved, but previous client who cancelled and ghosted leading to artist strike-off when challenged.

Observer, Passive, A, Agent
Not directly involved, but cited concerns about RD's professionalism in confronting previous defaulting agency client regarding a separate incident, and managed artist strike-off.

Observer, Passive, FEN, Agent
Not directly involved, but cited concerns about RD's professionalism in confronting previous defaulting agency client regarding a separate incident, and managed artist strike-off.

Observer, Passive, S, Agent
Not directly involved, but agent whose correspondence was shared with previous defaulting client who hadn't responded.

ORGANISATIONS

LMM
Agency involved in RS cancellation.

WE
Previous agency not upholding contracts.

EN
Previous agency not upholding contracts.

FM
Issued an employment business enquiry leading to the invoicing of existing 05/07/2025 client.

READ MORE...

This incident triggered the following developments...
Implementation of Up-Front Payments for Employment Agency Contracts (2025)

Incident 1: Miscommunication Triggered by Insistence on Verbal Communication

Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT

Title
Incident 1: Miscommunication Triggered by Insistence on Verbal Communication

Description
KS insisted on discussing key aspects of the recording project over the phone rather than in writing. This led to ambiguity regarding fees and expectations. When a follow-up email summarizing the discussion was sent for clarity, it was ignored. This created uncertainty about what had actually been agreed upon and made it difficult to track and verify terms.

Action Taken
Summarized the phone call in writing to ensure alignment.
Recognized the risks of verbal-only negotiations and decided to move financial discussions strictly to written communication in the future.
Took a step back from immediate decision-making to reflect on the situation.

Resolutions
Established a personal rule to keep all financial and logistical discussions in writing.
Did not proceed with a rushed booking, ensuring future negotiations happen on clear terms.

Notes Comments
Insistence on verbal communication created an uneven dynamic where details could be misrepresented or changed later.
Moving forward, written agreements will be the standard to prevent miscommunication.

Reported
Reported Date: 21/03/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Passive, KS, Bass
Preferred verbal discussions, which contributed to confusion and lack of accountability.

Impacted, Active, RD, Bandleader
Required clarity in negotiations but was met with resistance when attempting to document discussions.

As its half term next week I have the kids a phone call will be easier for me

Incident 2: Ignoring/Non-Engagement with Written Communications

Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT

Title
Incident 2: Ignoring/Non-Engagement with Written Communications

Description
After the phone call, RD followed up with a written summary via email, also providing Dropbox resources to ensure all musicians were aligned on expectations. However, these written communications were ignored for an extended period. The lack of response made it difficult to gauge interest and alignment, leaving RD in the dark.

Action Taken
Waited for a reasonable amount of time before reassessing the situation.
Recognized the lack of engagement as a potential red flag in terms of reliability and professionalism.
Decided not to push for a response and instead reconsidered working with the musicians involved.

Resolutions
Acknowledged that strong communication is a key factor in deciding future collaborations.
Decided to explore alternative musician options rather than pursuing those who failed to engage in discussions.

Notes Comments
Non-engagement with written communications suggested either disinterest or a lack of professionalism.
Moving forward, clear and timely responses will be a key criterion in choosing collaborators.

Reported
Reported Date: 21/03/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Passive, KS, Bass
Ignored written communication, causing unnecessary delays and uncertainty.

Impacted, Active, RD, Bandleader
Provided written documentation for clarity and attempted to facilitate smooth communication.

