- Jul 8, 2009
- 1,612
- 11
- Disclosures
- A&R, Soulless Corporation Records
What are the pros and cons of each political structure in a band? What are the pros of having one person making decisions over the entire band making decisions collectively?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Dictatorship vs. Democracy: Pros and Cons
- Thread starter Beginner Bass
- Start date
I believe that decisions for the group need to be made by the group, however there needs to be a leader figure to govern the group to make sure that things are getting done and to make decisions if the group cannot.
benevolent dictatorship ...
we may get a vote , but he gets the final sayso .
we all get an even money split , and no " band money " is spent without a vote .
we may get a vote , but he gets the final sayso .
we all get an even money split , and no " band money " is spent without a vote .
The longer I do the band thing, the more interested I am in group dynamics. As someone who spends considerable tiome playing in bars, I look at this from more of a business perspective and less of an artistic one. I've seen it work both ways, but I find that 90% of the time, the ego of the person or persons making the decisions is still the biggest inhibitor to sound decision making, particulalry with regard to selling the band. In an ideal world, you present your art and people either accept it, respect it, or reject it. In the world of cover/bar bands, however, the equation isn't as simple. More specifically, musicians think like musicians, and are often self-imposed "music experts" who tend to forget that their job is to entertain and maintain patronage. Unfortunately, the average bar-going fan doesn't think like a musician and really doesn't care that the band leader decided to buy a bitching sound system or thought that learning a bunch of Grateful Dead b-sides was a smart move. In this case, to the fan, the band is too loud and/or playing stuff the audience doesn't know. More often than not, the very move attempted to draw fans alienates them, which in turn alienates the folks providing the venue. This isn't good for business.
In my experience, a LOT more gets accomplished when someone is driving the decisions rather than letting a general consensus decide matters (or more often, not).
There's focus and direction, rather than a random drift and no clear agenda.
It really depends on what you're looking for in a band, I suppose.
I'd much rather have some leader-like person say firmly "we'll learn these 4 songs for next practice" than have everyone list off 3 or 4 songs each and have no clear idea what the top priority tunes to work on should be, and then when next practice rolls around find that no one worked on any of the songs, or worked on some that you didn't, etc...
There's focus and direction, rather than a random drift and no clear agenda.
It really depends on what you're looking for in a band, I suppose.
I'd much rather have some leader-like person say firmly "we'll learn these 4 songs for next practice" than have everyone list off 3 or 4 songs each and have no clear idea what the top priority tunes to work on should be, and then when next practice rolls around find that no one worked on any of the songs, or worked on some that you didn't, etc...
More and more I'm having to think that a leading element is required. I like David Meissner's way of putting it: A benevelant dictatorship will be in place in my next band.
The communist method, while ideal seems to begin fraying at the edges way too quickly. Apparently people can't manage themselves.
The communist method, while ideal seems to begin fraying at the edges way too quickly. Apparently people can't manage themselves.
I beleive we have a rule at TalkBass about no politics being discussed in the forums. TAKE YOUR QUESTION TO THE LOBBY!!!
Just Kidding...
Im the leader of our band. I make most of the decisions while everyone else stands on their head. If I need input or if its a matter thatwill effect everyone else's time or money, then the decision is made as a group. Things like accepting gigs are mostly done by me, though anyone can book us a date. Recording is done by our synth player and usually scheduled during normal rehearsal time. Financial decisions such as 'should get this or invest in that' are made as a group.
I've been in several bands in the past, and I think it really depends on the individual bandmember's personalities. I've been in bands that were democracies; they went nowhere because no one was a strong enough leader to lead the band in a certain direction. I've also been in a band with two leader types, and that wound up dividing the band into two camps, you can guess how long that lasted. The band I'm in right now has a strong bandleader with a great vision for the band, and we're all signed on to his vision. However, he is always open to suggestions, and several of mine have been implemented. Everyone is happy with this arrangement, and there is peace in our band. And I'm a happy camper!
Maybe there is a huge difference in cover bands and original bands. I've always done originals. I've been in some groups with a "leader" that attempted to dictate how parts were written and played. I always listened, if I dug what they were saying, and tried their ideas. If it wasn't my kind of bass line, I would do my thing, and tell them to stick to their own instrument.
