AITA for wanting to maintain control of my band?

[EdO.]

Being that he said he listens to the others and takes into consideration what they say, shows he is not how you describe. Obviously not an "unbending jerk".

Reread what I wrote please. I quote myself - "Yeah democracy generally doesn't work, however being a total unbending jerk about things (unless you're a big name operator AND you're PAYING everyone to follow your lead unquestioningly) and attempting to force your will on everyone isn't going to work."

Didn't say the dude was "being a total unbending jerk", I said IF the guy was going to be an unbending jerk. Minor but important point all in all.

 

[pepj]

Things that would make me unhappy in a band.

Musician level not in line with gigs that are easily obtainable.
Members that simply do not understand how a band works and have the ability to make it work.
Booking rubbish gigs.
Not hitting a min fee per head.
Travel too far.
Not asking me if available...don't assume, ask.
I better totally respect and trust you.
Dont be an amateur.

I might waive or let slide one or two of the above if the music was top fun.
You can't bribe me because I currently don't need to do this.

 

[TheArchitect]

TLDR: I started my own band with the implied intention that I would be the ultimate decision maker for the band. Now that the band is formed and nearly ready to start gigging, 3 out of 5 guys want the band to be a complete democracy.

The Start
In June of 2025 I decided I wanted to start my own cover band from scratch. I had very specific ideas in mind about what kind of music to play, how the band would be run, the standards I would have, etc. I didn’t really know any other musicians so I used CL and placed a rather long and detailed (especially for CL) ad. I told myself I wasn’t going to settle for just any musicians, that I wanted to build this band up right even if it took a little longer to do.

Building the Band
Almost immediately I found a great drummer who I get along great with. Pretty soon after that I found a singer that was inexperienced but showed potential. By August I found a lead guitar player who was younger, but talented and eager. By that point we were getting together to practice almost every week for a couple hours. I was beginning to lose faith in the singer as his inexperience was becoming more apparent but he was a great guy and we weren’t close to gigging yet so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and more time to progress. We needed a second guitar player for the type of music we cover and by late October I finally found a rhythm guitar player. After his audition myself and the drummer liked him but the lead guitar player and singer wanted to keep looking for a different rhythm guitar player. I made the decision to keep this rhythm guitar player. By December we had a short setlist that we were fairly happy with but I had also lost confidence in the singer. The rhythm guitar player felt the same way, but the drummer and lead guitar player wanted to keep him. I made the decision to let him go and try to find another singer. It took us until March of 2026 to find another singer that we all like.

The Lead-up
Now that the band lineup is complete, I wanted to have a big conference call with everyone to go over everything we could think of related to the band just to make sure we are all on the same page, so we can try to avoid any misunderstandings or conflicts in the future. We talk about everything from the band name, what kind of music we’re going to do, how often we want to play, how band finances should be handled, etc. etc. Right on down the list we are almost all in complete agreement with every topic that I bring up. Until we get to define the leadership structure of the band. Essentially what I proposed was how things had always been from the start: It was my band that I started from scratch, and as the Band Leader I wanted and valued everyone else’s opinion, but that ultimately, I’d have the final say. Well that did not go over well with both the guitar players and the new singer, the drummer seemed fine with it.

The Status Quo
Like I said, up until that point this has kind of been implied. I didn’t want to rub their noses in it, so admittedly I hadn’t really made it a point before. But I was clearly in charge, and doing almost all of the work of: finding the members, vetting them, setting up the auditions and practices, leading the practices, coming up with to-do lists, making the setlists, and so much more. The only thing I really asked of the other members was to learn their parts and show up to practice prepared. I was happy to put in all the time and work of all the other band stuff, and the effort of trying to get everyone going in the same direction, because it was my band that I was responsible for. It also seemed to me that they were ok with this arrangement because generally speaking they always followed my leadership, and even mentioned and thanked me for my leadership. They sometimes even made comments such as “well its your band” when it came to big decisions such as when I decided to keep the rhythm guitar player after his audition, or when I decided to let the first singer go, etc. But I think finally coming out and saying it, and making it “official” just didn’t sit right with some of them.