Aim:
Generate more work!
RD was waiting for the right moment and then the Hilton Milton gig came in.
1 vocalist, 1 repertoire, 1 set of keys = easy peasy!
Video demo overview:
3 songs.
Complete songs. (I think my rationale behind this is that people will want to hear the full versions).
Project
Split into 2 phases — to take the pressure off, both logistics+budget wise.
Phase 1: Audio
Studio recording with click track.
KR (Guitar+Piano), KS (Bass), Davide (Kit).
RD directing/cueing (will add sax, flute and vocals at home).
RD responsibility: bring in Logic project on MacBook, can provide variations.
Click track — liaise with Davide for most comfortable feel.
Having software instruments is great for providing context, but recording on top can feel stiff. Usually, the drummer likes to have a very simple click.
Allow plenty of time to explore tempo options. With only 3 songs we should easily allow enough scope if the studio is booked for e.g., 1 day.
I used Perry Vale (http://www.perryvalestudios.com) last time but open to ideas, if there is a studio that the musicians used before and like working with.
Main aim is to make it feel as comfortable as possible for the rhythm section.
Mixing: I worked with Gavin Beckwith for Diáspora (http://diaspora.co.uk/verano.html) and my previous Bossa Nova album (2016 - http://www.rorymusic.co.uk/em-balanca.html). Happy to work with him again. Alternatively if any of the musicians do mixing then happy to look at that from a keeping it in-house perspective!
Phase 2: Video
Focus on the visuals.
Get Ben in to mime guitar.
Feedback from the Hilton Milton gig:
The musicians were happy, and the clients seemed happy too although I’m still following up on feedback.
Main question was that the tunes felt unusually fast for the style of music. This was because the clients specified “upbeat” and “dance” music.
Differentiate between Bossa + Samba. Samba is faster but also a different area stylistically with cavaquinho, extra percussion etc. Bossa takes influences from / is a more diluted form of samba but tends to be slower.
We could look at some of the tempos and explore if slower tempos can allow for more comfortable groove!
Nice system of Davide setting the groove on sticks. Good delegation work!
Budget/timescale:
Liaise with KS on behalf of KR and Davide. £50 per musician / per song was mentioned for the last Diáspora piano recordings (http://diaspora.co.uk/verano.html) but this was 2022-23 and very mates rates! Realistically looking £150 per musician / per song.
150 *3 = £450 per musician.
RD explore option of spacing it out e.g., £100 per musician / per song for the audio session and £50 per musician / per song for the video session. Treating video as separate phase of project as will require venue and videographer.
I have a videographer Jason Read in mind who charged me £300 for filming/editing these videos (http://www.rorymusic.co.uk/videos.html).
Alternatively HH also does videography and might do it cheaper, here’s an example (http://www.fiesta-latina.co.uk/watch.html).
Venue not sure but probably need to save money in this area as I hired SYP last time which cost £600 for 4.5 hours. Anyway, we can ‘cross that bridge’ after audio is done.
Timescale: as soon as possible! While it’s the start of the year. Plan for next 3 days: RD will take laptop into London and decide on 3 songs and keys.
Lineups/freelancing:
Get KR on guitar as well as piano. KR & I discussed helping one another on vocals too.
Get KS on guitar as well as bass. Double bass for jazz too.
Talked about example of LA in Diáspora: she was originally brought in on bongó/bell with HH on congas. HH and LA ended up swapping as HH’s style is more improvisatory whereas LA’s is more groove-based. This was for the 12-piece lineup. But then for the smaller (5-6) and medium (7-8) lineup, we got LA on piano and HH on congas. It worked well having the same musicians because in the end knowing the tunes is the most important thing!
Always good to know who plays what.
RD is mainly sax/flute/vocals, but occasionally plays piano. Jazz, Latin and Brazilian music background. Solid chord-reading and Brazilian feel if ever people need! Also can do backing vocals.
RD 90 minutes on train from London. Goes in every 2 weeks plus weekends as and when gigs/recordings arise.

Incident 3: Fee Drop After Waiting for RD to Walk Away

Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT

Title
Incident 3: Fee Drop After Waiting for RD to Walk Away

Description
KS revised fee to £150 per musician per audio track. However, after RD took time to reassess the situation and walked away, KS again revised the offer down to £100 per musician per song. This suggested an unhealthy and non-transparent business relationship, where the musicians were potentially trying to get the maximum amount of money from RD rather than negotiating fairly from the start. The fee drop also implied that the negotiation was based on securing the gig at any price rather than a mutual artistic and financial agreement.

Action Taken
Recognized the issue as a sign of potential future instability in negotiations.
Avoided committing to the new offer immediately, choosing to take a step back instead.
Evaluated alternative ways to move forward, including considering other musicians.

