My theory of what is required for a band to succeed

::::BASSIST:::: · #1 08-20-2006, 11:44 PM

What follows is an email reply I sent to prosepective band members. Alot of this stuff is probably elementary for most of us, but I dont know... I thought some of us might find it useful.

Quote:

Yes, so far I'm interested. However, there are somethings I'd like to discuss to make sure we are all on the same page.

1. Leadership - In my experience it is necessary to have a leader in the group who ultimately makes the final decisions. Of course, it would be best if those decisions were made with input from other members. But a "team" needs a quarter-back to be most effective. Otherwise alot of wasted energy is spent discussing how to do things rather than doing them. Basically, this means that the other band members are willing to allow that if or when a decision has to be made about something, the leader has the last word. It is not meant to be a dictatorship scenario. However, i have been in a band where there is no clear leader and it weakens the band as a whole as arguments may occur etc. From time to time you just need to someone to say, "Okay, we are doing it this way." Done. Move on.

I should note that I have absolutely no desire to be the band leader.

2. The setlist - The only thing where everyone should have an equal say is the setlist. Its all about the music. In my opinion, because there are hundreds perhaps thousands of great songs out there, every band member should be happy with each song on the setlist. In my experience, what works well is what is known as the 'veto' power. Every band member has the power to veto any song they dont like. They can have reasons for their veto or it could be because they simply dont like the song. Music is art and sometimes a person just doesnt like something. In order for everyone to enjoy playing the music (that's what its all about isnt it?) each person should be happy playing each song. If there are 12 songs per set and 3 sets in a night's music thats only 36 songs played per gig (give or take a few). It shouldnt be too difficult to keep everyone happy.

3. Who are we playing for? The audience or ourselves? As a band I believe its important that we have a clear understanding of what the overall goal of the band is. If we want to just play for ourselves we can do that quite easily in someone's basement. However, if our goal is to get gigs it logically follows that we must please the audience. Happy audience = happy bar manager = more gigs. The formula for pleasing the audience is simple. Play songs they like, play songs they can easily dance to.The formula goes something like this: Women love to dance. Play something they can move to and they will be on the dance floor. Men like women (d'uh!) and will follow women onto the dancefloor. All those dancing patrons get thirsty. Thirsty people drink more beer. Bar manager says hey my bar sales are up, people are dancing and having fun, I have to be sure to hire this band again. Success!

Ultimately, to achieve this we must play songs that we know people will like and can dance to.

4. Paid gigs - Being in a band is alot of work. There is all the organizational stuff. Then there is the practicing of the songs at home and together as a band. Then there is the cost of the gear and maintenance of it. Then there is the transport costs, gas etc Then there is the setting up and tearing down of gear at gigs. Then there is the job of finding the gigs. Plus, there is the skill required to play the music in the first place. To me, all this means is that we shouldnt play for free. I know that I am not willing to. Okay once in awhile, I'm willing to do a free show for a charity or some worthwhile cause, but overall we are offering a service we should be paid for.

Those four points are sort of the main underlying elements to my theory of what is required for a band to succeed. There are other things too, but heck, I am not trying to write a book here!

Anyway, let me know what you think.

Peter Squire · #2 08-21-2006, 12:21 AM

All those points sound fair to me.

Only thing I might change is that "the leader" might not always be the same person, depending on the situation.

Example - in my band, I was the one who had the most experience and clout when it came to business matters, so I was the leader of that area.

Our singer was the most experienced when it came to live sound engineering and working with soundmen, so he was leader in that area
etc etc etc/

galore · #3 08-21-2006, 01:32 AM

I definitely agree with points 1 and 2, although I think frontmen/band leaders can be quite a pain in the ass. Okay, everyone can be once in a while. I think it's very important for a band when choosing their leader to have in mind that he/she should be ready to listen to other bandmembers and rationally decide what is the best for the band. Sometimes the leaders go like "yeah, I'm the leader, the band has to do the way I told them to because they would have been nothing without me." That's wrong. Leaders should be experienced individuals with authority, but they mustn't abuse their power.

One of the biggest problems to me is to find experienced guitarist and drummer who know what it takes to be in a band. Once I find two such people, they/we can't get along because of the personalities... I realised leading a band requires a lot of energy, patience and conversation.