The Issue
The two guitarists and singer are generally proposing that the band be a democracy with everyone having an equal vote. They don't like the idea of not having an official vote, and they feel less important by everyone not being equal. Since there are 5 of us they say that every decision should have at least a 3-2 majority, and that people have to vote and cannot abstain, to avoid a tie. My counter point to that is that not all decisions are a binary yes/no. For instance, if we voted on what color the logo should be (just a hypothetical), we could end up with 5 different answers. They had no answer for how to break that tie. My other counter point was that a democracy where every decision is voted on 1. Slows down decisions, and 2. Creates the potential for conflict within the band far more often if we have to vote and argue on every little thing. I don’t want us to basically go through this every time a decision needs to be made.

My Position
Again, up until this point I have tried to make everyone feel heard and valued on decisions. I am constantly asking if anyone has anything to say or any ideas. But ultimately I have made every decision up until now, and they have been fine with it. That even includes things that I didn’t necessarily agree with but since the majority wanted it, I decided in their favor. I am suggesting we continue that arrangement. (I also suspect that if I hadn’t even brought it up it probably would’ve continued that way at least for awhile longer.) Quite frankly I don’t think I am willing to give up control of the band. As I mentioned from the start, I have a very specific vision and standards for the band. I have been working very hard to make it happen, and so far it has been working great. Even they don’t dispute that.

I am really worried that if I give up control of the band and we go “leaderless” that things will fall apart. I have really been (gently) motivating the guys, and providing structure and some accountability. I just don’t see that continuing without my leadership. There is no accountability, no real leadership without some teeth behind it. I know that if I don’t have control of the band, it could stray from the original intent. I don’t want that, and I certainly won’t continue to put in as much work as I have been if that is that case. I honestly don’t think I would have even tried to start the band in the first place if I wasn’t going to maintain control of the band. Its far less time, effort, and money to just join an existing band.

I am fairly certain in my position, that I need to maintain control of the band for it to be worth it to me (although I always try to stay open-minded). But it seems that that could mean some or all of the band members leaving. I may be willing to accept that and try to start over with other musicians but with this understanding from the start.

Your Input
So I have a few questions:
1. AITA? (Am I The ******* in this situation?)
2. Am I being too selfish, and should just go with it for the sake of the band?
3. If you agree with me, are there any other points I should try to make to try and persuade the others to go my way?

You omitted the key point I suspect is driving this. Money. "Leaders" tend to collect more of the take than the rest.

"But ultimately I have made every decision up until now, and they have been fine with it. That even includes things that I didn’t necessarily agree with but since the majority wanted it, I decided in their favor."

You are sending VERY mixed signals. You gave them a defacto vote on these things.

If you want to be the leader i.e. the last, only and final authority, you better expect that the others will not be invested. They are jobbers at that point, not band members. Asking their opinion means nothing if you will just do what you want anyway. You will need a roster of subs because they will be chasing the best paying gig, doing what's best for them. There will be no loyalty to you or YOUR band. Your band is your problem at that point. Being the leader with hired guns is a whole different thing than being in band. Sounds like you are trying to cherry pick the perks each and that will ultimately fail in my opinion.

 

[biobass]

“There is nothing to keeping a band together. You simply have to have a gimmick, and the gimmick I use is to pay them money!” Duke Ellington.

Clearly, it was Ellington’s band. He was known for focusing on the strengths of individual players, writing music that highlighted their particular talents. Also he tried to foster camraderie that inspired loyalty.

