President of the Band

Jazz Hands · #1 08-14-2008, 09:44 PM

It sounds nice to run a band like a voting democracy but even in a democratic society there's a president w/ superior voting power. So I've noticed since replacing our lead singer (musically the best move) we've lost that executive decision maker in our old singer & we have a lot of 3:2 votes (5 members) & A LOT more arguments ensue. So my question is can a band really be run "effectively" where everything is voted on or is better for a group to have 1 solid leader & follow their direction & judgement?

jsingles · #2 08-14-2008, 09:52 PM

depends on the group i guess tho I would confidently answer NO

everyones lives are different, and not everything works for everybody.

Lemoore-on · #3 08-14-2008, 10:28 PM

Thats the way we opperate. No single person holds the trump card. Odd number of people so majority rules.

ForSix · #4 08-15-2008, 07:54 AM

I'm of the school that every band must have a leader.

lexxmexx · #5 08-15-2008, 08:25 AM

A better word for band leader or president would be "band representative" - less authoritative IMHO

jtc_hunter · #6 08-15-2008, 09:56 AM

I have played in bands for 30+ years and what I have seen work best is; All or nothing. Either its unanimous or it aint happening. In other words, If one person in the band says no, then its no. That goes for accepting gigs, song choices, wardrobe, etc. This keeps everyone happy knowing that they have very strong voice in matters. I tell them all (6 piece band) if you dont want to, (or whatever), then speak up, cause if I dont want to, I certainly will speak up. It works well for us. That being said, there is usually one in the band who is leadership material. In our band, guess who that is? Yeah you're right. But I work hard to be diplomatic and at least make everyone feel that they have a strong say.

mambo4 · #7 08-15-2008, 10:27 AM

Lately I've been playing in originals bands, so the "Decider" has always been the singer/chief songwriter. I've been lucky enough to play with guys who will listen to others' ideas. Ultimately, tho, it's their call. I figure the front man position is so crucial to any band, I have no problem with the guy having veto power.

OtterOnBass · #8 08-15-2008, 10:35 AM

Well, if no one has the take-charge personality, I'll step up. I think the best way is to vote on a leader (usually a natural leader.) Then he makes the decisions. If you guys stop liking his decisions, you vote for someone else to be the leader. This way you get effective, one-man leadership without the quibbles of voting for every detail, but if the leader turns out to do a horrible job, you find someone else.

invader3k · #9 08-15-2008, 11:11 AM

I too, agree that every band must have a decisive leader. Not a dictator, but someone who is going to be responsible for steering the overall direction of the band. This doesn't mean that no one else can have input, but for a band to keep going, I think one person has to have final say.

von buck · #10 08-15-2008, 11:38 AM

In my main working band, the band leader makes all the final decisions. If he doesn't want to learn a certain new tune, we don't. He calls all the shots. Of course the trade off is he does all the booking, makes all travel plans, does the promo, ect., so it's worth the trade off. He also wants to make money so we don't haved to worry about him booking something for short money and have to play it.

Andy

tycobb73 · #11 08-15-2008, 01:04 PM

and when one member leaves and you have an even number of band members?

scootron · #12 08-15-2008, 01:19 PM

In the bands I have been in, there is usually one guy who makes the calls that need to be made, and then we see if there is a consensus. If we don't have consensus, we go a different direction. For example, the "leader", will say, "We have been invited to do this charity gig on September 18th. There is no money, but it is a good cause, and there will be important people there. I say we should do it. How does everyone feel?" If everyone says okay, we do it. If anyone disagrees, we discuss it and if we can't reach 100% agreement, we don't do the gig.

But someone has to get things moving. He doesn't necessarily have any more authority, but he makes the initial calls. The band can override anything he does, though.

John Wentzien · #13 08-15-2008, 01:28 PM

"I prefer benevolent dictatorship"---Sting---

jaywa · #14 08-15-2008, 03:16 PM

"We have been invited to do this charity gig on September 18th. There is no money, but it is a good cause, and there will be important people there."

