Does it/Would it bother you to play under someone else's name?

NoNoise · #1 09-28-2007, 04:20 PM

I think the only way I could play in a band just named after the lead singer is if it was someone I already really respected (i.e. listened to) or if it was just for a couple shows. I can never see my self being in a band for a long period that gives me no recognition.

What are your thoughts?

Stumpy · #2 09-28-2007, 04:34 PM

Uhm...

Coming from a Classical/Jazz training I don't have an issue with the name of a band. If I am doing what I like (the sound etc) and getting cash as well...I am ok with it.

I drive four choirs, four different bands (drumline and 3 rock/R&B bands) at school and one of my own (www.crashthemachine.com). Not one of them have my name on it and I am ok with that.

Just My Opinion

ducatiman · #3 09-28-2007, 05:41 PM

my thoughts? i am *part* of a group. i'm not looking for personal recognition by name. nor am i ever gonna be a rock star. i'm very happy doin frequent gigs for some extra $$$.

if *you* feel so inclined...well, just embark on your *solo career*! ....

fwiw..........duc

erochelle77 · #4 09-28-2007, 06:07 PM

As long as I get paid

steve66 · #5 09-28-2007, 06:11 PM

Not at all. "Just give me a gig"

NoNoise · #6 09-29-2007, 07:40 AM

Thanks for the comments guys. I wasn't necessarily saying my name has to be part of the identifier of the group, but I play in bands that just have a band name. So, for example, I would have issue playing in a band that was just known as Conor Oberst. I just don't like the idea that one guys is getting credit for a whole band. Instead, I would be one "demanding" we play under a band name like "Bright Eyes." I hope that makes more sense.

I know one big difference is the money issue. I am still debating, in my mind, what is worth money. What I mean by that is, that I have always had the mindset that the music I play is my art (as well as others' art that's in the band). Therefore, I don't substitute money for that. However, if Craig Wedren asked me to play in his band (just under the name Craig Wedren), I would probably do it, because I love his music. Still, with that circumstance, I justify it by saying that the music is already written, I already believe Craig is making art, and it would just be temporary gigs on my part.

P.S. I have done solo stuff, and I always have a moniker.

Woofenstein · #7 09-29-2007, 08:05 AM

Doesn't bother me at all. If I'm playing music that I enjoy and making money I'm happy. Besides - I'm not trying to get famous, so it's not like I'm losing out on fame and fortune if the local bar crowd only has an individual instead of a band name to go by.

Dave Martin · #8 09-29-2007, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnolansoc

I know one big difference is the money issue. I am still debating, in my mind, what is worth money. What I mean by that is, that I have always had the mindset that the music I play is my art (as well as others' art that's in the band).

Let me give you another point of view (one that comes from 35 years of making a living as a musician, and 15 of those years as a recording engineer and producer). Damn few bass players - for that matter, damn few musicians - are 'artists'. The word 'artist' is terribly over-used.

Sure, a few bassists have, in my biased opinion, achieved 'artistry' - Vic Wooten has, from time to time, and so has Steve Bailey, Brian Bromberg (occasionally) and Eddie Gomez. But for the most part, I don't think of bass players as 'artists' (A plaque in the bathroom at my studio reads, "Just because no one understands you, that doesn't make you an artist."). Even Ray Brown, though he was a wonderful bassist, wasn't, in my opinion an 'artist'. He was, however, a superlative craftsman - which I say as a high compliment.

Bass is an instrument who's primary function is in a supporting role. We're the guys who lay the foundation that makes it possible for someone else to try to create 'art'. We're 'craftsmen'; although not nearly enough of the bassists I've heard on records in the last 15 years even play at THAT level (Hell, if you compared what we do to what an electrician or a carpenter does, most bass players don't have the skillset to be considered 'journeymen' they're apprentices who never learned enough to pass the test).

Even on projects where I created the concept, brought in the appropriate musicians to produce the project and followed it to completion, I don't the end result to be 'art'; it's entertainment - a diversion.

Based on that philosophy, I'd have to say that no, I don't worry about whose name is on the gig - I'm there to give the best performance that I can, and support those who hired me to be there. And if it's a cooperative endeavor like your band, I'm there to play good, do good and have fun.

I'm about 3 performances away from finishing a 5 week theatrical run (someone elses name is on the marquee, by the way), and according to my calendar, I've got 4 live gigs and two sessions next week. None of them are in my name - in fact, I've got one gig with a band that has a band name rather than a leader or artist name, but I'm subbing for the regular bass player. It ain't my gig...

WHich answers your question - I don't have a problem playing with bands named after the leader or playing with singers who book gigs under their own name (two different things, by the way.).

IanStephenson · #9 09-29-2007, 08:50 AM

If I was hired as a sideman, on a week to week basis then thats totally fine, but I would understand that I wasn't part of a "band".