Your fellow musicians are investing their time and talent for a future reward, be that one or more of the holy trinity: music, money, or hang. If you can not pay your musicians for rehearsals, then you must reward them in some other way so that they can believe in the project. Leadership skills can be taught, and sometimes learned - heaven knows that corporations have bought into that idea, but I think that the biggest part of being a good leader is to have a clear vision of a future that is beneficial to all who are investing their efforts, and have the ability to inspire them. That is very hard, and not a talent that everyone has.

I’m not sensing that you don’t have that ability, but if you want to be the leader, you have to clearly show your team the path to their reward, not yours, although they may be, and best if, they are shared. You have to give them a reason to buy into your vision. You have to find the “gimmick.”

I led teams of scientists in early phase pharmaceutical discovery projects. The members of the team were not my direct reports. My job was to enlist and enroll them in that the idea was worth pursuing and for them to be exerting their time and talents. It was rewarding, frustrating, challenging, and exhausting. Sometimes I was good at it, sometimes not so good.

Good luck with your endeavor.

 

[ole Jason]

I'd agree with the above that you've already sent mixed signals to these guys about how the band should operate. You're also doing near weekly rehearsals which seems odd if the other guys are meant to be hired guns in a cover band. Basically these guys are putting in a lot of work and time for you and they haven't seen any benefit from it thus far. It's hard to ask the other guys to be Yes Men in that situation.

Generally speaking the more control a Bandleader wants to have the less stake the other players should have in the band itself. If you want total control I wouldn't ask the other guys for their opinion on much of anything. Build the setlist, book the gigs, and hire people good enough to pull it off without weekly rehearsals. If you don't have a pool of players willing and able to do that it's going to be hard to avoid a more democratic situation if you're asking people to invest so much time in a cover band.

 

[TheArchitect]

They knew the way things were when they joined. If they don't like it, they can always quit.

I don't think they did. If you start asking for opinions, you are basically giving them a vote from their perspective. When you accept the majority over your own decision you reinforce that idea

 

[W_R]

As a potential way to look at it, you’re going to be very aware of the work you have done so far, and what you are doing and planning to do. But the other folks may not be aware of all of it, or might not value it in the same way as you. You can possibly communicate it better, but look at how they each perceive or have experienced the band. Human nature, we see ourselves as above average, and generally that our individual contributions are sufficient (self-perception and feelings…)

Most likely, you will not receive “full credit” for all of what you’ve done so far. People will look at how things feel to them now and the potential for them personally in the future, and I think people often navigate that step by step, see how it goes. That can be quite different than how you see effort and progress in your full master plan. Find out what they value (listen) and see how it compares to what’s really happening. If their vision or the roles aren’t aligned, you simply might not have the right people in your group yet.

Per some comments above, if you have certain positive value items already happening, you may be more in a position of control. But if the current 5 person scenario doesn’t work, can you do something smaller and easier to manage, to get a positive cycle with tangible results going, then later build on it? Success begets success, right?

 

[elgranluis]

Thanks for reminding me why I never went back to being a band leader.

Anyway, the right thing to have done at the time the issue arose , was to let them know that we’re not asking them, simply telling them. In the future , lay down the rules as soon as you hire the new guy “hey , my name is XXXXXX and I’m the band leader. I appreciate feedback but some decisions will ultimately be mine alone”.

 

[TheArchitect]

Thanks for reminding me why I never went back to being a band leader.

Anyway, the right thing to have done at the time the issue arose , was to let them know that we’re not asking them, simply telling them. In the future , lay down the rules as soon as you hire the new guy “hey , my name is XXXXXX and I’m the band leader. I appreciate feedback but some decisions will ultimately be mine alone”.

No, it can't be "some". Your the leader or your not.

 

[gln1955]

I don't think they did. If you start asking for opinions, you are basically giving them a vote from their perspective. When you accept the majority over your own decision you reinforce that idea

Not at all. effective leadership includes listening to other voices. If the other band members make a strong case for something a good leader my change their mind, but is not obligated to do so. That's not the same as a democracy.

