Band Relations

Professionalism? I'd prefer to be friends with my bandmates though.

Musicianship. If you respect/admire their playing, you can forgive all kinds of personal transgressions.

Well you know... Im not in a band or anything... but its just like at a job... you dont have to like everyone... but need to work together as a team to get things done. Granted... the guy cant be a total jerk... but you dont have to be buddys to get a job done, and be a good team.

Thanks all. Will take your advice to heart

It's not going to be too much fun if there is that much dysfunction between band members. Sure you can get away with it for awhile (and longer if you are an established band that is making serious cash)but for the most part sooner or later it's going to blow up.

I'm kind of with TR I'd much prefer to make music with friends but then again it's not always that easy.

Hi
It's never going to be 100% smooth no matter what - so you just have to learn to roll with it. Enjoy the good bits and try not to be the one causing the crap too often.

In my own band we have plenty of issues to contend with. We're an awkward and hard to please bunch of bastards. The singer is erratic and lacks confidence yet still has an ego; the drummer and bass players are newbies who can't be relied on to get their parts down properly; the keyboard player isn't too bad provided that he only has to play with one hand at a time; the lead and rhythm guitarist can't agree on who will be the star, and we have seemingly endless problems deciding what to work on next. :? But they all think they have “potential”…. :roll:

Incidentally, my 'band' isn't just a home hobby band, it's a one man band - and I play all the parts track by track. So if I can find it annoying, and I get to make ALL the decisions and have it ALL my own way, then what chance has a bunch of four of five people of being 100% satisfied? Zero chance. It gets pretty frustrating at times, but it's not life and death stuff (although I do often feel like killing the singer when he blows the 27th take in a row...) and “we” still have a lot of fun. I'm just delighted to get the opportunity to play at all. I even get to play with others at times, and have learned not to be too picky. Some folks are “Glass half full” types whilst others see it as “glass half empty”. I'm just glad to have a glass at all. Maybe there'll be beer next week... :D

Cheers,

Chris, Chris, Chris and….. Chris (“hey, why do I always get last billing?”….)

Well I've heard Chris is pretty good but I don't know how he deals with that Chris. Chris should say something but Chris won't let him. :P

My opinionated opinion:

Look at today's computer generated music. I don't like it. It's un-interesting, bland, innane, repetitive and impossible to recall to memory as soon as it's (thankfully) over.

Why? Because one person does it all.

Everything...nobody there to take a new tangent, to put their talents into it (be it limited or grandiose)...or to make an in-house critique. What "post production" is there, anyway? It's all done by one guy. It ain't even in the least bit interesting...

I've coined...and use...a new genre: Muso Verité...real people, in other words.

Band relations???

It's EVERYTHING!!!

Suggested reading: "An Intimate Life Of Paul McCartney" by Howard Sounes.

Cat

The thing I think holds a band together when the members don't like each other: leadership. If a band is a democracy, which a lot of bands aspire to, it'll fall apart when the going gets rough.

That doesn't mean a band should have a dictator (except when it does - I'll get to that in a minute). A successful band actually needs three leaders, and the three roles can be filled by different people:

- a musical leader. When everyone is coming up with ideas for songs, setlists, arrangements, etc., decisions need to be made. The most capable musician should be the musical leader, and the others need to trust his/her judgment. (By most capable musician, I mean the one who is most capable of making good decisions in that area, not the one who's a virtuoso. Great instrumentalists can overshadow arrangements with ego; you want the best listener in this role, provided they have enough musical understanding to know how to make problem spots better.)

- a business leader. Somebody needs to take responsibility for handling the details of negotiation, booking, sending press kits, budgeting, managing the band's funds etc. This person doesn't need to do all the work, but they do need to make sure all the work gets done.

- a stage leader, or 'front man'. This is the public leader of the band, who might actually have no leadership say off stage. It's often the vocalist, just because they're a natural focus for the fans. This person will handle the banter between tunes, and will look like they're directing the flow of the set, even though that's been established by the musical leader.

One person can handle all three roles. But the bands I've seen fall apart usually do so because the one person handling the roles shouldn't be doing one or more of them. If the vocalist makes the best choices for arrangements, great. If he or she doesn't, but insists on musical control, the better musicians will leave. Same thing with business management.

