I'm running a new band. I've ran bands in the past and have been guilty of over-emphasizing near perfection in the music, thus turning off good but questionably committed players. My philosophy has always been to perfect the music (within reason) in rehearsal before you play your first gig-- then it's all up from there.

However, a lot of the players I've worked with have the philosophy that as long as everybody has a loose-leafed knowledge of the songs and can take cues, just book and go for it.

I'd love to hear some philosophies from other bassists, whether you go my way, the other, or somewhere in between so I can figure out my gameplan for my new showband.

Depends on the kind of music that you play, I think.

We play a mix of funk and rock. We go off in all directions live and never play the same song the same way twice. "Musical perfection" is not something we strive for (groove and "magic" are).

On the other hand, if you play progressive rock or metal... well, yeah, I can understand that.

I personally would not play in a band where improvisation was not welcome (and I mean song structure, not just solo breaks).

we practiced, wrote, revised etc for around a year before playing live. i think thats the best way to do things... at least for a band that isnt all about improv.

knowing the songs really well helps to put on a good show, and if you put on a good show you have higher chances of people becoming fans and such.

I tried the "perfectionism" approach, and it just flat out didn't work for me. I'm not diplomatic enough. It's one thing to be discussing a big name national recording artist act, but for a city cover bar band, I think it's best to just let the guys do their thing and only step in when there are arguments like "that's a D chord, not an Em". I sometimes imagine how I would have tried to control a guy like Keith Moon. I would have fired him in about 10 minutes for trying to play "lead drums", and this is what helped me realize that I don't know everything like I think I do.

My .02

Wait, are we talking a cover band or original music?

I understand what you're saying, and I want to clarify that I don't know everything, I just know my songs inside and out and want them all to come off well. I am a very objective, diplomatic person and am very respectful in my pursuit of perfection-- but I can't help but want all the segways, arrangements, feel changes, beginnings and endings and soforth to be dead on out of the gate. That's what the clubs have come to expect from my projects and I don't want to let them down. The Tampa Bay music scene is a very competitive, cut-throat affair and I have to impose a good, if not great, product.

We are talking stricly covers-- it's a money band all the way.

I understand what you're saying, and I want to clarify that I don't know everything, I just know my songs inside and out and want them all to come off well. I am a very objective, diplomatic person and am very respectful in my pursuit of perfection-- but I can't help but want all the segways, arrangements, feel changes, beginnings and endings and soforth to be dead on out of the gate. That's what the clubs have come to expect from my projects and I don't want to let them down. The Tampa Bay music scene is a very competitive, cut-throat affair and I have to impose a good, if not great, product.

If you have the diplomatic skills and the band's tension level is kept at bay, it's obviously superior to do the songs "right", out of the gate and I do understand the competitive aspect. But a band's longevity factor really does depend to some degree on how "controlled" the guys feel. Again, I know what I wan't and I feel like everything I would demand, I could easily out debate anyone else in the band with solid reasoning, music theory, etc. I just wish I could communicate without coming off as a controlling prick, which is how I'm sometimes perceived. If you don't have this problem, then kudos to you, sir - you're band will be.....good.

I'm in a band, my first, called Replay in Cyprus. We play covers from various modern rock bands*. The lead guitarist is very experienced, has played numerous gigs to crowds well into four figures. The other four members of the band - myself included - are absolute novices. The way that Mark (the LG) ran it, was that we practiced every song in the set (it was up to 17 by our first gig) over and over until everybody knew their cues, the timings were all spot on and everybody knew the song inside/out. It's worked for me and now that I feel confident that I could lead a band, I'd do it the same way. I'd be too wary of potential mistakes to just 'have a rough idea' and go for a gig.

* Arctic Monkeys, The Fratellis, RHCP, Muse, The Hives, The Strokes, Greenday... you know the routine.

