It is not at all clear that the "business" is obligated to pay you, although the fact that you say Walter claimed to have sent you a check strongly supports that interpretation. What was Randy's role in this situation? Is he your agent? Walter's agent? An employee of Walter's business? How did he get the authority to hire you? On whose behalf was he acting when he hired you? Why are you dealing with Randy if it is Walter who owes you money? If Walter wrote a check to you personally, then he can stop payment on his check if it is "lost in the mail"  and write a new one, or present you with a copy of his cancelled check to prove it was cashed.
 
I see no reason to believe that either you or the defendant in your small claims case will be required to hire an attorney. It is unlikely that you would have agreed to work for nothing, but establishing the exact amount that you were promised in court will require you to present witness testimony (in the absence of a written contract) to establish the amount. Will Randy so testify? Will Walter? Will your colleague? If Walter does not show in court you win--then you still have to collect. 
 
It only takes thirty seconds to write a binding contract. I,xxxx agree to perform at yyyy location on zzzz date for aaaa dollars  to be paid by cccc at the time of  or the performance or within ddd days following the performance. Both parties sign. Do it on a napkin--it is still better than a lying contest in court. Or insist on a check before you start to play. If the payer says he has to wait to be paid by the wedding planner, agree to hold his check until xxx days later. Wait as agreed then deposit his check. His bounced check is all the proof you need that you were not timely paid. 
 
Nothing you say or hear on the telephone with anyone is proof in court. Unless the people you talk to will show up in court on the day of your trial and tell the same story, you have nothing except information. Use the mail-registered return receipt requested. 
 
Join the f////king musicians union. 
 

slartabartfast
It is not at all clear that the "business" is obligated to pay you, although the fact that you say Walter claimed to have sent you a check strongly supports that interpretation. What was Randy's role in this situation? Is he your agent? Walter's agent? An employee of Walter's business? How did he get the authority to hire you? On whose behalf was he acting when he hired you? Why are you dealing with Randy if it is Walter who owes you money? If Walter wrote a check to you personally, then he can stop payment on his check if it is "lost in the mail"  and write a new one, or present you with a copy of his cancelled check to prove it was cashed.
 
I see no reason to believe that either you or the defendant in your small claims case will be required to hire an attorney. It is unlikely that you would have agreed to work for nothing, but establishing the exact amount that you were promised in court will require you to present witness testimony (in the absence of a written contract) to establish the amount. Will Randy so testify? Will Walter? Will your colleague? If Walter does not show in court you win--then you still have to collect. 
 
It only takes thirty seconds to write a binding contract. I,xxxx agree to perform at yyyy location on zzzz date for aaaa dollars  to be paid by cccc at the time of  or the performance or within ddd days following the performance. Both parties sign. Do it on a napkin--it is still better than a lying contest in court. Or insist on a check before you start to play. If the payer says he has to wait to be paid by the wedding planner, agree to hold his check until xxx days later. Wait as agreed then deposit his check. His bounced check is all the proof you need that you were not timely paid. 
 
Nothing you say or hear on the telephone with anyone is proof in court. Unless the people you talk to will show up in court on the day of your trial and tell the same story, you have nothing except information. Use the mail-registered return receipt requested. 
 
 

Again, good remarks. Thanks.
 
A couple of comments: the observation about suing the business in the hopes that the (perhaps erroneously understood) "requisite lawyer" with his fees would prove prohibitive is from an old situation I had with a home heating oil company from years ago.  I was lead to believe that this was a NJ distinctive, but I will check it out obviously before I intend to act on it.
 
There is one detail that I left out.  Obviously, in retrospect, it has not worked out, but it should be noted that Randy was a person with whom I had considered myself to be on friendly terms (I had worked with him at school, always very cordially).  This is also a part of why there was not a contract.  I thought I could trust him.  It appears that I may have been in error.  Then again, he may be caught in the middle and embarrassed about it.  Not entirely likely at this juncture, but it is possible.  I was dealing solely with Randy (until today) because he was the point of contact in the organization in charge of entertainment.  
 
The bride's mom may show up in court with us.  She may not know how much Randy agreed to pay us, but she certainly knows how much she paid him for us.
 
The Musician's Union to which I belonged wasn't worth much, so I let my membership lapse.  I honestly do not think the MU would do anything about this situation.
 
Again, thanks for your helpful comments. 
 
 

Many thanks to all who commented on this thread. Talking to the bride's mom seems to have done the trick. When I mentioned to Walter that I had talked to the bride's mom, he went ballistic and became abusive. He also continued a few lies (that he had given checks to Randy, that he was going to call his lawyer, etc.). I asked him whom it was that he'd prefer me to sue in small claims court. In the end, however, my check came in the mail today (interestingly without any return address). The check was dated 6-16-16 (after Walter's claim to have given the check to Randy the week before) and it was postmarked 6-20-16 PM (the afternoon of the day I spoke to the bride's mom and alerted him of the same).
 
The bride's mom, BTW, did not seem all that surprised about Walter's comportment. She had noted his arrogance and had warned him to get out of her daughter's face during the day of the wedding. "Pleased" is not a word that I would use to describe her level of satisfaction with Walter's job performance. What I described to her was just so much more "grist for the mill", so to speak. 
 
Again, thanks to all here. Now I have to wait for the check to clear, but I doubt that there will be any issues.