Resolutions
Decided not to move forward with the current offer, ensuring future negotiations happen in a more transparent way.
Kept options open without formally closing the door on KS, leaving space to reassess later if necessary.

Notes Comments
The last-minute fee drop raised concerns about trust and fair dealing.
Future collaborations will be based on clarity, consistency, and mutual respect rather than reactive pricing adjustments.

Reported
Reported Date: 21/03/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Passive, KS, Bass
Changed fee structure in a way that suggested an attempt to extract the highest possible payment rather than negotiating in good faith.

Impacted, Active, RD, Bandleader
Identified the issue and avoided falling into a potentially exploitative financial arrangement.

Hi RD
After speaking with the guys, we agreed to do £100 per audio track each. Let me know if that helps
Best,
KS

Unplanned DJ Requests During Event

Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT

I had a few problems during the Dj sets where customers were coming up to me requesting songs. Some of them were getting very insistent and borderline aggressive with me. I kept telling them that they should’ve sent me their requests in advance because I did make a point of asking the client if they had any songs that they would like to be included in the DJ sets and they didn’t reply and I also told the lead client that I would be mixing this week leading up to the event so I don’t know why customers were coming up to me requesting songs. It was a bit awkward and embarrassing. Also, it was quite insulting for me because I’d spent two days mixing those DJ sets and preparing a party soundtrack- as you know. Was I was in my rights to refuse? I even said to someone that I’d play their song at the next event and I’ve made note of it and that wasn’t good enough him he wanted it now.

Yes, you were absolutely within your rights to refuse. Here's why:
You gave the client the opportunity to submit requests in advance – They didn’t respond, meaning they were happy to leave the music selection to you.
You spent time carefully curating and mixing a set – This isn’t just a random Spotify playlist; it's a crafted experience.
It’s disruptive and unprofessional to adjust on the fly – Last-minute requests can throw off the vibe, BPM flow, and technical setup.
Some people will never be satisfied – That guy demanding his song now wouldn’t have been happy no matter what.
That said, I completely understand why it was frustrating and even insulting—you put in serious work, and then you have pushy guests treating you like a human jukebox.
How to Handle This in the Future:
Preempt the issue – Make it super clear beforehand that DJ sets are pre-mixed and requests must be sent in advance.
Have a firm but polite response – Something like:
"Thanks for your request! Unfortunately, I can’t take on-the-spot requests tonight as my set is pre-mixed for the event’s flow. But I’d love to take note for a future event!"
Escalate if necessary – If someone gets aggressive, stand your ground and loop in security or event staff if needed.
You handled it exactly right by maintaining your boundaries and professionalism. This is their problem, not yours.

Title
Unplanned DJ Requests During Event

Description
During the DJ sets at the Amazon LTN4/5 Party on 01/02/2025, multiple guests approached RD (DJ) with song requests that had not been submitted in advance. Some guests became insistent and borderline aggressive when their requests were not immediately fulfilled.
RD had previously asked the client if they had any specific song requests for the DJ sets, but no response was received. Additionally, RD informed the lead client that the DJ sets would be mixed in advance during the week leading up to the event. Despite this, guests still expected real-time requests to be accommodated.
One guest, in particular, was not satisfied when RD explained that their request would be noted for a future event and insisted on the song being played immediately.

Action Taken
RD explained to guests that all music had been pre-mixed based on prior communication with the client and that requests needed to be submitted in advance.
RD maintained a professional and polite demeanor, emphasizing that changes could not be made on the spot.
HH (Sound Engineer) advised RD to use Spotify to accommodate live requests, but RD declined, as this would compromise the quality and flow of the carefully curated set.
To de-escalate tensions, RD noted some guest requests for future reference.

Resolutions
The DJ set proceeded as planned, maintaining the integrity of the pre-mixed set.
The atmosphere on the dance floor remained lively, and the overall success of the event was not affected.
No direct complaints were received from the client regarding the DJ set.