Stanley Design · #4 08-21-2006, 03:55 AM

This is a great guide for people wanting to be in a bar band doing covers. Not exactly formula for an orginal band, but that isn't cut and dry.

IanStephenson · #5 08-21-2006, 09:07 AM

From my recent experience I'd sugguest noting that Leader is not the same as frontman.

We're currently experiencing a bit of turmoil in the band as the singer has been juggling the setlist, and cutting songs (that go down great, and the rest of the band loves to play) because he doesn't think they're cool enough for him. He seems to have decided that because he has a microphone (and hence gets heard!), he must be the leader.

I'd be MUCH happier in a situation where the leader is someone at the back, as the leader/frontman situation can create monster.

point 3 is a good one which I think every band needs to consider.

Ian

Sundogue · #6 08-21-2006, 10:28 AM

I pretty much agree with everything, and in fact, could have written that myself.

Leadership - Yeah, a band needs a leader. And I agree that depending on what roles everyone in the band takes on, it doesn't necessitate it being one person. Our guitar player is the "leader" on setting up the PA and running the sound, though we all have equal input and he relies on us to get it setup right. The drummer is the main "organizational" leader doing the bookings (he's a salesman in his day job anyway, so it works best for us), scheduling, etc.

Set lists - They are usually more a democratic thing and on that point I agree again. Though typically we'll play a few songs that maybe one of us is less than thriled with. But that is mostly due to us a being a very popular cover band and the song in question, while not a favorite of a band member, usually goes over quite well with the audience. What's a few "lame" songs out of an entire night (that maybe aren't the most fun to play musically)...but we get a great reaction from the crowd?

Who you play for - That point is right on. Even if you play in an originals band, you won't be around long if crowds don't like your music, no matter what you think of yourselves. 'Nuff said on that.

Paid gigs - Again, right on. Even as a hobby, or a little sideline thing, this is an expensive pursuit. Even with day jobs, all the gear you need and the gas prices what they are today, a musician should get paid for providing a service. And let's face it, there aren't that many gigs a band gets hired for, where the person hiring you isn't using you to make a profit. Playing an occassional gig for charity is one thing...it's something else if your band is the charity case.

The guy (or gal) who wrote that obviously has his head straight on and doesn't want to waste his time with a band that doesn't get it.

Alex · #7 08-21-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veganbass

Leadership - In my experience it is necessary to have a leader in the group who ultimately makes the final decisions. Of course, it would be best if those decisions were made with input from other members. But a "team" needs a quarter-back to be most effective. Otherwise alot of wasted energy is spent discussing how to do things rather than doing them. Basically, this means that the other band members are willing to allow that if or when a decision has to be made about something, the leader has the last word. It is not meant to be a dictatorship scenario. However, i have been in a band where there is no clear leader and it weakens the band as a whole as arguments may occur etc. From time to time you just need to someone to say, "Okay, we are doing it this way." Done. Move on.

Very good point. In my band there is a bit of a power struggle and it is difficult to get things done sometimes because of this. A leader would really get rid of these problems.

Lazylion · #8 08-21-2006, 05:17 PM

#1 and #4: Yup!
I will go for #3 IF I get #2. IME it's been hard to get #2.

BassChuck · #9 08-21-2006, 05:37 PM

Lot's of good points and the best point is that you are communicating this to the band members. You may stir up some arguments, but at least its all out there.

I can see how point 2 and 3 could be in conflict. Once the purpose of the band (who you are playing for and why) that may have an impact on the set list. There are some songs on our set list that I would gladly dump, but the band is designed for dancing and that is the bottom line. In fact there are a few songs that most band members don't care for... but we all play them because the crowd likes them and they always dance. And... point 4, we get paid.

zac2944 · #10 08-21-2006, 05:37 PM

I'm not a fan of #2. It doesn't work in my band.

We've got 14 people in my band and some of them want us to play music that I feel is totally out of line with the main objectives of the band. Also, trying to get input for 14 people can be madness.

They way we do it is to have the each of the 14 people put together a list of the tunes they want to do (8-10 each, 110-140 tunes total), then the 14 members vote on that huge list and narrow it down about 30-40. From that list of 30-40, 5 select individules in that band pick 10. That's how we add another 10 tunes to our list.

