• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

BL vs democracy

#3
gingerbassist said:
Think of it this way, a democracy is going to get corrupted by personal issues irrelevant to the band. If you don't vote one way it could upset other members and fighting kills bands. At least that would be my reasoning, I don't have enough band experience sadly.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. I imagine it would have to be a group of close friends and or like minded people to keep up a healthy band democracy.

Then again if everyone just wants to play music I like to think it would be possible to separate any personal issues. That is probably wishful thinking though :whistle:
 
  • Like
Reactions: gingerbassist and Winfred
#5
Every democratic band I've seen can never get anything done and the music is all over the place. Appearances and style diverge, there is no real drive.

It works much better when a single experienced individual (or pair) directs a band, has songs generally written and each musician takes their part, tweaks it and fills in the gaps.

The best is having a leader who asks for the input of everyone but whose leadership remains primary. If a single member can't back the other's decision then perhaps it isn't the right band for them (if any is).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy4string, PauFerro, Frenchy-Lefty and 6 others
#6
I've been in several bands of both types. Either type can work wonderfully or be a disaster. I can't generalize to give a pat answer. To me, the personalities/egos/integrity/cooperation of the members in the band is MUCH more important than the band leader/democracy question. If the players are committed to the project, reasonable, flexible, and get along well, it can be great, either way. If someone is unreasonable, has problems, an over inflated ego, etc., it can suck in either scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mancefine, Dale Griffith, PauFerro and 9 others
#8
I think it depends on the makeup of the band a lot. For a Band Leader setup to work, you're hedging on one person being a skilled leader and manager with enough drive to get stuff done continuously. For a Democracy to work you're depending on all members being reasonable, amenable to compromise, and getting along well.

Neither setup is really immune to issues, especially considering the type of personalities and egos that float around in the music world. Often times your band leader doesn't really meet the criteria all that well, they just happened to be the ones that started the band, and it's hard to get a group together that will work in a democracy setting.

There's also the fact that certain goals are better suited for one type or the other. The Band Leader setup naturally fits a "hired gun" type arrangement with members. For an originals band that wants to conquer the world, who would want to dedicate themselves to that when they get a lesser share of the pie?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 74hc and Sunset Shalom
#9
In my main band it's a sort of mix (but mostly democratic) and it works. I've been working with the singer/guitarist for 6 years now, and I've rarely gotten genuinely frustrated about how things go.

The singer/guitarist and I are pretty much co-founders, yet we do follow mostly his vision. We started working together in a different band, which was his band, and when that fell apart I decided to stick with him, and thus we both started our current band together.

So, we do follow his original vision, but I have a lot of say/sway, and the other guys (second guitarist and drummer) always have a say in details, specifics, desires, and likes and dislikes about what we do. It pretty much always comes down to a vote on everything.

Anyone can say anything, and it will always be taken into account or discussed, because we've been lucky enough to become a band where everyone wants us to be the best we can be. So we can all trust in eachother's intentions. It's just that we have a main goal, and sound, that the s/g and I try not to lose sight of. So we both guide things, together or seperate, and usually start the conversations about goals, or other things that need to happen. But anyone can start a discussion about anything and we'll all listen.

So. Yeah. I like the way we work. It can be a bit tense, but because we're all very open it never becomes a lasting issue.

We all keep eachother in check pretty much x) .
 
  • Like
Reactions: kojack, LowActionHero, EdO. and 1 other person
#10
currently play in two bands regularly: both have band leaders and both are democracies (we 'vote' or express our druthers on everything from the music, set lists, new members, yada yada). in one band (9 pieces) there are actually two BL's, but some of us have been with it so long that we are often leading the proceedings at a given moment. the other band is really a democracy: we rarely do anything important without checkin with the other members (7 pieces), and it always works out with little-to-none issues. but: we are 'older'.

so, IMO: i'm not sure having a BL always means 'no democracy'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bolophonic, Pet Sounds, LowRenzo and 2 others
#11
ShadowImage said:
The best is having a leader who asks for the input of everyone but whose leadership remains primary. If a single member can't back the other's decision then perhaps it isn't the right band for them (if any is).
Click to expand...