The one place where dictators succeed: wedding/society bands. In that area, band leaders are often essentially one-man-shops (there may be one woman shops out there too, but in my market they're exclusively male). They've got the social connections to get good paying gigs, the musical skills to arrange the needed music for the least number of players, and the business chops to get a fair wage for the gig. In that area, there's the leader.... and there's the sidemen. The band comes together for only one night. The next night the lineup can be completely different.

These bands don't stay the same, but in a way they do - that Johnny Doe Orchestra may have been gigging steadily for 20 years, even though Johnny Doe is the only one who's worked every gig. The musicianship is almost always top-notch; these are the best sight readers in the area, the musicians with the biggest ears, and the ones who can put on a convincing show with little or no rehearsal. The leaders can be (and often are) complete jerks, and will always have total control. But they always get the work, because they can provide great musicians. And the great musicians will always play with them, because they'll have some of the best paying gigs around.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I've known bands who have stayed together for years without much to show in the way of success: the bands where members really, really like each other. These groups are often pretty functional as democracies because of their group dynamics. They're also often dysfunctional (from a career standpoint) because the comaraderie dictates the musical and business decisions. Like they say, a camel is a horse designed by committee.

If you want to have fun and play once in a while, find people you like with the same goals. If you want to play a lot and get paid for it, you'll either put up with people you don't like, or you'll end up running the band your way, and hiring the people you want. I really don't see any other viable choices.

(By most capable musician, I mean the one who is most capable of making good decisions in that area, not the one who's a virtuoso. Great instrumentalists can overshadow arrangements with ego; you want the best listener in this role, provided they have enough musical understanding to know how to make problem spots better.)

If you want to have fun and play once in a while, find people you like with the same goals. If you want to play a lot and get paid for it, you'll either put up with people you don't like, or you'll end up running the band your way, and hiring the people you want. I really don't see any other viable choices.

(Pardon the paraphrasing!)

You are spot on with the first bit...but I dunno about the second...should I feel "as the odd man, out" that since the mid-70's I've worked with people that are pretty much my brothers??? Before logging onto GN I looked over all our various FB posts. Geez, we're getting OLD! Our kids are now where we used to be. Another marriage done...the first prostate to be hacked out...and another grandchild. This is all cool...

I can see one side of your argument..."play a lot and get paid for it". Like a band leader that hires in the needed help...and "so what" about someone having their first grandchild. But the other side of the argument is pretty much based on the fact that another set of people aren't reading off of cheats...they aren't second class citizens: they're writing and publishing. So I do think there's that duality. Robotic churn outs of standards...or needing to work together in all regards...

Besides...borrowing your drummer's condo in Papeété is something your band leader wouldn't see happening...because he doesn't have one! Ask yourself "why"???

Only friends can do that, Matey. :wink:

Cat

"WANTED: Band of Brothers/BFFs to form musical group...."

:roll:

Such occurrences are exceptional. I've never seen it firsthand, except within rhythm sections between bassists & drummers. We all yearn for that kind of closeness, but mostly we must compromise, and when we do we have a choice to make. Which is more important, the music or the relationships? Really, though, there is no "duality" ("Robotic churn outs of standards...or needing to work together in all regards"). There are lots of ways to do a band. In my most recent band I had a brother-to-brother relationship with my drummer (heaven for a bass player!), a so-so kinda-friendship with the lead guitarist, and very little in common with the rhythm guitarist/vocalist. It was fine. I didn't hate being with them on a long drive to a gig. The music was satisfying (75 percent originals). Even so, it was a business deal, and I knew that if I became a liability they'd ease me out of the group. It kept me sharp.

For me, making bad music with good friends endangers the friendship. I care too much about the music.

If ya look at Chris' post, you'll see he's well aware of the different personalities that go into a band...even though it's a bit schizophrenic!!! Still, he's sussed it out, perfectly...you gotta work all the angles...even by yourself.

It's one of the toughest things in the world to get a group of people together to do just about anything under the sun. Most times it's like herding cats...so everyone's reticence is understood. But I guess I've been lucky.

No, not lucky...just fair and square. What do I mean? Ya treat your friends right, that's all. That ain't too hard for anybody to comprehend, is it? I can tell you that you'll go through life and...if yer lucky...count your best mates on just one hand. (I'm 60.)