It's got to be pretty close, but I don't think you can get a song "right" without gigging it. Plenty times we've had songs that were "ready', then actually gigged them - at the end of the song we've just looked at each other and gone "whoah! - that was different" (usually in a good way). Songs take on a life of their own when you play them live, and I figure it takes a few gigs for them to settle in. It would take a year of rehersal to develop a song the way we can in a couple of weeks of gigging it.

On the other hand, it sounds like you're aiming for some classy gigs, so obviously you need to push for a bit closer to perfection than a bar band does - but we can get close enough that the audience thinks they're tight, even if we notice the glitches.

However unless you've got a lot of experience in the band, and are aiming for that kind of gig, I'd advise any new band to just get out and play as soon as they're basically competent. Too many bands reherse for a year and then break up because everyone is bored.

Ian

I agree completely that one needs to gig out in a timely fashion. I work with a 2 month time continuum-- get my players, book gigs two months out, rehearse like crazy and GO.
But the rehearsals are long and numerous-- one month's worth to get the material learned, another month to polish. That's how I've always worked to keep my players and myself from starving for too long.

Loose and funky all the way ...

With a previous lineup in this band the drummer was the de-facto musical center, his other band was a jam band, so he wanted this one to be pretty rigid in the arrangements. He left I changed all of that.

We are a bluesy R&B classic rock band with a strong nod to some of the power trios of the late 60s and early 70s (Mountain etc: )

This is how I've described it to the band ... Some bands are like a well tuned Ferrari streaking down a racetrack ... we are more like a rusty 1948 GMC pickup truck going down a bumpy gravel road ... fenders flexing and gravel flying.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k220/kennyallyn/GMCpickup.jpg


:smug: ... We ususally get down the road together ... with only a few parts falling off.

I apply a lot of Buddhism, to the philosophy of running my band:

Keep everything in harmony, find the perfect balance between everyone's wishes.

And just keep things loosey-goosey, and everything works out okay.

If you are not booking gigs, are you paying your musicians to learn the songs the way you want them to? If not, there is your problem. Most good musicians are not going to put the effort into learning the songs the way you want them if you unless you have definite paying gigs in the near future. The catch is if you book the gigs without a complete line up, you risk not being ready for the gig. Then you would have to use hired guns, and these guys are notorious for saying they know songs just to get the gig and then faking their way thru.
I am like you, I would want the music to be near perfect before the first gig. But I also came to the conclusion that I would have to pay musicians for rehearsal and/or a retainer fee out of pocket.
You can make it easier for your musicians by doing some of the charting work ahead of time, and making sure you notate any modifications you made to the original ( like endings) ahead of time. If you have a good reputation with bar owners, try to find a bar that has a decent paid house band, even if it is a dive, and use it as paid rehearsal.

I personally would not play in a band where improvisation was not welcome (and I mean song structure, not just solo breaks).

dave,
With musicians, there is a not so fine line between what some musicians call improv and what I call lazy and halfass playing. You can't have each member of a band improving their own song form and expecting everbody to follow along. You might as well call it an open jam band.

It really depends on the music you're playing and what type of experience the band members have. My band is a gospel band and we usually play for a choir and at various church gigs. I emphasize a certain strictness when it comes to the foundation of the music. I require all members to learn their music before coming to rehearsal so when we rehearse, we're putting the parts together and polishing. Learn the foundation first, then you can mess around with ad-libbing and whatever else you think fits.

After they know the core of the song, I usually give leeway to the musicians to come up with their own runs and chords that they think fit. I'll speak up when I hear something that I feel clashes or when I want specific runs or chords that I know the choir or audience will expect to hear.

It's a balance because having musicians get up to play who aren't prepared is a recipe for embarrassment, especially when we're backing up a choir or praise team.

We are talking stricly covers-- it's a money band all the way.

Oh, in that case, you want to get them down perfectly. The difference between a successful cover band and a ****** cover band is that the good ones nail the songs, have cool lights, play the part (whether that means actually dressing the part, or just paying tribute to signature moves, etc)... ****** cover bands just go up there and half-*** it. If you want to make good money, perfection should be the stardard (not the goal - the standard).