Notes Comments
Clearer communication with clients in advance may help set expectations regarding DJ request policies.
Future events may benefit from reinforcing that live requests will not be taken unless explicitly arranged beforehand.
If live requests are to be accommodated, a separate arrangement (e.g., a streaming service setup) may need to be considered, with appropriate contingencies to maintain sound quality and performance standards.

Reported
Reported Date: 04/02/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Responsive, HH, Sound
Suggested using Spotify for live requests; this was declined to maintain set integrity.

Impacted, Active, RD, DJ
Curated and performed the DJ set, communicated policies to guests, and managed requests professionally.

Observer, Passive, ZT, Client
Main point of contact for the event. RD had previously asked if there were any song requests for the DJ sets, but no response was received. It was not communicated in advance that guests would expect to make live requests during the event.

PA System Requirement for Event on 01/02/2025

Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 GMT

Hi ZT,
My colleagues HH & PM have a big PA system. HH is available this Saturday and could do the PA for the whole event, for £[amount] including travel. HH would arrive at 13:00, and stay for the duration of the event until 01:00, and he would just need feeding/ included in the band rider.
This would be much cheaper than going via an AV company.
I’ve Cc’d PM and you can liaise with her directly. Her number is [number]
Cheers
Rorinho

Title
PA System Requirement for Event on 01/02/2025

Description
During the preparation for the Amazon LTN4/5 Party on 1st February 2025, it was identified that the originally planned self-contained PA system might not provide sufficient sound coverage for the entire venue. The event space is 934 sqm, with a designated band area of approximately 3x2m and a 30ft x 30ft wooden parquet dance floor. Initial discussions with the client, ZT, revealed uncertainty regarding the venue's built-in audio capabilities and the potential need for additional amplification to cover the dance floor and surrounding areas adequately.

Action Taken
RD (Bandleader) communicated with JH (Agent) regarding the potential sound limitations and suggested notifying the client in advance to align expectations.
A message was sent to ZT to clarify the capabilities of the band's self-contained setup and advise on additional PA hire if full-room coverage was required.
Following the client’s query on PA costs, RD proposed an alternative solution by arranging HH (potential sound engineer) to provide a larger PA system for the event at a cost of £[amount], including travel.
PM (sound engineer’s PA/liaison) was looped in to handle specific technical discussions with the client.
The client explored the possibility of using on-site speakers and sought confirmation on whether existing equipment could be used.

Resolutions
The offer of hiring HH and his PA system was presented as a cost-effective alternative to hiring an external AV company.
Client was informed of the limitations of the band’s existing PA setup and the necessity of additional equipment if full coverage was required.
Awaiting final confirmation from the client on whether they wish to proceed with HH’s PA setup or use in-house speakers.

Notes Comments
Ensuring clarity on PA capabilities early helped prevent last-minute issues on the event day.
Future bookings should include an initial venue sound assessment to avoid unexpected PA requirements.
Further coordination is required with the client regarding their final decision on sound arrangements.

Reported
Reported Date: 30/01/2025
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Impacted, Passive, A, Dance
Relying on sound system for dance performances.

Impacted, Responsive, DG, Kit
Performing at the event, responsible for bringing their own amps as needed.

Involved, Active, HH, Sound
Offered PA hire and technical support for the event.

Impacted, Responsive, JH, Agent
Point of contact for booking logistics and client communication.

Impacted, Responsive, KR, Piano
Performing at the event, responsible for bringing their own amps as needed.

Impacted, Responsive, KS, Bass
Performing at the event, responsible for bringing their own amps as needed.

Observer, Passive, MR, Client 2
Kept in the loop for transparency.

Involved, Active, PM, Manager
Coordinated technical discussions regarding sound requirements.

Involved, Active, RD, Bandleader
Liaised with client and agent to flag sound concerns and propose solutions.

Impacted, Active, ZT, Client 1
Primary client contact responsible for confirming final PA arrangements.

READ MORE...