Even at a local bar band level you'd be loosing out. When you've got gigs booked, and a following that the band has worked for a year to build, the singer can turn round and say he's quitting - effectivly firing the rest of you, as he's taking his name with him. The "name" guy to all intents and purposes has full control, as you can't fire him if he doesn't get his own way.

Ian

Phalex · #10 09-29-2007, 10:38 AM

I used to play in a band that was named for the front man. I never had a problem with it, but the guitar players brother (bassist for a different band) used to give us crap about it all the time.

When we both left that band to start the project I'm currently in we told his brother we were going to name the new band after him, and we were going to SUCK!! He didn't find it nearly as funny as we did.

anderbass · #11 09-29-2007, 12:00 PM

If I played in a band that was named after the frontman, I'd probably expect him to be very talented
and to have previously achieved a certain degree of success in his previous projects.

ElectrAcoustic · #12 09-29-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderbass

If I played in a band that was named after the frontman, I'd probably expect him to be very talented
and to have previously achieved a certain degree of success in his previous projects.

+1, and I'd also expect that frontman to do all the other work that goes into a project aside from performance... promotion, bookings, etc..

Jared Lash · #13 09-29-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnolansoc

I can never see my self being in a band for a long period that gives me no recognition.

What are your thoughts?

I suppose the larger issue is whether that person justifies having the band named after him or her. If that person is the driving force of the band, then I don't see a problem. If songs are written together, then I would probably bristle at the notion.

Besides, I'm not sure how I see a band with a "band name" as opposed to named after the frontman gives you any more recognition. If the band isn't named after you, then what does it matter regarding your visibility, recognition or respect?

I've played bass in bands named after songwriter/singer and never had a problem. If you're a good player, you'll get recognition regardless of the band name. I don't think people think any less of Carter Beauford as a drummer just because he plays in The Dave Matthews Band.

Mofo-Kang · #14 09-30-2007, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnolansoc

Thanks for the comments guys. I wasn't necessarily saying my name has to be part of the identifier of the group, but I play in bands that just have a band name. So, for example, I would have issue playing in a band that was just known as Conor Oberst. I just don't like the idea that one guys is getting credit for a whole band. Instead, I would be one "demanding" we play under a band name like "Bright Eyes." I hope that makes more sense.

I know one big difference is the money issue. I am still debating, in my mind, what is worth money. What I mean by that is, that I have always had the mindset that the music I play is my art (as well as others' art that's in the band). Therefore, I don't substitute money for that. However, if Craig Wedren asked me to play in his band (just under the name Craig Wedren), I would probably do it, because I love his music. Still, with that circumstance, I justify it by saying that the music is already written, I already believe Craig is making art, and it would just be temporary gigs on my part.

P.S. I have done solo stuff, and I always have a moniker.

I used to kind of feel that way, but my way of thinking has come around. The way I look at it now, the name ought to reflect the contributions involved. If, say, the singer is writing the songs and basically making the music, but just needs some live bodies there to play it, I'd have no problem with him using his name as the band's name--it's his project, he deserves the lion's share of the credit, and the other musicians are pretty much hired guns. But if it's really a group effort at making the music, the songs being composed and all that by the group itself, then personally, I'd be more comfortable if the name of the group reflected that. That's just me, though. Other people might (probably do) feel differently.

Munjibunga · #15 09-30-2007, 11:23 AM

I've said it many times before. If you want recognition, bass is the wrong instrument for you. There are approximately two bass players in the world who may have widespread recognition in the general public; Sting and Macca. Even so, many people have no clue that these guys play bass. Their fame is more related to their song writing and the fact that they have fronted very popular bands. So if you want recognition as a bass player, write a lot of popular songs and front a famous band.

Steve Clark · #16 09-30-2007, 11:34 AM

As long as the cheques are in my name I don't mind at all.

bigfatbass · #17 09-30-2007, 11:34 AM

+1 munj.

But, where's your avatar?

BassSurfer · #18 09-30-2007, 11:37 AM

fellow queens resident.. lol

i dont care at all. being in a band playing music is my major priority.. i know your not getting attention as much as you would like too.. but do it for the music!

Dave Martin · #19 10-01-2007, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

There are approximately two bass players in the world who may have widespread recognition in the general public; Sting and Macca.

Who's Macca?

Stanley Design · #20 10-01-2007, 05:25 AM

Usually the only time people name the band after themselves is if they do all the writing of the songs themselves, in which that case I don't mind. If I'm a hired gun, I'm a hired gun. If I'm part of the creation process and writing, it's gotta be something different. Now I don't mind if it's "so-and-so and the ______" if they are a specific frontman, or have a well known name under many bands. Lars Fredirckson and the Bastards, Jonny Hobo and the Freighttrains, Mike Valley and the Rats, GG Allin and the Toilet Rockers, GG Allin and the Cedar Street Sluts, GG Allin and the Murder Junkies, GG Allin and The Jabbers, etc.