The way I have run a cover band in the past is as follows

1) I got the gigs, owned the PA did the promo etc
2) I paid the musicians (differently depending on the person)
3) I picked the songlist, but allowed input on both songs and arrangements.
4) I did all the bookeeping, arranging, set-up, tear down etc. they just showed up and played.
5) had a Rolodex of subs that knew the tunes.

Got the best people by getting the best gigs ! Stayed busy for a long time that way.

Stefan
coverbandbook.com

Oh, in that case, you want to get them down perfectly. The difference between a successful cover band and a ****** cover band is that the good ones nail the songs, have cool lights, play the part (whether that means actually dressing the part, or just paying tribute to signature moves, etc)... ****** cover bands just go up there and half-*** it. If you want to make good money, perfection should be the stardard (not the goal - the standard).


Sorry, The real difference between a successful cover band and one that is not so successful is their ability to get gigs !

That means, the right kind of demo, the right kind of promo, and the ability to retain clients year after year.

You DO NOT have to be the most polished band, with the coollest lights and clothes.

You DO have to play what people want to hear and dance to. Yes, it is best if the playing level is good and tight, but most people hiring cover bands would rather hear Brick House played by an average band , than a band playing a Rush song nuance for nuance.

It is ALL about making money. If you don't have that down, you will not be successful. The best bands , get the best players by getting the best GIGS.

And having the best players also really means you'll get the best sound too...

Still the gigs and the money have to be there first !

Stefan
coverbandbook.com

I'm running a new band. I've ran bands in the past and have been guilty of over-emphasizing near perfection in the music, thus turning off good but questionably committed players. My philosophy has always been to perfect the music (within reason) in rehearsal before you play your first gig-- then it's all up from there.

I'm pretty close to your way of doing things. I can't stand sloppiness and laziness in practice, rehearsal or performance. My feeling is, if you can't take pride in your work, you really shouldn't be there in the first place. :eyebrow:

Makes no difference if it's covers or originals, with everything written out or with heavy improvisation. Even with improvisation, there's an approach that's disciplined and effective, and lots of ways that are not.

A couple of absolute fundamentals - so basic it's amazing one should even feel the need to mention it. But time after time, I read posts from TalkBassers with band members who don't really know how to even play their instruments. In which case, I often find myself wondering, "How the heck did they ever get into that band in the first place?" :eek:

The other one you've touched upon tangentially - the "questionably committed" nature of some players. In each case, the solution is the same: proper screening. It's essential to be crystal clear right up front about the a) concept, b) methods and c) goals of the band - so that everyone knows from the very start exactly what they'd be getting into, same as with any job - and so that all potential members have full opportunity to either commit fully, or to back away.

Not so easy to execute, perhaps. But it's gotta be done...

MM

Sorry, The real difference between a successful cover band and one that is not so successful is their ability to get gigs !

That means, the right kind of demo, the right kind of promo, and the ability to retain clients year after year.

You DO NOT have to be the most polished band, with the coollest lights and clothes.

You DO have to play what people want to hear and dance to. Yes, it is best if the playing level is good and tight, but most people hiring cover bands would rather hear Brick House played by an average band , than a band playing a Rush song nuance for nuance.

It is ALL about making money. If you don't have that down, you will not be successful. The best bands , get the best players by getting the best GIGS.

And having the best players also really means you'll get the best sound too...

Still the gigs and the money have to be there first !

Stefan
coverbandbook.com

Stefan,

I agree with you. I was presuming that both scenarios included that the band was working hard and had a professional attitude, gigging regularly, networking, sending thank-you notes, not drinking on the job, etc.

My take on it is this. Rehearsal is good but if you are using the same band and playing the same set of songs at the gigs then I wouldn't over-rehearse the band unless you are planning to pay for rehearsals. I think that one or two rehearsals a few days before the gig should be standard if you are gigging with the same guys/girls and the same material on a consistent basis. Anymore than that should come if you are learning new material and even then, out of courtesy, I would prepare to pay for rehearsals. Not only do bills need to be paid and mouths fed but time in and of itself is not cheap. There are too many band leaders out there who take advantage of their musicians' time and do not pay for it. This philosophy leads to musicians not feeling appreciated and looking elsewhere for work.