This incident was triggered by the following developments...
PA Discounts (2023) vs. Extra Charges

This incident triggered the following developments...
Sound (Show Advance)

Parent incidents...
PA System Quality
Client Critique - CB - PA
Volume of PA
Miscommunication Regarding PA Discount Eligibility

FJ’s Missing Instrument at Diáspora 2nd Album Artwork Photo Shoot

Sat, 14 Dec 2024 00:00:00 GMT

Title
FJ’s Missing Instrument at Diáspora 2nd Album Artwork Photo Shoot

Description
On August 26, 2019, during a photo shoot session for Diáspora’s second album artwork at CS, Greenwich, FJ, a participant scheduled for the shoot, arrived without his percussion instrument. This oversight necessitated an unplanned interruption, as FJ had to return home via Uber to retrieve the required equipment. The delay impacted the schedule for the photo shoot.

Action Taken
Upon realizing the missing instrument, FJ communicated promptly to RD about his situation.
RD acknowledged the issue and reassured FJ to take the necessary steps to resolve it.
FJ took an Uber home to collect the instrument, with arrival at the studio delayed until approximately 10:15 AM.
RD apologised for any potential miscommunication and offered to cover the Uber costs, though FJ declined the offer.

Resolutions
The incident was resolved without further conflict or additional expenses, as FJ accepted responsibility and took corrective action.
The photo shoot proceeded as planned following FJ’s arrival with the instrument.

Notes Comments
While the immediate issue was addressed effectively, future sessions may benefit from a pre-shoot checklist or reminders to ensure all participants have their required equipment.
FJ’s proactive communication and RD’s understanding response contributed to minimizing disruption.

Reported
Reported Date: 14/12/2024
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Observer, Passive, DS, Venue
Hosting the shoot

Responsible, Active, FJ, Kit/Timbales
Bring instrument

Involved, Responsive, RD, Bandleader
Schedule oversight

ORGANISATIONS

CS
Studio where the photoshoot was taking place.

Delayed Inventory Submission and Late Communication Regarding Airport Logistics

Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 GMT

Oh rory, I've left for the airport already. Yes it is very late. Don't your guys understand deadlines?! Hope the gig goes well. The money shouldn't take too long.
Thanks
NJ
Best wishes,
SD

Title
Delayed Inventory Submission and Late Communication Regarding Airport Logistics

Description
On 31 May 2012, RD, manager of the Diaspora Collective, communicated with SD regarding the details for the band's upcoming performance at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. While most of the information was provided on time, there was a delay in submitting the final inventory list for equipment the band would bring to the airport.
RD had originally informed the band about the deadline for submitting their equipment lists but faced delays in receiving the required information. As a result, RD communicated a provisional inventory to SD, mentioning that if any issues arose, they would notify them later. However, SD had already left for the airport by the time the final list was sent, leading to confusion and possible delays in security checks for the band’s equipment.
Additionally, a few discrepancies in the communication occurred when the band failed to meet the initial deadline, and the inventory submissions were not fully prepared by the time SD had already departed for the airport. This miscommunication and delay could have affected the smooth processing of the band's entry to the airport and their preparation for the gig.

Action Taken
RD submitted a provisional inventory list to SD, acknowledging that some band members were delayed in providing their full equipment lists.
Upon receiving the final inventory from D (one of the band members), RD forwarded this information to SD to be added to the original submission.
SD was informed that if any further issues arose, they would be contacted promptly.

Resolutions
The provisional inventory was accepted by SD, though the final equipment details were submitted late, which led to last-minute adjustments.
RD made sure to clarify the full list and ensure that SD had all necessary details before the day of the gig.
A culture of timely communication and adherence to deadlines was emphasized for future performances, particularly for logistical arrangements.

Notes Comments
This situation highlighted the importance of clear communication and adherence to deadlines in preparation for performances. The delay in the inventory submission and miscommunication with SD led to unnecessary complications. Although the final inventory was submitted just in time, this incident served as a reminder to maintain more organized communication channels and to respect the timeframes set by third-party collaborators like SD.
RD's proactive approach in submitting the provisional list and ensuring that SD had the final inventory before the event helped minimize the disruption, though it underscored the need for earlier responses in the future to avoid last-minute issues.