LowRenzo said:
In my main band it's a sort of mix (but mostly democratic) and it works. I've been working with the singer/guitarist for 6 years now, and I've rarely gotten genuinely frustrated about how things go.

The singer/guitarist and I are pretty much co-founders, yet we do follow mostly his vision. We started working together in a different band, which was his band, and when that fell apart I decided to stick with him, and thus we both started our current band together.

So, we do follow his original vision, but I have a lot of say/sway, and the other guys (second guitarist and drummer) always have a say in details, specifics, desires, and likes and dislikes about what we do. It pretty much always comes down to a vote on everything.

Anyone can say anything, and it will always be taken into account or discussed, because we've been lucky enough to become a band where everyone wants us to be the best we can be. So we can all trust in each other's intentions. It's just that we have a main goal, and sound, that the s/g and I try not to lose sight of. So we both guide things, together or seperate, and usually start the conversations about goals, or other things that need to happen. But anyone can start a discussion about anything and we'll all listen.

So. Yeah. I like the way we work. It can be a bit tense, but because we're all very open it never becomes a lasting issue.

We all keep each other in check pretty much x) .
Click to expand...

^^^ IMO this is how a successful band is structured and operates. I have had the good fortune over the years to have played in a few bands that operated pretty much on these same principals, as fortunately does the band I'm in right now. We do have a "band leader" and it's generally at his direction BUT everyone has equal input, everyone's opinions get respected and discussed, everyone puts the good of the group first, generally a very cooperative atmosphere. The final say so has to land somewhere, there has to be a director/leader/buck-stops-here guy and IMO that's as it needs to be. IMO that's as democratic as it can get and still work. If everyone is onboard with that it's all good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LowRenzo, Growlmonkee and Sunset Shalom
#12
It really depends on the goals, ability and maturity of the band members. I have been in bands where there was one BL, bands where the BL responsibilities were shared by two people and bands which were a democracy. I haven't had bad experiences in either situation but have found that when two people share responsibilities it usually works better. In my last band, the guitar player and I handled bookings and I handled personnel decisions such as notifying them when they were being replaced.
 
#14
My last (cover) band was a democracy. Everyone had equal input. It worked for a while but then fell apart. It was a big problem when picking songs, making suggestions on our live sound or just the performances of members. Now Im a believer in having a leader or two in bands now. In my current band Im pretty much the leader with the singers a close 2nd.
 
#15
EdO. said:
^^^ IMO this is how a successful band is structured and operates. I have had the good fortune over the years to have played in a few bands that operated pretty much on these same principals, as fortunately does the band I'm in right now. We do have a "band leader" and it's generally at his direction BUT everyone has equal input, everyone's opinions get respected and discussed, everyone puts the good of the group first, generally a very cooperative atmosphere. The final say so has to land somewhere, there has to be a director/leader/buck-stops-here guy and IMO that's as it needs to be. IMO that's as democratic as it can get and still work. If everyone is onboard with that it's all good.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is usually the kind of band that works for me. Most of my bands have been this way. The only true democratic ones have fallen apart.
 
#16
Democracy is highly overrated. IMO, a band works best when there is someone to make the final decisions after listening to everyone's input on important matters. For day to day piddly stuff, the leader should just do it. This works if there are not a lot of egos and a fair amount of maturity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EdO. and electracoyote
#17
powmetalbassist said:
Yep. My old Power Metal band was a democratic band. It killed the band. Alliances get made, bad blood gets spilled, and people take things personally that they shouldn't have. Democracy (in its truest form) does not work. It just causes problems.
Click to expand...

Correct. Nothing works well, if at all in the longer term, via democracy, and most of what we call "democracies" - socially or politically - aren't even close to it.

If a group of people have a common goal and share values & beliefs related to how to achieve that goal, it's still the best and by far most efficient method to have a leader. The leader can and should take all ideas and sentiments into account, then lead.

All successes in the world are this way, from marriage (each person my be the leader in different facets) to creating set lists for a band, to running a giant corporation or pro sports team or space program, a military, etc.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back