The point is if you want to keep good musicians, you have to take care of them. They're taking care of you by showing up and helping you build your name so it's only fair that you return the favor and compensate them for their time.

Everybody has their own system...I personally don't like to work with musicians who need to practice cover stuff. If they aren't experienced enough to learn the parts on their own, I'd rather not work with them. We practice every Tuesday and we may hit cover stuff once a month just to tighten up vocals etc. I'd much rather devote rehearsal time to writing and working on new originals. We may only do 30% originals at our shows but we are always selling cds so its important for us to keep the original thing fresh. I guess you do what works best for you!

I like things to be tight, but I don't expect perfection on every song. That doesn't mean I accept sloppy or half @$$ed playing. But how many guitar players do you see nailing Tom Morello solos 100%? Not every guitarist has a WH-1 and a guitar with a kill switch. Yet they still manage to play Rage and get people singing and jumping around like coked up monkeys. I say, leave perfect replication for a tribute band. Otherwise, you're going to be spending 5 minutes between songs retuning or switching instruments, adjusting effect settings and so on. No one goes up to a singer and says "you messed up the third line of the second chorus...", if you do, you're a prick. If a player in my band adds a fill somewhere, and it's tasteful, flows and stays in key and time, I'm perfectly fine with it. I trust them not to screw up. No one wants to be in a band with a tight @$$. If you constantly harp on them about perfection, it's not going to be fun, members will lose interest, and you'll be looking for new members in 6 months. I do believe that if something is worth doing, it's worth doing well, but still keep the emphasis on having fun.

Depends on the kind of music that you play, I think.

We play a mix of funk and rock. We go off in all directions live and never play the same song the same way twice. "Musical perfection" is not something we strive for (groove and "magic" are).

On the other hand, if you play progressive rock or metal... well, yeah, I can understand that.

I personally would not play in a band where improvisation was not welcome (and I mean song structure, not just solo breaks).

Agreed (other than the not playing in a band where you can't improvise, since I am of the mind that not all music is meant to be improvised. Orchestral music is a good example and I don't see why a band should necessarily be any different)[edit] I should say also that I do respect that as your personal persective though.

Strictly speaking about covers though. If you have a good standard of musicians you should really only need them to know the songs and maybe be able to read a chart or two. When playing fill in spots with covers bands I really don't want to even see the inside of a rehearsal studio unless I get paid for it.

It's essential to be crystal clear right up front about the a) concept, b) methods and c) goals of the band - so that everyone knows from the very start exactly what they'd be getting into, same as with any job - and so that all potential members have full opportunity to either commit fully, or to back away.

MM


A great big +1 to this.

I once put together a cover band that I had to tell everyone up front that I was in charge and here's what's expected of you (including rules for rehearsals, drinking, money, etc..) and if you don't agree then don't join. It was very successful while it lasted because the few people who did join knew what to expect, and weren't surprised when I was the guy giving orders.

My current cover band is the exact opposite because it was set up by my brother, who's a novice drummer, really as a favor to him as I was between bands and thought that playing with him and another guitar player (who was also doing this in his free time from two other bands) would be kind of fun and low key. It turns out that we started booking gigs and we haven't really had a reason to stop playing together, even though it's a bit frustrating having a drummer to whom I have to teach how to play time signatures and tempos and dynamics. I'm currently looking for a drummer and guitarist for a more serious money-making trio, and I'm going to go back to the "I'm in charge" approach when I interview musicians, because one thing I know; the "committee" approach to running a band never works. :rolleyes:

I'm going to go back to the "I'm in charge" approach when I interview musicians, because one thing I know; the "committee" approach to running a band never works. :rolleyes:

Guess I gotta disagree with you on this point. Yes, generally there needs to be a "bandleader" directing things but there are situations where that role can be divided out by the bandmembers if they are all of the same mind as to what to do/where we are going.. For the last year or so, I've been in a much more democratic band than ever and it's actually one of the best-managed bands I've been in. Each of the 4 of us has a pretty equal input into the overall management by each being responsible for a portion where we excel... 'course this is a 1st for all the members to be this involved, but it's working out pretty well. :bassist:

Ideally, you want to find band members that are all virtuosos on their instrument, treat each other like brothers, and would rather die than miss a rehearsal or gig.