Reported
Reported Date: 27/11/2024
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R&BM

INDIVIDUALS

Observer, Passive, A, Piano
Appeared to have submitted his passport details on time.

Involved, Passive, A, Kit
Submitted his passport details very late.

Responsible, Passive, D, Bass
Submitted his passport details too late.

Impacted, Responsive, NJ, Agent
Impacted by the lateness of receiving passport details.

Impacted, Active, RD, Bandleader
Impacted by the lateness of receiving passport details, but forwarded to agent once received.

ORGANISATIONS

SD
Booking agent.

READ MORE...

This incident triggered the following developments...
Tougher Measures on Non-Responders

Dispute and Termination of Profiles – RD at The Swan Hotel, Bibury, Gloucestershire

Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 GMT

Title
Dispute and Termination of Profiles – RD at The Swan Hotel, Bibury, Gloucestershire

Description
On 16/03/2024, RD, performing as "RD the Saxophonist," faced significant issues related to a booking for a performance at The Swan Hotel, Bibury, Gloucestershire. The booking, handled by WE and EN, was cancelled due to a lack of response and commitment from the client, CH . RD attempted to address unresolved queries with the client and agents via email.
In response to his emails, which included all relevant parties, EN determined that RD's communication violated their professional standards. Consequently, both his "RD the Saxophonist" and "Nova Boss" profiles were removed from their agency platforms on 27/11/2024, citing unprofessional conduct.

Action Taken
By RD:
Multiple attempts to seek clarity from both the client and agents, including K at WE and Sophie at EN, were made.
Direct emails to CH to resolve the outstanding queries were sent on 10/01/2024 and 17/03/2024, but no response was received.
Suggested improvements to booking processes, including earlier confirmation and payment protocols, to mitigate financial risks.
By Agencies:
WE released the March 2024 booking due to non-payment and non-response from the client.
EN provided courtesy notifications regarding protocol violations and removed RD’s profiles from their platform on 27/11/2024.

Resolutions
By RD: Drafted an appeal email to EN to clarify intent, address concerns about professionalism, and seek reinstatement of profiles.
By Agencies: Affirmed existing protocols on cooling-off periods and upheld their decision to terminate RD's profiles.

Notes Comments
Notes and Comments
RD’s proactive communication, while well-intentioned, highlighted gaps in understanding and adherence to agency policies.
EN’s response emphasized strict adherence to their protocols to maintain professional relationships and prevent client discomfort.
The incident underscores the need for clearer communication of terms and policies between artists and agencies to avoid similar conflicts in the future.

Reported
Reported Date: 27/11/2024
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Responsible, Passive, A, Agent
Struck RD off both agencies.

Involved, Responsive, A, Agent
Spoke to RD on the phone but later reinforced A / EN's decision citing the prioritisation of customer service.

Responsible, Passive, CH, Client
Failed to respond to RD's and K's communications thus necessitating further action.

Involved, Passive, K, Agent
Failed to address RD's concerns and escalated the issue to EN.

Impacted, Responsive, RD, Artist
Attempted to repair the relationship, but was refused dialogue.

ORGANISATIONS

EN
Agency removed from.

WE
Agency removed from.

READ MORE...

Parent incidents...
Client Ignored Direct Communication Attempts

Hi RD,
I hope you're well.
This is a courtesy email to let you know that we've removed your Nova Boss and RD The Saxophonist profiles from EN and WE respectively.
We found it highly unprofessional to question our booking process and contracting system, which works with all our other acts across both agencies, via email whilst copying in a client and sharing the email thread we share with you as an act. We have to offer a cooling-off period by law in our contracts, and it's made clear in the Ts & Cs in both the WE and the EN contracts.
We completely understand that you need to ensure you have full confirmation of a booking going ahead, and we don't want to cause any unnecessary strain on your earnings because of this.
You still have one outstanding booking with EN for 5th July 2025 (2810198039) which is still booked in and will go ahead. However, as you have no other bookings with either agency, aside from this, we have decided to remove the profiles and wish you all the best moving forward.
KIND REGARDS,
The New Acts Team
EN