I like a combination. The band as a whole decides general issues of direction, goals, genre, etc. We then elect an "Executive", band leader, Grand High Exalted Pooh-Bah who has the power of life & death, & whose term lasts until the rest of the band thinks somebody else can do it better. It usually ends up being me, for various reasons. I then try to delegate various areas of responsibility back to the individual members according to interest, skill, etc. - or lack of (on my part as well as theirs).
I'm a believer that every band must have a leader. That doesn't mean a DICTATOR, though.. Duties can be delegated to the most capable or willing member. In the end, someone must make the executive decisions, and assume a greater responsibility to make things happen. Someone must have the vision, be able to hire to and fire, etc.
If the dictator really has his/her act together, has a clear, creative, and marketable vision, that would get my vote.
Too often, the old democracy only serves to dilute the effort and (even disolve it sometimes).
Too often, the old democracy only serves to dilute the effort and (even disolve it sometimes).
We make decisions as a group, though I am the contact guy for everything. Booking, taxes, fliers, shirts, etc......
If anyone wants to contact us it gets directed to me by everyone so that way there is only one set of info coming to and from Rockfist!. That way there is only one "bad guy" if need be. I am in a very fortunate situation though because everyone is of the same mind in regards to what we want to accomplish. It is still very equal in how decisions are made, I am just the guy who tells whoever needs to hear it.
If anyone wants to contact us it gets directed to me by everyone so that way there is only one set of info coming to and from Rockfist!. That way there is only one "bad guy" if need be. I am in a very fortunate situation though because everyone is of the same mind in regards to what we want to accomplish. It is still very equal in how decisions are made, I am just the guy who tells whoever needs to hear it.
Somebody has to lead, but I think the band has the right to shoot down a really lame idea, and give their own input when appropriate.
I've always referred to my concept of the 'best' scenario as a benevolent dictatorship - as david meissner stated.
That said, while I understand the appeal 'three musketeers' concept, my experience has shown that the most successful bands I've been a part of (good gigs, good songs, good pay, good...) were led by one person and staffed by good, mature players who understood the value of having one person in charge.
I've never seen one of those bands implode due to in-fighting nor have I seen them fall apart because the guy in charge was a DICKtator. Benevolent Dictator - a leader who listens - is the way to go when in doubt.
That said, while I understand the appeal 'three musketeers' concept, my experience has shown that the most successful bands I've been a part of (good gigs, good songs, good pay, good...) were led by one person and staffed by good, mature players who understood the value of having one person in charge.
I've never seen one of those bands implode due to in-fighting nor have I seen them fall apart because the guy in charge was a DICKtator. Benevolent Dictator - a leader who listens - is the way to go when in doubt.
If you personally think an idea is a good one, insist on a group decision, or better yet take control.
If you think an idea stinks, insist someone else decide. Preferably a guitar player.
If you think an idea stinks, insist someone else decide. Preferably a guitar player.
In every successful band I've been in, one person had a strong vision for the band and the point of the band was to realize that vision. That applies to originals bands and cover bands. Trying to get people without a vision involved in decision making is just going to make things cumbersome and slow and not necessarily make people happier or the end result better. A good band leader will always listen to input and try to avoid antagonizing the other band members to the extent possible, but ultimately it comes down to, are the other members willing to help the leader realize his/her vision?
If you have two or more people with visions, either they will be consistent or complementary, or one of the two will eventually quit.
If you have two or more people with visions, either they will be consistent or complementary, or one of the two will eventually quit.
With the new band, the guitarist is by default the leader, as he has the most experience, the most connections, and he’s the most motivated,
and nobody else really wants to lead.
It helps that we’re all on the ’same page’, so things fall together pretty efficiently. Three of us also work together (job-wise - one, not the leader, is our boss at work), and the other is my buddy.
I only remember once or maybe twice the drummer (vocalist also, we all sing) just said “no”, and that was that. I’ve yet to do that, but we all can.
We all have clout, as none could do this without the others. My particular clout is that I own everything, but I consider that more a ’job security’ thing than a ‘power’ thing.
and nobody else really wants to lead.
It helps that we’re all on the ’same page’, so things fall together pretty efficiently. Three of us also work together (job-wise - one, not the leader, is our boss at work), and the other is my buddy.
I only remember once or maybe twice the drummer (vocalist also, we all sing) just said “no”, and that was that. I’ve yet to do that, but we all can.
We all have clout, as none could do this without the others. My particular clout is that I own everything, but I consider that more a ’job security’ thing than a ‘power’ thing.
