Bandleader!

[Haysoochreesto]

In another thread this term is being bandied about, thus inspiring this thread.

I've never been in a band where one guy drives the entire thing. I've only ever been involved in bands where everyone has an equal say in things.

There are times in a democracy type of band where things lag and don't get done. Personally, the band I'm in is coming out of such a phase as I write this. At some point when everyone's lollygagging around and nothing new is happening someone needs to step up and get the thing back on track. In our current configuration, every single one of us has indeed spoken up when unhappy and we've always found a way to accomodate each of us.

I personally couldn't work in an atmosphere where one guy had all (or almost all) of the say in the direction of the band, what we would play, where we would play, and how he wanted each instrument to sound. Where's the fun in that?

Of course I'm not talking about studio work so let's nip that in the bud before pedantic smart-assery takes over the thread.

If I'm going to make original music with fellow musicians(1) then I will have the ultimate say in how I play most of my lines. I've come up with some apparently crappy lines before but gave them up due to bandmates letting me know that what I was doing wasn't working; and I'm fine with that. Sometimes one gets too deep in the forest to see the trees and needs some help out.

But one single guy telling me he doesn't like what I'm doing and laying it down as law? Ain't happening. I've had things suggested to me and I've tried them and its worked fine, I have no problem with that. But ultimately, I'm the one who will decide what my lines are going to be, how I'm going to play them, what kind of rig I'm going to play out of, what kind of bass I'm going to play, or what my sound is going to be.(2)

I guess its the thing about one single person being able to tell 2-5 other people what it's all about when everyone else is working just as hard at the exact same thing to accomplish the same goal that rubs me the wrong way.

Even in a cover band (which is what I do) there are creative elements involved and I wouldn't have some guy constantly telling everyone else what songs we're gonna do and how he thinks we each should play them. That's what each individual band member is for--it's what each person brings to the table that makes each band unique (ideally).

I'll take "Don't play it that way, play it this way" once or twice. The third time there's gonna be a problem.

1. I don't actually consider myself a real musician--I'm not. I'm just an adequate mimic.

2. Except when I'm too loud. Then they can tell me that. But I'm really not too loud--EVER. They're just jealous of my badass rig. A rig so badass it inspires not the awe that it should but instead strikes them down with Little Man's syndrome, thereby breeding deep seated feelings of inadequacy. But it's okay, I'm cool enough to feel sorry for them and their puny egos and even punier sounding equipment. Poor fellas.

[permagrin]

The important part is having clearly defined roles, and all members understanding the roles.

Think of a pack of wolves. For the pack to function best there is a leader/alpha male, a second, etc. all the way down. And wolves know that the guy guarding the rear has a key and valued role. In fact, most wolves will not want to take on roles higher in the hierarchy if they can avoid it; they will only challenge if they feel the leader is weak and not performing his role; otherwise, they are more content to not have the additional responsibilities.

(The same applies to dogs, btw. If a dog has an owner that is in command and a strong leader, generally the dog will follow and be content; many 'trouble' dogs have weak owners, where the dog senses he needs to take charge, to be the alpha - and the extra stress (because the human doesn't understand the roles) is what generally results in poor behavior).

Personally I prefer a band with a strong leader, especially when it's not me. Show up, do my thing, less stress.

WRT your statements:

"I personally couldn't work in an atmosphere where one guy had all (or almost all) of the say in the direction of the band, what we would play, where we would play, and how he wanted each instrument to sound. Where's the fun in that?" and

"I will have the ultimate say in how I play most of my lines", "I'll take "Don't play it that way, play it this way" once or twice. The third time there's gonna be a problem."

These are red flags to me. I realize I cherry-picked your post and you did qualify these remarks somewhat, but the attitude here is directly opposed to what it is to be a team player. Indeed you should have a say in all matters that you care about, but someone should have the final say. In originals bands, I've found it works best if the primary songwriter (who, let's face it, created the vision for that song) has final say on all the various musical choices on that particular song - there's plenty of room for contributions, but he has final say; for covers, it's best to have a bandleader to have final say. Otherwise, the potential for unresolved conflicts always exists. And conflicts delay and detract from achievement; it's almost always better to make a bad decision than no decision, failing to act is often the biggest failure.

For instance, assume you're doing a cover and the guitar player is doing the same line as you and another part is not being played, and the song is suffering. You both want to play the line, and neither of you wants to voice the other part. Or, your band has no horns so you're voicing a horn part on bass 'cause you feel the keyboardist should focus on an important piano part instead.

Who wins out? You can't always just go by the original recording; with all the extra recorded tracks, the instrument mix and skill levels of the original players, vs. your band lineup, etc., there's often not a clear answer. In a democracy this conflict is open-ended and perhaps will never be resolved. A single person who, after weighing all factors, is empowered to have final say will keep things moving along.

If that leader is not you, state your piece but don't fight his decisions, accept them wholeheartedly and feel comfortable with the fact that someone else has the responsibility and added stress; you just do your part to be as supportive as possible in your role. Don't be the guy who gets labeled "hard to work with."

[JohnMCA72]

I've been in bands that tried to be "democratic", I've been a "side man" where 1 guy was the undisputed "boss", & I've been in some where somebody just gravitated to a position of leadership. It's tough to find 3, 4, 5, or more people who completely share a common vision of how to conduct the band's business, which involves a heck of a lot more than just playing music!

Most times, I've been involved with a variety of people. Some want to just show up & play their part. Others want to have more involvement in a variety of matters. I think it's best to have everybody agree to "own" some portion of the business. With all the work that needs to be done to make a band successful, there's plenty to go around & everybody can take on as much or as little as they're able (or willing) to do.

In my experience, a leadership vacuum usually leads to nothing getting done. On the other hand, a leader who insists on doing/deciding everything can alienate people & spread himself too thin to be effective.

JM