Dictatorship vs. Democracy: Pros and Cons

[jp58]

I've always been in a democracy type set-up. Works rather well and no one feels left out. The only issue is when votes come to a "tie," in which case they are settled by challenges to MORTAL KOMBAT.

 

[mmjazzbass]

My band is basically a democracy, where anyone is free to bring musical ideas to the table, but where the "leader" (meaning in this case songwriter, frontman, and founder) has veto power which can often be persuaded away anyway. In rehearsals I usually end up being a "bad cop" when crap isn't getting done in rehearsal in addition to writing the horn arrangements for the band, and the drummer books our gigs and promotes us.

I think a system like this is really effective because different people have different responsibilities based on their talents and personalities, and the open forum method of piecing together compositions allow everyone to infuse their sound into the songs.

 

[klokker]

In our band different people lead on different things. People sort of "rise to the top" of one aspect of being in the band.

I lead when it comes to the music and how its played, things that need to be fixed. I seem to hear it the best. I've also found our best gigs so that gives me some "prestige" in the band.

Our keyboard player is way better at putting our calendar together, keeping our sound system organized, and auditioning new people.

The lead guitar player has the best sense of what song to play, when to play it........putting a set list together.

Our drummer knows when the three of us are all on the same page and think its working, when its actually terrible. He's like the nay-sayer. When he says it sucks, we drop it.

Drummer also supplies beverages at rehearsal.

There is no one way that works best. It depends on the context and who is involved.

 

[Xray66]

Just commented on this in another post. But I personally don't believe in perfect democracy. There's a reason why companies have bosses and armies have generals... That's how stuff gets done. In rare cases there have been democratic bands that seemed to have worked well. But often times... if you look closely, you will find that those bands weren't quite as democratic as everybody thought. Maybe some of the members were a little more accommodating to other certain members than people realized. I think sometimes it can work if you have a situation where everybody kind of has their thing they do. Maybe two guys do most of the writing. Singer does lyrics. Maybe drummer or somebody handles business. But still... I think there needs to be somebody that in the end, puts his foot down and breaks the tie. Otherwise you just have everybody thinking they're the boss. There's always more than one good way to do something. It takes a leader to decide which one to go with. Sometimes the hardest part of life is deciding whether you want to be a leader or a follower. I think there's probably many musicians that looking back, wish they had set aside their ego and just been a follower when they had the chance. I've met a few guys that left bands, based on their lofty ideals that they refused to compromise, only to see that band become huge. Lofty ideals don't pay the bills.

 

[Big chicken]

well scince im the leader of my band(and the only one with any musical traning)
i listen to the guitarist and drummer but usually i get the final say.

 

[skwee]

Obviously there are many different ways to get things done. I am lucky that I work with people who all can be leaders when they need to be, and so consensus building is relatively easy. Sometimes there are issues, but by and large, we have to work things out, since the point of the group is not to have a single leader. Everyone is the boss, because everyone has each others' backs.

 

[Beginner Bass]

Just commented on this in another post. But I personally don't believe in perfect democracy. There's a reason why companies have bosses and armies have generals... That's how stuff gets done. In rare cases there have been democratic bands that seemed to have worked well. But often times... if you look closely, you will find that those bands weren't quite as democratic as everybody thought. Maybe some of the members were a little more accommodating to other certain members than people realized. I think sometimes it can work if you have a situation where everybody kind of has their thing they do. Maybe two guys do most of the writing. Singer does lyrics. Maybe drummer or somebody handles business. But still... I think there needs to be somebody that in the end, puts his foot down and breaks the tie. Otherwise you just have everybody thinking they're the boss. There's always more than one good way to do something. It takes a leader to decide which one to go with. Sometimes the hardest part of life is deciding whether you want to be a leader or a follower. I think there's probably many musicians that looking back, wish they had set aside their ego and just been a follower when they had the chance. I've met a few guys that left bands, based on their lofty ideals that they refused to compromise, only to see that band become huge. Lofty ideals don't pay the bills.

Yes, I read your other post. I was the TS in that one too.

 

[MNAirHead]

The ones that click have a benevolant dictator..

There then are focus areas.. some guys gravitate toward setlists, promotions, gear etc.

In reality most folks want to "feel" important then have someone execute all their bright ideas.. then blame them if they're lame or faulted.

Tim

 

[R. Laevinus]

In my experience, dicator-run bands are no fun, but very effective. And vice-versa - democratic bands are a lot of fun, but not very effective.

The best way to do things is a benevolent dictatorship - where everybody gets a say, but the leader makes the call.

 

[Vic Winters]

If I'm going to pull most of the weight, I might as well have the final say.

 

[TheBassPreacher]

I think no matter what, there needs to be someone with a final word on things though.... otherwise I've seen it where you can end up in a never ending stalemate.

Now democracy vs dictatorship I think depends on the band. In my opinion if it's someone's name out front (e.g. Dave Matthews Band, Dale Watson and his Lonestars, Captain Geech and the shrimp shack shooters, etc) it's a dictatorship. Their name is on the thing, they make the decisions. Now otherwise, it's up to the band to determine what they want. I've been in bands where they've wanted a dictator, and I've been in bands where it wouldn't have worked.

The band I'm in now, we're a democracy but our singer has been given final say if it's needed. Usually what happens is the guitarist and drummer just go with whatever I and the singer decide is best.

 

[Korladis]

Anyone who has worked by consensus knows it takes forever and can be a headache.

However, it does give everyone a more equal say and equal opportunity for input than a dictatorship.

These aren't the only organizational structures of running a band, though.