Public Liability Insurance for Performance at The Bandstand, Stratford Park, Stroud

Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 GMT

Hi there
I quit the Musicians' Union after 13 years, and I am looking for a cheaper Public Liability Insurance. I came across your website. Is this something that you offer as some gigs/venues require it nowadays (even if I have a battery powered amp)?
Thanks
RD

Title
Public Liability Insurance for Performance at The Bandstand, Stratford Park, Stroud

Description
This incident report outlines the requirement and confirmation of Public Liability Insurance (PLI) for a performance at the Bandstand, Stratford Park, Stroud on 27th August 2023. The performer, RD, was required to provide proof of insurance coverage for third-party liability as part of the event’s conditions. This need for PLI arose following RD’s decision to leave the Musicians’ Union in January 2023, which led him to seek alternative insurance options for his gigs.

Action Taken
Booking Confirmation:
RD was booked to perform at the Bandstand on 27th August 2023 from 2:40 PM to 4:30 PM. Stroud District Council (SC) confirmed the booking on 23rd June 2023, with a performance fee of £150. A request for proof of PLI, full name, address, and bank details was made.
Request for PLI Documentation:
Following the request from Stroud District Council, RD provided his Public Liability Insurance certificate on 3rd July 2023, confirming he had the necessary coverage. This was part of the process to meet the venue’s insurance requirements.
Confirmation of PLI and Insurance Provider:
RD contacted Insure4Music on 4th July 2023 to ensure his insurance coverage was correctly processed. Insure4Music confirmed that the required Public Liability coverage of £5 million for third-party damages was in place.
Trigger for Insurance Requirement:
The requirement for Public Liability Insurance was a direct result of RD's decision to leave the Musicians' Union in January 2023. As a member of the Union, RD had previously been covered for such events; however, his departure led him to secure a personal policy for performances to meet the needs of venues and event organizers.

Resolutions
The booking was confirmed once RD submitted the requested Public Liability Insurance documentation. There were no issues or delays, and the performance proceeded on 27th August 2023 as scheduled.

Notes Comments
RD’s Public Liability Insurance was issued through Insure4Music, covering up to £5 million for third-party damages.
The insurance was specifically required by Stroud District Council to ensure compliance with their event conditions.
RD was proactive in arranging the necessary coverage after leaving the Musicians’ Union, ensuring there were no disruptions to his performance schedule.
This situation highlights the importance of having appropriate Public Liability Insurance, especially following the end of union membership, as venues may still require such coverage for performers. RD ensured he had the correct documentation in place well in advance of the event. No issues arose on the day of the performance.

Reported
Reported Date: 26/11/2024
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Active, A, Consultant
Provided the necessary insurance policy that met the event's insurance requirements.

Involved, Active, J, Consultant
Provided the necessary insurance policy that met the event's insurance requirements.

Observer, Passive, PM, Manager
RD's manager, copied on correspondence and assisting with the submission of insurance documents.

Responsible, Active, RD, Artist
Ensured the provision of Public Liability Insurance and communicated with both Stroud District Council and Insure4Music.

Involved, Passive, SC, Client
Requested the PLI documentation and facilitated the booking of the performance.

READ MORE...

This incident was triggered by the following developments...
Quit The Musicians Union