Ahh yes. The ol' "no money, but great exposure" deal.

"so I've got that going for me.... which is nice."

BassChuck · #15 08-15-2008, 04:15 PM

I've wanted to be the secretary/treasurer of my band. For a while I was Vice President but that just didn't work out. Right now there is a big move among the band members to make me the Historian, but I just don't feel comfortable with that.

fdeck · #16 08-15-2008, 07:48 PM

I generally prefer a band with a bandleader. Voting on every tiny thing seems like a waste of time. I just want to play.

fishtx · #17 08-15-2008, 08:17 PM

All the players in the band I'm in are basically hired guns...The singer and guitar player are married and have had the band for almost 20 years together, and had several players come and go...They make most of the calls, do most of the bookings, pay the band, issue the 1099, own the PA gear, hire the sound man, etc...and they are very cool to work for. They also query the band for input on a lot of stuff before they make the decision to make sure everyone is cool with it. But at the end of the day, they run the show...and if a tough call needs to be made, they do it.

dj150888 · #18 08-16-2008, 02:06 AM

Depends on whether its a "band" or a "hired guns" scenario. If someone takes the perks that come with leadership, they have to be willing to shoulder the costs. We discuss everything of merit, little things are dealt with by whoever is in the position to do so, big things are dealt with at a band meeting. If you're in a "hired gun" scenario, the guy who is calling the shots should be paying you a wage and doing all the administrative stuff too.

**theory028** · #19 08-16-2008, 02:24 AM

I like when everyone in my band agrees, which is often the case, but there is a certain person in the band that seems to reign supreme. If he doesn't think it's a good idea, there really is no discussion on the matter.

There are only a few issues that actually bother me; cover songs and where we are headed (college is about to spread us out around Iowa). The self proclaimed band leader refuses to do many covers (so far, all have been at his discretion [read: most of them suck]) and seems to believe that a small local band can make it big without ever being heard. I keep telling him that the best way to build a fan base is to work on covers, land a gig at a bar or event playing mostly covers, and work from there by playing some original stuff between sets of songs. Were we stand right now is that nobody new is hearing our music.

As for where the band is headed, I suppose I really don't care. It's been a lot of fun, which happens to be the only reason I joined. I was given the chance to play music with some good friends and I can come to terms with that time being cut off. It'll always be a fond memory, but I'm not so naive to believe that we actually stood a chance at anything bigger. Nobody had the drive to get any further. I'm also sick of being called a pessimist for pointing out that it's hard to get heard without playing in front of new audiences.

Sorry about that little rant. I guess I've got a lot on my mind about my band situation. :/

Basically, I like the democratic way, but that isn't always the best. I don't mind someone else making small decisions for me, but I'd prefer it be someone other than the guy I was talking about above.

okTem · #20 08-16-2008, 04:39 AM

I see many friends here are playing in bands of 4 or more artists. My band is a rock trio. And even the number is the minimum acceptable for our kind of music, we still get to have some arguments. One reason is our different lifestyles (our drummer 20 years old and doesn't have any other job to do, the lead guitar (& singer as well) runs a shop to make the living, and I am the full time regional sales manager of a company). The thing is we all know who we are and our core concept is to make some good music on stage. We all arrange things in our lives to make it happen. Music decides what to do then. So one supportive factor to get there is to show respect to eachother regardless of what the situation is; and make sure to fully understand the other members BEFORE yelling out the bargain

Our decision would be to do the gig usually. But the calls are handled by the lead guitar, the trade things are spoken out by me.. and the 20 years old drummer does the PA tweeking when we don't have a sound person in the house. By that way everyone contributes to the sustainability of the band not only musically but also with the MUST TO DO things. Every member perfectly knows that they are the band it self.

We didn't plan this, it just happened. But honestly we thought like if this band was a company, how would we run it?! Then this share of tasks idea just popped out. So when it comes to decision making, everyone has an equal vote. But even though we argue on things, we somehow all make the very same decision in the end. So it's not how we like it to happen but it's how the band would like it to happen.