BL vs democracy

[ReiPsaeg]

Generally speaking a band works easiest when one person is the clear leader. However, that doesn't mean that this band leader can't take input from the other members. There certainly is a lot of wiggle room there. Plenty of great bands are more collectively minded.

 

[pcake]

i haven't found that a band works easiest with a leader. i think whether that's true or not depends on the people involved. i've worked in bands where everyone gets a say that worked out just great.

 

[Max Blasto]

Ok, as requested, let's look at some successful bands and how they did things.

Beatles: It's Paul and John's show, with input and deference from George and Ringo. Once Paul and John couldn't work together, it was over.

The Stones: Keith and Mick show. Everyone else is interchangeable. Success relies on the relationship between Keith and Mick. When it fails, solo album time.

The Who: It's Roger's band and Pete's the leader. Cuz Pete wrote and Roger didn't. But if Pete acts up, Roger brains him.

Jethro Tull: Ian is the bandleader. Everybody here works for Ian. Til he says they don't.

The BeeGees: Three brothers locked in a room together. Must create. One writes songs, but can't go solo. One goes solo, but can't write songs. The third can't do either but has to show the others what a suspended chord is. All three are on different drugs. What could go wrong? A band that took the dysfunctional family metaphor literally.

Deep Purple/Rainbow. DP taught Ritchie Blackmore that he didn't like democracy. Then Rainbow taught him he didn't like people in general.

Pink Floyd: This was a BL band that kept losing it's BL. Syd to Roger to David.

Led Zep: Jimmy was the BL. Once he recovered from heroin, that capability was gone. So was the band.

Cream: BL was whoever won the knife fight backstage any given week. Short lifespan for this band. Safety first...

Skynyrd: It's a family, but I dare you to tell the singer he's not the band leader.

Thin Lizzy: See Skynyrd. Substitute "gang" for "family".

Rush: BL is most definitely Geddy. Just because everyone contributes and they all get along doesn't mean anything happens with out direction. Only one of those guys can give it. cf Synthesizers.

Metallica: Oh, let me guess....

Fleetwood Mac: Can't wear the pants in the family if you're constantly taking them off when the rest of the band arrives. And if you're you're doing all that blow, you're talking about the band leader, not being the band leader. Must be Democracy.

Eagles: Brings me to my favorite quote about this subject, courtesy of Glenn Frey. "The Eagles are a team. But just because we're a team doesn't mean that everybody gets to be the quarterback."

 

[Beej]

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week. But all the decisions *of* that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major initiatives...

 

[markoc]

Any functioning democracy still needs a leader. Any good leader will accept input from anyone in the group to further the cause. I prefer to be a "side man" even in the band I've been with for 10 years. BL's the face of the band, his musical direction and very happy with any thing I care to contribute. I do step up as his stage director as needed because we kinda burn through drummers and I'm constantly training a new one.

 

[LowActionHero]

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) .

This is pretty much my situation. I'd call it a Democracy. A couple members are a lil more vocal but everyone is pretty mellow and wants the input of all, and seem willing to compromise, so it works out well.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

At the risk of tripping some kind of infraction here, any democracy only works when people are benevolent. When malevolence becomes fashionable, the democratic system sooner or later ends.

Well heck - let's peg that at about 1952 or 53, shall we?

 

[davy4575]

I think it really depends on the type of band. Covers - ya, probably need a bl. But all original, nope.

 

[Teijo K.]

Both can work. The worst situation is when a band dont know if it is democratic or not. I was in a band where two band leaders basically made all the important decisions, but wanted to give everybody a feeling it was run democratically. As long as everybody agreed with them everything went ok. but as soon as someone disagreed it was all hell. Turns out the bogus democracy was more of a way to make others do some of the boring work that have to be done in every band, and if the band has a real leader the bl does the work.

The more the BL wants to have control over music and gear and so on, the more I expect him/her to take charge of the boring stuff. Selling gigs, making sure we actually get to the gigs (car rental and whatnot...) At some point if we players basically just make his/her vision of music without creative input, I want actually get paid for it.

The more its a democratic band, the more I am willing to do my share of the boring stuff too, and I am not expecting a pay since it is a hobby at that point after all.