BrandonBass · #11 08-21-2006, 11:29 PM

I think the leader is usually the one who started the band, the one who recruited the others. And usually the one who has the most ambition to succeed, technically proficient and can write songs.

anyways, what do you mean by playing songs that the audience like? Like playing covers?

::::BASSIST:::: · #12 08-21-2006, 11:43 PM

Yes, there is a fine line between what makes the audience happy and what covers the band members enjoy playing. Ultimately, I dont believe the juxtaposition of those two things should be too difficult. There are just so many great songs out there. However, if you just dont like most popular radio hits, then I can see how it wouldn't work where everyone can be happy.

And yes, this thread pertains to cover bands.

JimmyM · #13 08-22-2006, 01:02 AM

Vegan, in planet Utopia, your list is great. Unfortunately, people screw that up. How? Let's go down the list:

1. Leader almost always = dictator. I find bandleaders completely selfish, interested only in their own agenda to the exclusion of everything else, and extremely threatened by anyone else who shows the least little bit of ambition on their own. Plus most of them try to pay the band as little as possible. That's the one thing nice I can say about our bandleader that he does pay us fairly and does a lot of work we don't have to do. Still, I find much of the stuff he does very oppressive that I'm still not happy and want out. Unfortunately it pays pretty well.

2. Setlist...sorry, but if you find a band that wants every single person in the band to be happy with the setlist, get in it and stick with it forever. There will always be someone who is unhappy with songs on the setlist. I often feel like if I have to sing "Mustang Sally" one more time, I will puke my guts out. But the dance floor always packs out no matter how many times we play it, so I'm not going to drop a tune just because I'm sick of it. You start doing that and you alienate the audience.

3. Agreed entirely.

4. If it's a cover band, there's no way in hell I'd do it for free. I AM willing to play for free in an originals band (not that I've done it for years), but I'm not willing to put a buttload of work into it anymore (which is why I don't do them anymore).

So good luck in your quest, but I'd say if you can get 3 out of the 4, you're lucky.

chakah · #14 08-23-2006, 03:52 PM

oughta be a sticky for how to succeed in a cover band. that's precisely what we do in my band.

Lazylion · #15 08-26-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Unfortunately it pays pretty well.

LOL that's a good problem to have!

daofktr · #16 08-26-2006, 11:17 AM

+1.
points three and four are especially cogent.

QORC · #17 09-02-2006, 08:08 AM

hard to disagree with this list.

I would add that you need people in the band who are responsible, mature, and mutually respect each other.

nothing can drive a good band apart faster than inside "cliques", dishonest people, and people are who are irresponsible.

Big Cadillac · #18 09-02-2006, 08:22 AM

Just a few more points I would like to add:

1. Gotta have fun at what your doing!
2. Respect - everyone has to respect what everyone else is doing in their life. The band may not be the highest priority for everyone but that's OK as long as everyone is doing what it takes for the band to be successful.
3. "Chemistry"!

bloodandwhiskey · #19 09-03-2006, 03:38 PM

I think there should be some wiggle room on number #4. Playing for free within your area or just for gas money if your band is starting out is a good way to get promorters who don't know you to put your band on a show.

gribuski · #20 09-03-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyM

1. Leader almost always = dictator. I find bandleaders completely selfish, interested only in their own agenda to the exclusion of everything else, and extremely threatened by anyone else who shows the least little bit of ambition on their own. Plus most of them try to pay the band as little as possible. That's the one thing nice I can say about our bandleader that he does pay us fairly and does a lot of work we don't have to do. Still, I find much of the stuff he does very oppressive that I'm still not happy and want out. Unfortunately it pays pretty well.

I don't think he meant specifically bandleader. Even in a democratic band, sometimes someone needs to make a call. Its like that in any environment - school, work,etc. - that sometimes there isn't a consensus. We have 4 people in our band...there's a lot of 2/2 ties. What do you do then?

For the sake of getting something done, I'll step out and say, "Hey, look, lets do it this way...if it doesn't work, we'll do the other." Its all in how a person handles the situation. I can definitely see someone getting carried away, but there is significant research that says that purely democratic group situations are less efficient. Someone needs to "run" the band meetings, get them started, etc.