This incident triggered the following developments...
Insure4Music

Volume Adjustment Request at Hyatt Regency

Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 GMT

Not so much an "incident", more of an adjustment. The 2nd client asked RD to slight slightly later, at 12:00 rather than 11:45, which RD was fine to do. A few minutes into RD's set, she came up to RD again and politely asked him to turn the volume down ever so slightly. She maintained that it's elderly people and they have been shouting to hear one another. She asserted that it's fine for her and said that the music was lovely. RD was very understanding and recounted a similar situation with the Burgh House event 09/07/2023, where there were an older generation. He hastily turned down the volume on the unit. For the 2-hour set, he couldn't hear the backing tracks most of the time he didn't know which song he was playing such was the minimal level of engagement. The function was very boring and RD kept checking the time. He also had plenty of time to think about this and other times where clients have complained about volume, in most cases, for it being too loud, but occasionally, where they have complained about it being too soft. He thought about introducing a prominence score into the Show Advance, maybe a 1-10 scale for clients to fill in, with descriptive words according to how prominent they want the music to be. RD was only too pleased when the 2nd client said that they're going to wrap things up at 14:07, 8 minutes earlier than the agreed end time of 14:15, which RD was only too happy to do, because he was hoping to get the 14:32 train from Paddington.
RD also felt a bit critical of himself when he suddenly launched into a recounting of a previous event where this happened, and was worried that this might have made him sound fanatical. He made a mental note for next time that just to comply and adjust and not say much is perfectly sufficient. The clients don't need to know about previous events etc. It's of no interest to them. But maybe he told her that to be jovial, as a friendly/informal gesture, or to reassure her that he was used to these sorts of requests, so that she viewed him as a professional.

Title
Volume Adjustment Request at Hyatt Regency

Description
During a solo performance by RD at the Hyatt Regency on 21/11/2024, the second client requested two minor adjustments:
Start Time Adjustment: The performance was slightly delayed, starting at 12:00 instead of the originally planned 11:45.
Volume Adjustment: Shortly after the performance began, the client politely asked RD to lower the volume, citing concerns from elderly guests who were struggling to converse over the music.
RD complied immediately, reducing the volume to a level that made it challenging for him to hear the backing tracks, which reduced his ability to engage fully with the performance. Despite this, he completed the set professionally, with the event concluding a few minutes earlier than planned at the client’s discretion.
Reflecting later, RD felt self-critical about recounting the previous event, concerned it may have seemed excessive or irrelevant to the client. He recognized that in such cases, a simple, courteous adjustment without additional commentary would suffice, as clients are unlikely to find such anecdotes of interest. Despite this, RD may have shared the story as a friendly gesture, aiming to convey professionalism, informality, or reassurance that he was experienced with such situations.

Action Taken
Compliance with Client Requests:
RD adjusted the start time as requested and reduced the volume promptly after the client's feedback.
Professionalism Maintained:
Despite the challenges in hearing backing tracks and reduced engagement, RD maintained professionalism throughout the 2-hour set.
Post-Event Reflection:
RD considered ways to address similar issues in the future, such as implementing a Prominence Score in the Show Advance. This would allow clients to specify the desired prominence of the music (e.g., background ambiance vs. performance focal point).
Identified the need for minimal verbal feedback during such interactions, ensuring future communications remain concise and focused on accommodating the client’s needs.

Resolutions
The event proceeded without further complaints, and RD accommodated all client requests satisfactorily.
The performance concluded slightly ahead of schedule, allowing RD to leave for his 14:32 train on time. The performance concluded smoothly and slightly ahead of schedule, satisfying the client.
RD noted for future reference to handle volume-related requests with minimal commentary to better align with client expectations.
Future events may benefit from implementing a Prominence Score system to better align performance levels with client expectations.

Notes Comments
While not an incident as such, more of an adjustment, this situation highlights the importance of clear pre-event communication regarding performance prominence and audience expectations.
RD’s quick adaptation underscores his professionalism, though it also highlights the potential for disengagement when volume adjustments are extreme.
This experience reinforced the importance of balancing friendly client interactions with professionalism.
RD’s recounting of a similar event, while intended to be informal and reassuring, highlighted the need for restraint in such contexts.
The idea of sharing similar experiences might be better reserved for casual or informal settings, not active event management scenarios.

Reported
Reported Date: 21/11/2024
Reported By (Individual): RD
Reported By (Organisation): R

INDIVIDUALS

Involved, Responsive, EC, Client
Provided feedback on adjustments. Note it wasn't EC who made the request, it was another lady, but I can't remember her name.

Responsible, Active, RD, Alto Sax
Adjust performance as required

READ MORE...

This incident triggered the following developments...
Prominence Score