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.
The ideal group is where everyone gets along, pulls their weight, shares equally in the work that is drudgerous to some, and where there is no leader. Research shows that "shared leadership" is the the most effective form of team leadership. I truly believe that, and try to live that in my life all the time, at work, etcetera, and in the bands I perform with.
But unfortunately, my experience over the last 15 years shows that musicians in general (so far in my life) have not brought the necessary requirements to make shared leadership a feasible reality. Should I have strong evidence that has changed, I'm more than willing to try a shared leadership model again.
But musicians are notorious for wanting to control the repertoire, play in 5 bands that cause scheduling conflicts with the band I am part of, and not contribute to the sales and marketing of the group. All this, in my experience, tends to fall on one person -- myself. Others demand higher and higher rates of pay and gripe or laugh at me if I call with a gig that pays less than they think it should. And through strategic marketing, I delivered, increasing the pay over the last few years to higher than going rates in our town, regularly.
But they still quote that one gig where they got outrageous money for doing very little as though it was standard fare. All while my personal skills atrophy as a musician because I am so busy managing and selling and promoting. One musician even had the gall to try to fire me from the group I started, and for which I had booked 13 gigs over two months over displeasure with my musicianship. I had found the musicians, and booked the only paying gigs we had on the books. Also bothersome was when I would send an email indicating I wanted to spend $X on marketing materials, no one would answer me. The message was that no one was willing to fund the cost out of our gig money. So, I ended up paying it and hoping they would agree to give it back to me after the gigs materialized.
So, while I was more than willing to engage in shared leadership, and democratic processes, I found I ended up being a lackey for the band. The "band leader as doormat" model, as I call it. I had to do all the hard work, while the star musicians in the band dictated repertoire, insisted on "custom" songs that are not standards, made me play stuff I hated (something I don't mind if I also get some of my own songs on the repertoire) are hard to sub, and not charted. Making it hard for me to sub them when they were not available or picky about the gig. When that musician tried to fire me from my own band, in spite of my doing all the hard work, THAT CHANGED ME. I no longer believed that shared leadership, the prized ideal would work with this particular set of musicians in this town.
So, I have gone to a new model where I apply business principles to level the playing field. I try to balance my own needs and those of the musicians.
I seek input but retain control over the final decision when it comes to repertoire. I give criteria for songs (simple structure, well known, easily subbed, Real booked) and ask for suggestions. Songs that don't fit the criteria we don't do, because I don't want to have to invest a night orienting a new player when these musicians are busy with other bands.
My life is so much easier now when I sub a musician. I just send the sub charts and they say "no problem, these are easy". Often I send no charts at all because they are all in the real book -- another criterion to make my life easier. Every now and then I ask the band for "vanity tunes", where we can play something they are passionate about that is not charted, non standard or hard to sub. But only now that we have 4 hours of easy songs I can sub players into. We are not dependent on the vanity tunes for repertoire.
I give musicians gigs based on attitude and their willingness to help me book gigs. There are first and second and third and fourth call musicians, and the call is based primarily on gig booking willingness and past gigs booked. If someone is a killer player, but just wants to show up, play, get paid, and go home, they fall down in the depth chart.
I increased the supply of musicians in my town by forming a B-level band with people who are willing to go out for those gigs with non-profits that truly can't afford to pay full market rates. Suddenly the guys who were picky about pay find themselves sitting at home while B-level musicians get better and better, eventually capable of doing high level gigs -- and they get them if they book them or refer me to the client to close the deal.
And then, much to my surprise, these A-level musicians tell me they are playing in other bands for 1/2 of what I am paying them in my own groups -- pay that they said previously was too low for them and that they wouldn't accept. And they are sitting at home.
If they had've just shared in the work, and worked to make our band a success, we'd all be working hard for the success of our band. But no, they join competing bands and blame me for not having enough gigs...hence my harder edged approach above. One time, myself and a competing band were quoting on the same gig with the same style of music!! And one of the musicians in my band was the leader of the band against which I was quoting!!! Talk about peeing in the pool.
At one time, and maybe even now, it was taboo for a BL to refer to "my band". I'm going to own it now. These are MY BANDS with input from the other musicians now. And the only reason it's that way is that the musicians couldn't operate on a shared leadership model that was fair to me and allowed me to feel it was "our band". Had they shared in the work, taken those non-profit and community gigs when our schedule wasn't full, been less egocentric about the music we played, more inclusive of music I wanted to do, and responsive when I asked about business issues (like expenses for marketing materials) we would have one band and a depth chart we use only in emergencies, not based on gigs booked.
So, things have reversed now. I have four bands in which I perform, and they are as busy as I want, sometimes too much. Most of the other guys have sparse gigging schedules. And they treat me way better now. Even in the shared leadership band (still exists), the old culture of "band leader as doormat" is dying. They defer to me on so many things now.
And I consider it justice for the many, many years I was their doormat.. And by the way, I feel fulfilled as a musician now. My skills have progressed rapidly over the last year. I have an originals band. And there are times I don't take any pay at all to distribute it across the other musicians for their cooperativeness and good attitudes.
My regret, however, is that we can't have the shared leadership model. It would be better if we had the passion of everyone, true democracy, etcetera, but I just can't handle being the guy who does all the hard work and doesn't share in the fun. Such bands take high levels of interpersonal skills, shared ability across the band, and willingness to work hard at the difficult stuff. I wish that existed.