Of course that's difficult if not impossible to accomplish. Finding two people like that is difficult enough. You as a band have to prioritize. If you value a band of committed, well-matched personalities, you will likely have to sacrifice skill. If you value skill above all else, you'll probably either have to put up with an ******* or with someone phenomenal enough to think they don't need to show up to every last rehearsal.

However, if you are highly skilled yet humble enough to value your bandmates and the rehearsal time, you start attracting similar musicians, and find they're not quite as rare as you might think. Playing with others for the first time tends to throw into sharp relief exactly where you are deficient, be it in technical skill, professionalism or personal skill, and if you are any kind of musician you will work to improve wherever you are lacking. Experienced musicians, therefore, are in the general case also better bandmates in terms of the other two traits.

Having found musicians who, if not perfect, are a good fit, I think that everyone in the band should have an equal voice about creativity and business. If they choose not to exercise it, that's their decision, but if they have something to say it should carry an equal weight to what anyone else in the band says. There's the possibility of deadlock, but if you've picked your bandmates well there's a good chance you can work out a compromise.

I'm of the "Fake it till you make it" school of thought.

I like to play songs well, but I like songs to have a life to them. I also like to inject my personality & style into songs as well. I also want to be dynamic enough to be able to play to a specific audience.

That said, I like flexibility in cover tunes. I want the audience to get into the songs we play. So, if a cool, complex bridge makes the crowd go nuts, I'm all for practicing it. If they don't care, then no. More often than not, I find that cover band audiences tend to go for a hip groove and pleasing vocals, over complexity in music or it being just like the recording.

I find gigs to be the driving force of good bands. It motivates regardless of whether people are in it for the money, attention, experience, music, comraderie, etc. It's simple: no gigs, no motivation.

I'm running a new band. I've ran bands in the past and have been guilty of over-emphasizing near perfection in the music, thus turning off good but questionably committed players. My philosophy has always been to perfect the music (within reason) in rehearsal before you play your first gig-- then it's all up from there.

However, a lot of the players I've worked with have the philosophy that as long as everybody has a loose-leafed knowledge of the songs and can take cues, just book and go for it.

I'd love to hear some philosophies from other bassists, whether you go my way, the other, or somewhere in between so I can figure out my gameplan for my new showband.

i'd say to focus on -a- goal, and be open to compromise on all other topics but that one goal. for instance, if your goal is to be perfect in rehearsals, then say that up front with the players.

i don't think the "frank zappa" school of band leadership is a good way to go though unless you're hiring folks and paying them. people coming into a situation are already compromising on a certain level since it is implied that they are going to defer to you on some level. forcing more compromise might undermine the band's longevity.

Guess I gotta disagree with you on this point. Yes, generally there needs to be a "bandleader" directing things but there are situations where that role can be divided out by the bandmembers if they are all of the same mind as to what to do/where we are going.. For the last year or so, I've been in a much more democratic band than ever and it's actually one of the best-managed bands I've been in. Each of the 4 of us has a pretty equal input into the overall management by each being responsible for a portion where we excel... 'course this is a 1st for all the members to be this involved, but it's working out pretty well. :bassist:

I'm generally against single dictators in a band, because for the most part, they are more like petty despots than leaders. If I've had one overriding criticism about some groups I've been in, it's that there was too much dictatorship and I didn't feel that my efforts on behalf of the band were appreciated. I felt like an employee. It's a hobby. I don't want to be treated like an employee, but instead as a partner. I'm willing to lead. I'm willing to follow. But if I'm to follow, treat me right and with respect, or I will walk. And that's what I did.