So in my opinion both can work, but the bands really needs to know what it is first.

 

[Max Blasto]

Both can work. The worst situation is when a band dont know if it is democratic or not. I was in a band where two band leaders basically made all the important decisions, but wanted to give everybody a feeling it was run democratically. As long as everybody agreed with them everything went ok. but as soon as someone disagreed it was all hell. Turns out the bogus democracy was more of a way to make others do some of the boring work that have to be done in every band, and if the band has a real leader the bl does the work.

The more the BL wants to have control over music and gear and so on, the more I expect him/her to take charge of the boring stuff. Selling gigs, making sure we actually get to the gigs (car rental and whatnot...) At some point if we players basically just make his/her vision of music without creative input, I want actually get paid for it.

The more its a democratic band, the more I am willing to do my share of the boring stuff too, and I am not expecting a pay since it is a hobby at that point after all.

So in my opinion both can work, but the bands really needs to know what it is first.

Yeah, but if the BL is doing all that, he's getting paid more than you, right?
And what's this stuff about not getting paid? Musicians are professionals. You are too, aren't you?

 

[Sunset Shalom]

It's pretty unlikely that a democratic band would ever get big enough to be heard of.

You would probably be surprised. As has been said a leader tends to arise to some extent it seems but many of the greatest bands were so becouse they all had a say.

 

[Lowness]

The ideal of a BL is a very USA-centric idea. For most of the world, bands are democratic.

 

[Rocker949]

I prefer the democratic model and that has worked great for me. But I was once in a band with a BL and that worked great, too, for many reasons. Maybe the main reason is that one was a 3-piece band and I got to experience just how much I liked that. If you play bass and like playing loud, being in a 3-piece band can be a lot of fun, needless to say. Or if you're in Cream, maybe that can cause problems, too, although hopefully no one here is ever going to be comparing themselves to Cream.

 

[NeonVomit]

I see a lot of talk about band leaders but rarely hear about a "democratic band."

What is the reason for that? It's easier/ simpler when the group is following one persons vision/ direction?

Pretty much. For the day-to-day operations of a band, having one person calling the shots, being the point of contact and handling the finances makes life easier. I do that with one of my bands. The creative side is handled by others.

 

[Sunset Shalom]

The ideal of a BL is a very USA-centric idea. For most of the world, bands are democratic.

That makes complete sense to me. Seems like a very western thing to do.

 

[Rocker949]

That makes complete sense to me. Seems like a very western thing to do.

That may be so. However, it isn't something I can personally relate to. All the democratic bands I've been in were in the U.S. The one exception was a BL band in Europe. I liked both, but as I've already stated in another post, I naturally lean more toward the democratic model in most cases.

 

[lbbc]

I guess I'm the BL of my band since I own the PA, handle finances and book the gigs. But I really see myself as more of a Moderator/Facilitator. We discuss new songs to learn and decide, as a group, do they fit our style, will they be well received by our potential and actual audience, and where we want to perform (outside of our steady rotation of venues).
We are a 3 piece acoustic/electric group and cover anything from Buddy Holly to Bruno Mars. My wife sings but we have never been, and never will be, the 2 against 1 mentality. Our mantra is everyone brings something unique to the table and we couldn't, and don't want to, perform the same material with anyone else. We need to play for the audience and ourselves...to keep it interesting and fun. We've been performing together for the past 17 years in various formats. No need for labeling Democracy or BL...You know, if it ain't broke don't fix it!

 

[pedroims]

BL are needed, they are the person that have the final word when an agreement cant be reach.

 

[brianrost]

It's simple, if the BL is out hustling gigs, doing promo, etc. I'm only too happy to go along for the ride.

I started a band a few years ago but gratefully handed it over to a new member who was willing to hustle gigs. We went from playing in a local bar for grins to actually working regionally.

BTW I disagree with Lowness' comment that BL are a US thing. Seems to me it's true everywhere, not sure what the basis of his argument is.

 

[makaspar]

My band is 95% democratic, and any of us can basically veto anything at any time. There are four of us, and if we need a tie breaker, it's usually one of the more senior members of the band..

It actually works really well, since we're all good friends, and do this for fun, not for a living or to get famous.