• 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

#62
No BL's here in the current bands I'm apart of. Two of them have been around for about eight years now. Never any problems. Ever. It's great.

I've said this a number of times here on TB. I have been playing in bands since around the late eighties and never even heard of this so called band leader and these problems until I joined TB. I know they are out there I've seen them in person in studios and clubs but not in my personal experience. I'm glad too because when I was in the service there was some very questionable leaders. Which was the reason I got out when my time was up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunset Shalom
#64
Even a democracy needs someone to make final decisions (the US has a president for this purpose. Insert your own joke here). The leader can only lead with the consent of the governed.

My band has five members. We all have a voice, but also have a BL. If we didn't, we wouldn't have a band. We've been together for almost 10 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregmon79 and EdO.
#65
Sunset Shalom said:
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?

I have always wanted to be part of an equal group of multi instrumentalists so we could freely switch roles and experiment.
Click to expand...

In my 25+ years of playing in rock and alternative bands (primarily original but one or two cover bands along the way) I was never in one with a "bandleader." Sure, there was a guy (or girl) who booked shows for us (though more often this responsibility was shared) but that was about it. The bands I was in were all essentially democratic in nature. No one was "in charge." Obviously I had heard of the term, but thought it reserved for jazz cats, big bands, etc. You know Duke Ellington, Count Basie, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunset Shalom, Rocker949, gregmon79 and 1 other person
#66
In my opinion, it depends mainly on who's writing most the material. If you are working with a Trent Reznor or Bowie type guy, then yes, he will most likely be the BL and you would follow his lead. If it's more of a Rage or Chili Pepper thing, then it is a democracy. I think it's pretty cool either way because great music can thrive in either place. But me? I much prefer the democratic way of doing it. It would be easier at times to just show up and play what I'm told, but that would get boring in ways I think. I like being one of the main song writers of our band. Me and the guitar player bring the main idea of a song to the band and we all 4 help build it to be a real song. We sort of compose it together. It's so cool to see things change and morph into something awesome you didn't hear when you wrote it. Or to write it and have it become what you thought it to be but sound even better in the end. That is the coolest!

So it really just depends. Some bands do it the BL way, others, the democratic way. I can see reasoning for both ways but they don't usually mix that's for sure. There will be drama and strife at some point if those two entities try to coexist in the same space together. And it's understandable to me as to why that would be. The BL has a vision, he/she writes all that stuff for a reason and wants it to sound and certain way. But it's a lot more pressure for said BL. As a democratic band, you can all write together and have a say in what goes, what stays, what gets played and what doesn't. I really like that. I like both ways actually but again, I prefer the democracy of a band working together. It's a lot easier for everyone to stay motivated too when you have to promote and do all the non-music related band stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunset Shalom and Teijo K.
#67
There should be some sort of chart or graph that can plot the success of differing band governments based on pay, type, and number of members.

I have been in various projects where creativity was the focus. 3-4 members, democratic process usually, low pay expected.
Some of the more long lived bands where the focus was more genre specific. 4-5 members, semi-democratic, fairly steady paying gigs. In these bands the various members did what they were good at. Some procured bookings, some arranged PA, some just looked good.
Lately I've been in mostly Band leader type bands. 4-6 members. I play the songs, make no suggestions unless asked, help with gear, get paid.

Some were successful, some less than. If the reward, be it fun or money, was not enough I moved on. But I have found, in my case, that democracy is easier when there are fewer members,fun a priority and lower expectations financially. Just the opposite when the band is a functioning business. Both are great!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunset Shalom
#68
Interesting thread. I play in more-or-less three bands (one is an "every now and then"). They run the gamut. The "every now and then" is clearly a BL situation, as I play whenever he thinks it would be good to have a bass player (often he just plays acoustic guitar and the focus is on vocals). I play what ever he asks for. He lines up the gigs.

Another band is fronted by a very enthusiastic female vocalist. She is the defacto band leader since she picks the songs she can sing with enthusiasm and has been the one lining up gigs.

The band I play with mostly is democratic and we are good friends. However, we all naturally fall into different roles. We have some very talented musicians (singers and guitarists), and in my opinion, the great music they make is because they are picking songs they can really pour their soul into. Not always the best songs for a bassist, but if I recommend songs, they perhaps could do them as a favor, but the best sound is ones that they are really feeling.

One member takes the lead in running the practices - this was never decided, it just happened and it works. And meanwhile, I have been the one lining up the gigs. So this works, but it is because of personalities of the band - no domineering getting in the way, and no slackers to worry about.

Since this is "talkbass.com", this is my perspective as a bassist: While we like to think we are the central instrument of the band (how lousy would it sound without a bass !?!?), in reality, the audience is listening to the guitarists/vocalists/keyboards. Unless those lead folks are picking/learning/performing-well the songs based on them being genuinely moved by those songs, the band is going to suck. So for better or worse, as bassists, it would be the exception not the rule for the bassist to be the BL from a sound perspective. But that doesn't preclude the bassist from being the BL from the perspective of money mgmt, PA ownership/operation/mixing, marketing, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunset Shalom and Teijo K.
#69
gregmon79 said:
In my opinion, it depends mainly on who's writing most the material. If you are working with a Trent Reznor or Bowie type guy, then yes, he will most likely be the BL and you would follow his lead. If it's more of a Rage or Chili Pepper thing, then it is a democracy. I think it's pretty cool either way because great music can thrive in either place. But me? I much prefer the democratic way of doing it. It would be easier at times to just show up and play what I'm told, but that would get boring in ways I think. I like being one of the main song writers of our band. Me and the guitar player bring the main idea of a song to the band and we all 4 help build it to be a real song. We sort of compose it together. It's so cool to see things change and morph into something awesome you didn't hear when you wrote it. Or to write it and have it become what you thought it to be but sound even better in the end. That is the coolest!