 

[TheArchitect]

Not at all. effective leadership includes listening to other voices. If the other band members make a strong case for something a good leader my change their mind, but is not obligated to do so. That's not the same as a democracy.

Once the hierarchy is established I would agree, but it clearly has not been in this case

 

[toastw]

I think you're right, but you're framing it all wrong. Nobody likes a dictator; nobody is motivated by a tyrant.

You could ask for volunteers to run the various "departments" of band business (like booking, marketing, accounting, etc.) and see how long they last before they give you all the responsibility back.

Or you could try to explain that you're talking about the "business" of the band, not the "government" of the band. In a business, the buck stops at the owner/CEO's desk. But a good CEO surrounds himself with good people who make good decisions, and you're not really looking to make dumb decisions. You just need to centralize contacts from venues, from booking agents, from press, etc. It's not about figureheads and egos, it's about letting everyone else focus more on playing music.

 

[JamesGrant]

Once you ask people to invest time and effort for no money, they may reasonably assume that they are sharing in the mission. If they are then you better listen to them, or pay them to do as you say.

In my function band, I book most (80% of the gigs, I do 100% of the admin, 100% venue/events coordinator communications, and 100% of the banking, I arrange 100% of the deps, I own the front-of-house PA, I send the weekly ‘these are the gigs this week details reminder’. I split all income equally between us all - always. It’s agreed that we each have a veto on song choices (there are a bajillion songs, why perform something someone in the band isn’t keen on!)
It’s ‘my band’ but it’d be poopie if they weren’t in it and I appreciate them.

The efforts we make allow each of us to earn money. I don’t care if our singer helps with load in or not, she is the face/front of the band and is the ‘jewel’ in the crown. Being a singer who fronts the performance is a big responsibility.

My keys player is a mutant and I’d have to rebuild the whole band if he wasn’t in the band.

My drummer is fantastic at making music and adapting to the instrumentation and the vibe of the gig.

I’ve got a black-belt in admin and am ace at sound oh - and organise everything and play bass and sing BVs.

We have a good mutual understanding of who does what and what’s expected and we keep things friendly and professional. We treat the band chat sensibly so it’s all relevant info or questions.

Hope this helps.

 

[bassbrad]

If you want to be the boss then you need to pony up the bucks. That means pay the players to rehearse and perform, book the band, provide the PA, pay for any recording and support personnel.

If on the other hand you expect others to contribute and share financial responsibility then some sort of democracy is fair.

 

[Benji bassman]

I kind of think if people want input, give it to them. I'm in one band that is a pure democracy, and I think it works because everybody is into it. Naturally some people are taking over certain aspects (booking gigs, choosing bands to play with, song choices, etc.), but I am always surprised by what other people bring to it because they feel involved. For instance, our keyboard player brought all of these flowers and lights to our last gig. Other members set up the gig, I had a lot of input into the song choices. In my other bands with a clear bandleader, most of us just show up to gigs and rehearsals but don't do much else. I guess that they want a vote shows that they are into it and invested in it, so I just think don't do anything to discourage that. I will say that in my democratic band we are all friends, so our camaraderie is 100%. We don't always agree, but everybody wants to do what is best for the band for the most part.

 

[Michael Milner]

I would add that since the other musicians have been willing to rehearse, they must want to be in this band (my experience with jobbers is that they don't want to rehearse, they just want to show up to the gig and get paid). You might have a better idea of how things will shake out after a few gigs. BTW, if the band is successful and well-run, you shouldn't have any problems finding players.

 

[bassicmike]

My experience is the one who actually books the gigs and make them possible has the final say, practically speaking.
No gigs, no band. Being the guy who starts the band, organizes, and herds cats is less important in that regard.

Maybe as the booker you get two votes in the democratic band.

 

[newwavefrank]

I have offered to seed "the band" money until it becomes self sufficient. I have contacts and would be the one booking the gigs. I have all the PA gear.