We've all pretty much retired, meaning we've just begun "to do other things". Still, we've decided to do something exciting, fun and downright interesting: we're chasing after a Grammy. We've set aside the issue of money and have turned decidedly toward pure aesthetics...pure good time balls to the wall rock. Although I wrote the material (as usual since...geez...the mid-70's)...the copyright's being split evenly. We've ALWAYS worked like this. At first we tried setting up an incorporated business in The States. That was too weird for a bunch of hippies, especially since I moved to Oz and someone else moved to French Polynesia. So? Easy...we just started to split up the copyrights...leaving each to his own as far as taxes and whatnot goes. That took the heat out of functioniong like "corporate suits" and getting our heads together each tax time. Sharing out what we made...AND "who did what" came easy after that bleedin' obvious brainstorm.

Do you think an "even steven partner" will work till he drops to get something done? Yep, you betcha! Friendships are always based on trust...meaning you can make technical screwups that'll only get someone to lean on you to say: "That really stinks!" The same for life mode screwups, too (like my recent marriage demise) that have them say: "Yep. You really screwed up this time...but I'm still in your corner, Buddy!!"

There's a Calabrese expression that translates: "Only your friend can tell you your feet smell!"

Crap! Who wants a world of music devoid of friends?

Cat
(or should I say Catanzaro, Calabria!)

Like a band leader that hires in the needed help...and "so what" about someone having their first grandchild.

The more I consider what I wrote on this thread...the more this particular point glares at me. "How" you play music has a direct corelation with quality of life issues.

I agree with TR and CNev: Friends Rule!!!

Cat

Cat, you seem to have found Utopia.

I've known bands who were friends. I've just never known a band made of friends who were able to make music more than a hobby.

The reason I split the leadership thing into three parts is that one part (the stage leader) is visible. I've never seen any band break up because the bass player wanted to front the band, or the singer wanted out of the limelight. But every band that I've seen break up - every last one, the ones I've been in, the ones my friends have been in, and the ones my son has now been in... well, they broke up for reasons of music or money.

On the money side, you've got a solution to the easy part: the distribution. I haven't seen a band break up over distribution, only over input - the ambition side. If the guy who seizes the business role can't negotiate or doesn't know the market, his mates won't like working for $45 when they could have gotten $200. If the one in the business role won't give it up (and I've seen that happen a lot), the ambitious ones leave.

On the music side, I've known a few leaders who thought they were modern day Mozarts. It's fine if you want to craft your own thing - go be Alan Parsons (or the Johnny Doe Orchestra). But that's not really a band, it's a vanity project.

The fair and square part of your comments strikes me, though. That's how real leadership operates. It doesn't have to be an even split or a fair division of the work... it has to be honest communication. That's what holds a band together.

But I sort of see the communication as the symptom, and the leadership as the cause. I've been with bands, and known people who've been with bands, that were doomed because of communication, and nobody (even the communicator) really knew it. The musical leader who can see everyone's faults but his own, or the business leader who procrastinates and loses opportunities - they'll always be able to justify their behavior.

The world is full of dreamers who want to go places. I've often heard people say that it's so hard to make a living in music, but I haven't found that to be true. It's just a puzzle to be solved. But it's not going to solve itself. A lot of people who say they want to be successful are waiting for the music fairy to step out of the wings and bless them... but they'd feel funny saying that, or maybe that's how they believe it really happens. So you'll get situations where the communication isn't honest, and they don't even know.

Most of the bands I've been in fell apart over lack of ambition. But that's rarely obvious. You'll find bands that rehearse two or three or four times a week that say "we'll start gigging when we're ready". But they've been rehearsing for two years. They imagine themselves to be working hard at their craft. They can't see that the craft they're honing is rehearsing, not performing.

About ten years ago I answered an ad in the Illinois Entertainer, auditioned, and joined a band. Decent musicians, nice guys, said they really wanted to work. I started getting us gigs. Then one night I couldn't make a rehearsal, because I had a gig as a sideman... the singer got upset, and questioned my "commitment to the band". But I was the only full time musician in the band - I had to question their commitment to their stated goal, making money making music. I wasn't blowing off a gig, but they weren't making much money, and I have to feed my family. I can't permanently reserve two to four nights a week to "get ready" if you rarely play. I left.

Two years later I ran into one of the guys in the band. They'd been through three other guitarists after me, and he complained that nobody had any work ethic, how hard it was to find people with commitment, etc. Total number of gigs they'd done since I left: zero. Total rehearsals: over a hundred. I asked why they hadn't done any gigs, and the answer was "we need to be ready, and nobody stays long enough."

I think they really believe they're hard working musicians. What I think they really are is a pretty good basement band afraid to take a stage.