So it really just depends. Some bands do it the BL way, others, the democratic way. I can see reasoning for both ways but they don't usually mix that's for sure. There will be drama and strife at some point if those two entities try to coexist in the same space together. And it's understandable to me as to why that would be. The BL has a vision, he/she writes all that stuff for a reason and wants it to sound and certain way. But it's a lot more pressure for said BL. As a democratic band, you can all write together and have a say in what goes, what stays, what gets played and what doesn't. I really like that. I like both ways actually but again, I prefer the democracy of a band working together. It's a lot easier for everyone to stay motivated too when you have to promote and do all the non-music related band stuff.
Click to expand...

To me it also depends on do I want to keep it as a hobby or not. Democratic band works a lot better in my opinion when its a hobby. The more one or two guys start to be band leader or leaders, and start to tell too much about what to play and how, the more it starts to feel like its becoming work. You want me to play a certain bass or with particular style fine, but then you are a BL and need to do the boring stuff too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregmon79
#70
It's best to have a band leader. But it is most effective when:
1. BL is a benign dictator.
2. BL is GOOD with people.
3. BL is a natural leader of people.
4. BL is a good manager.

If a BL earns and deserves the groups trust, it can be an awesome endeavor. If the BL is an egotistical jerk, a democracy is better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregmon79
#72
Robroy said:
It's best to have a band leader. But it is most effective when:
1. BL is a benign dictator.
2. BL is GOOD with people.
3. BL is a natural leader of people.
4. BL is a good manager.
Click to expand...
My BL is like that, thank God. However he also never really called himself the BL, I think we gave him that title as a band via our attitudes and behavior. He's a pretty wise leader and makes sure to always check with the band on what we would like to do. By doing this, he has earned loyalty and if he makes an executive decision, we don't generally fight it much. He's not perfect and sometimes theres a little talk on the side but he's about as good a leader as I could've hoped for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunset Shalom and Teijo K.
#73
Robroy said:
It's best to have a band leader. But it is most effective when:
1. BL is a benign dictator.
2. BL is GOOD with people.
3. BL is a natural leader of people.
4. BL is a good manager.

If a BL earns and deserves the groups trust, it can be an awesome endeavor. If the BL is an egotistical jerk, a democracy is better.
Click to expand...
It really helps when the BL is good musically. I've been in a few where it was obvious the the BL was trying to create a band so that he could have a gig. Last long not, those ones!
 
#76
My last band had a defacto BL - we never really specifically called him BL but he kind of had the final say. We would give our input when we wanted to. I ultimately left because I didn't agree with BL's obsession with pay to play as the only way to build a fanbase. So every band is a democracy in a way. You can vote by quitting if you don't like the direction it is going. That is what I had to do.
 
#77
bolophonic said:
The most successful bands I've ever played with were skillfully led by one person
who attracted/recruited/directed the most creative talent they could find.
The best results were those when everybody was there to meticulously flesh out the vision
of a bandleader who gave ample opportunity for everybody to shine on their own.
Click to expand...
... yep , pretty much this .
:cool:
... the best way to kill an already tight band , imo ,
is too many cooks in the kitchen , too many irons in the fire ...
 
#78
My band is fairly democratic. When we are discussing shows or ways to mold songs we go by a consensus. The guitarist is the primary song writer and does a lot of the leg work, so when we were just a 3 piece, he was sort of the "band leader." However, now we are a five piece and he isn't the lead singer anymore so things are a little more democratic. As a band, we've gotten to a point where we realize that we all need each other. Some have a little more pull than others, but no one tells everyone else what to do.
 
#79
High performance groups first of all are based on mutual respect. If you don't get that right, it isn't high performance and the clock is ticking.

Leadership can take many forms. My first rule is that whoever books the gig is the BL for the gig. Period. Why? Because that person is accountable for the product that gets delivered.

Musical leadership is a bit complicated; but, can have components consisting of talent, experience, knowledge, charisma, and communication skills. Bands can have multiple leaders depending on various roles.

Another aspect of high performance groups is that they are enablers, whereby each member tries to support and encourage high performance in the other members.

Let's take song or playlist selection, a common source of conflict in bands. First the band requires clarity as to what kind of band it is. Original compositions, cover material etc. Also, venues and audiences need to be identified. Playfare should serve the objective. Basement band is fine; then you can play whatever you want to play. Bar band requires playing what the bar owner and patrons want to hear. Event band requires playing suitable for the event. Original band requires writing great music.

IMO democracy in playfare selection is desireable, because it instills ownership. But, that requires the band share and agree on the needs of the gig, and put that purpose above each individual preference. And, in fact, once you start doing that, it can be fun.

And, a band can dabble in some of all of the above; but like anything else, it is important to prioritize and understand and share a central focus.

Many bands are flat out run by one band leader. Which is fine . It is simple. If you like the gig, stay on it. If not, let someone else have it.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: EdO.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back