We had already agreed that the first couple of paid gigs goes into a band fund, and after that everyone gets an equal share.

I am willing to bend, I don't always get my way, and have already made some decisions that I wouldn't necessarily have made, but the majority wanted it, so I was fine with it.

I have 2 bands, and 80's tribute and a country/classic rock band. Both are MY bands. This has been stated clearly, so now it never gets brought up. I pretty much do everything except play. I book most gigs, supply the PA (everyone helps set up and tear down) and I pay all band expenses. I get an extra cut for owning and running the band etc. In the 5 piece we divide gig money 6 ways and I get two. I also pay for EVERYTHING. The only issue I have with what you are doing is having everyone pitch into a band fund upfront. If it's your band, then you should put up all the financing. IMHO, YMMV, etc

I agree with others who say true democracies rarely work. Normally they start that way and then there is a power struggle until the natural leaders take over. Sometimes that works, and sometimes you are just putting the breakup off for a while longer.

IME it is sometimes a difficult thing to talk about, as you just learned. You do have to make sure its understood upfront that it's your deal, but after that it doesn't need to be mentioned often, and may not even be obvious to the casual observer if you do it right. At this point only you can decide now if you want to try democracy (probably just delaying the rebuild) Of nicely try to keep everyone in your project, replacing someone if you must. If it were me I would probably just bite the bullet and keep control believing that it will be best in the long run. Giving in now might get you gigging faster, but may end up with a lesser product a year down the road, and then what do you do? Start over? It's a tough call but that's my experience

 

[Pocket Dave]

Your Input
So I have a few questions:
1. AITA? (Am I The ******* in this situation?)
2. Am I being too selfish, and should just go with it for the sake of the band?
3. If you agree with me, are there any other points I should try to make to try and persuade the others to go my way?

1. Not my place to say.

2. See below.

3. I don't agree with you - there are no points you can make to persuade others to go your way. It's going to be all about your actions beyond your current band development stage:

I've been both band leader and band member in working bands for over 50 years.

For those who've mentioned setting expectations or adhering to whoever's vision got the ball rolling - that's not the way people see things in reality - It doesn't jive with how we think - insisting on as much may only confirm bandmate concerns over self-awareness not fitting of a leader. Not trying to be a jerk about it - please consider:

Leadership based solely on being a founding brainchild "idea person" is cult leadership. A real band leader has to own and continuously earn the dubious honor or it will be fleeting, Examples of owning: being the face of the band - usually the singer - or writing the songs. OTOH, you earn the position by booking the band, being the guy who pays everyone - also a kind of "owning" in that you build and own the relationships with the venues.

Until you get gigs, your best bet is to just go with it - nothing is going to change anyone's minds short of ownership and earning.

Just understand that in every single successful working band I've been in, someone emerged as a leader. Where it got sticky was when the person booking the band and the main singer weren't the same person - You build your setlist around the singer, who has the most risk exposure onstage - If you're booking the band, paying everyone, issuing 1099's every January, you might want to start singing. it's rare that bands don't ultimately implode when there's more than one driver at the wheel.

In the meantime, having no gigs on the table, you have no currency to offer in exchange for everyone's time - what you've got is not yet a band, it's a volunteer-collective. Only chance it has of surviving past its incubation is for EVERYONE to just kind of go with it and see what happens next. If you help facilitate this, you may not end up the band leader, though you'll likely end up being someone in the band the leader listens to.

 

[Jaycat]

I heard an interview with Charles Mingus, where he said "I have great musicians in my band. When they're in their own band, they can play whatever they want. But in my band, they play what I tell them to."

I play bass in a combo where the leader is an absolute dictator. On most songs, I play what he tells me to play. On a few, he lets me cut loose. I'm perfectly ok with that, in fact, I've learned a lot from him. And I am very happy to have zero responsibility with set lists, gigs, arrangements, etc. I get enough of all that stuff in my other musical endeavors.