That being said, pure democracies absolutely do not work either. I've been in those situations. It's impossible. Musicians often are flaky, yet have large egos. I've been in those situations where, for example, everyone got to pick 6 songs that the band will play. You get a lot of grumbling, half-hearted efforts to learn everyone else's tunes and you end up with a weird, ecclectic mix that may or may not work in your market. In a recent situation, one wanted to CONTROL the band decisions but didn't take any responsibility for making the band work. It was messed up. I definitely felt disrespected and hit the exit.

so what works? A "benevolent dictator" or maybe two-- someone (or two) who takes the lead, but makes sure that the rest are at least listened to before making decisions, that there is respect, and that there is acknowledgement that one (or maybe 2) need to take the lead and be followed. This acknowledgment tempered with the need for those with the power to respect the rest, and not just blow them off.

It's a tough row to hoe. But I've seen it work. One or two need a "vision" of what the band is supposed to be, have 2/3's of the set list decided when the band is formed, but make sure that others are respected, involved, and listened to, otherwise they will get pissed and move on. It can work.

Since the beginning, we've jumped in head first. Our second or third show was a 2 hour slot that we booked when we had 45 minutes of music. In a week (we'd practice every day though), we found a way to fill in the time by writing new songs, improv jams, and a cover. The set was so long and since people came and went, we closed with the first song!

A few months later we got booked at the main stage for the "Spring Crawl" out here which has over 100 bands and decided to debut a 10 min proggy song... the drummer didnt even know the whole thing! I am not sure how we did that one, but it was a success.

With the brand new drummer, we were booked again for this Crawl event at one of our favorite venues. In 2 weeks (practice about twice a week) we got a set down with 4 pretty long songs and a number of improv jams that we had worked on a bit. This was the drummers first real show, and it was a big one!

My philosophy is to take on the challenges and encourage each other to stick at it whether we have an amazing night or not (in terms of turnout, performance, gear disasters, etc). We keep getting better and the intention is to fun at it. 60+ shows, 2 albums, some music awards, airplay... it hasnt been bad.

You need to book the gigs and get out and play. The pressure of a looming gig alone can tighten up things real quick. Don't be the guy that's so anal about everything that what is supposed to be fun becomes a stress, and he never gets out to actually play a show.

Every band I've played in that went no where overanalyzed everything and focused on absolute perfection.

Every band that I've played in that was successful got everything about 80% together and started booking gigs. The details will work themselves out.:bassist:

You can run it any way you want, as long as people know what to expect in the beginning and you don't deviate from those expectations.

But...I run my band as a democracy. I call myself the president of the domocracy. All major decisons are made as a group effort, all little things that would bog a group down if decdiing that way are decided by me.

I made our bands setlist. We all put in tunes, about 90 in all. I narrowed it down to 60 of which 40 would comprise a night's worth. When it was all said and done, the band only wanted to change about 5 songs. I can easilly live with that. It worked well because I took everyone's input and they all had songs on the setlist.

I find gigs to be the driving force of good bands. It motivates regardless of whether people are in it for the money, attention, experience, music, comraderie, etc. It's simple: no gigs, no motivation.

You need to book the gigs and get out and play. The pressure of a looming gig alone can tighten up things real quick. Don't be the guy that's so anal about everything that what is supposed to be fun becomes a stress, and he never gets out to actually play a show.


The above statements ring true for me. It really depends on the band and the goals of the band. I currently do it as a hobby and while I like things to be tight, the smallest details are just that. I don't get stressed out over the small stuff because most people won't notice.

For some people, jams and shows are only about the music. For me and most of my band mates, it's about the social aspect and the music. We enjoy each others' company and have a good time playing together and that translates to the performances. That in itself can be better than mastering all the details.

As mentioned above, there is nothing like a booked gig to get things moving quicker though!