Ethics of holding on to a player "for now"...

Friends stab each other from the front...

 

Hi Eilif

Interesting thread!

When a band was founded as a hobby but develops into something more serious,

every full bandmember should have the chance to grow into that new project.

Of course there can be persons with limited talents.

Or persons who can' t reach the required level fast enough.

A beginner can' t grow to pro level in a few weeks even when he/ she practices very hard.

And there are a lot that don' t want to be pros. They just love to hang out and jam with their friends.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn' t. That' s life!

As long as the goal (the new project) is accepted by the whole band there should be no problem.

Folks leave bands because they feel they aren' t up to the challenge. Others start side projects…

As long as everybody is honest with the others and him/ herself,

nobody will feel stabbed in the back!

It happened! Adam himself mentioned that in an interview when I remember right.

I heared that he was particularly stoned that evening.


greetings

Wise(b)ass

 

Re the 'other doors opening' comments: way back last century I was hired as a foundation member of a band that turned out to be wildly popular locally. Eventually the singer/BL and guitarist wanted to tour nationally and the other guitarist, the drummer and myself were unable and/or unwilling to do so, so we got replaced by new hires who were willing and able to tour - we were the placeholders in this case. No issues though, we didn't want to tour, they did, so no hard feelings (except that the new bass player also took my girlfriend when they left town...).

I formed a new band with the other placeholders and a girl singer and within a couple months we were actually even more popular than we had been with the previous band, so what had looked like a kinda crappy situation turned out to be a very good one! It's not always about chops, sometimes things just need a change for many reasons.

(Sad coda: the first band managed part of a tour before falling prey to some nasty drug issues that destroyed both the band and the people in it - the new hires bought more with them than just their musical ability unfortunately.)

 

Is it clear to all that the band is going to he next level?

I had a jam at my house that turned into a lightly gigging band. I pushed that we needed to tighten things up. Everyone was aboard.
If we suddenly decided that we wanted to be a wedding or club band, we'd all have to decide if we wanna take that leap and if everyone is on board.

I've seen a lot of posts over the years where people improve or have different aspirations at differing rates. That merits a discussion.

 

I think it's effed up. But in reality it happens all the time. I seem to recall that one certain female fronted country act and another pop/alt band from the 90's were projected onto the national stage by the quality of the band, and the music company fired them all as soon as she was hired.

What I know is that I won't do it. I'll tell them (as gently as I can) they either need to step it up or eventually they will be replaced. You might be surprised how people can rise to an occasion.

 

I can't control what others do or want to do but I did decide a few months back that I needed to let them know that these problems had to be addressed or I would not be remaining in the band. They could have chosen to stick with the status quo and found a replacement for me instead, which would have been okay with me, too, although I was happy that they wanted me to stick around enough to be willing to address the problems.

 

So Anyway, I don't think there's much to be gained by telling the guy he's not really a full member or will not be in the band if/when you take off. That's a discussion for when you do take off or find someone a lot better who's willing to join your band. Pete Best syndrome?
I work for a BL who's a lot more devoted to music than I am... it's his only income. If he found a bass player who could take the band to the next level, I'd fully understand it when I was replaced. In fact, I'd shake his hand and wish him well, and do the same to my replacement.

 

Every band has a ticking time-bomb in it. Prepare as far in advance as you can see, whatever it takes. Apparently, the band members are not all equally yoked. Just make sure it doesn't scuttle the band when the issue comes to a head, because the only way it will not come to a head is if everyone is complementary in ability, temperament, and commitment (and even then it is hard enough). Nailing two out of three here will still lead to a failure.

 

Be honest and give that player the message and the chance to grow into a better player, we were all the weakest link at some point and someone gave us those chances and lessons for growth.
That is what life teaches us and what we owe to pay it forward.

 

Here is a real life story:
I play in a band that had a “weak link player”. This guy was playing rhythm guitar. Very reliable and dedicated, tried his best. Even went out and bought a special $3000 guitar to fit the style of the band. We tried to talk to him and work with him for a long time but he just was not cutting it. There’s no drums in this band so a lot of the burden fell on me, and there were some rough nights. In the end we found somebody who was better and that guy got the gig. The bandleader will still use the first guy on occasion but he’s basically done.

I felt kind of bad for the first guy especially since he shelled out all that money for the guitar. But honestly I was going to quit the band if the BL didn’t do something about him.

So essentially we put up with him until we found somebody better. The style of music we play is very specific and there arent a whole Lotta guys that do it, and Those that do don’t necessarily want to play rhythm guitar. Of course we never told him “when we find somebody better we’re going to fire your ass“. But we did have a open and honest dialogue with him about what we felt his shortcomings were. And if he had been able to improve enough we would’ve kept him.

 

This definitely wouldn't fly (by night) today, especially in Canada (see: prohibited grounds). As there was good money on the table, the label would have either had to provide accommodation or reach a negotiated agreement to buy John Rutsey out.

 

Be careful what you wish for!

 

Indeed, it probably doesn't matter for a small potatoes band that has no assets, but if any kind of money is involved, then: 1) The band is probably a partnership by default. 2) The members are legal owners of something that can't just be taken from them.

The good news is that if the band is really on their way up, then the remaining members should be willing to invest in buying out the member who doesn't remain.

 

You're asking yet you already know the answer. It's dishonest. Maybe his time could be spent pursuing another project, instead he is supporting your band because he believes there is a future in it.

 

I hear you.

Sometimes you need to try to raise the bar alone if need be. Fortunately, most musicians have enough self respect to respond to that sort of challenge.

I’ve dropped the gauntlet a few times myself. Not something I wanted to do. But what’s the point of plateauing on the low side of the range, right? Even a low pay local cover gig by a dad band deserves to be handled professionally. Even if you’re just doing it for giggles. Or maybe even more professionally if the money isn’t your motivation for doing it. Because to my way of thinking, if it’s not for the money, and it’s not for the music, why bother playing at all?

 

In the Rush documentary everyone is quite clear, John Rutsey was let go because he had medical issues that made him unsuitable for the rigors of touring. Alex and the then manager said categorically it wasn't about ability or lack of it.

Eric Stefani was unhappy with the poor reception of the first No Doubt album and was reluctant to relinquish control of the songwriting which he preferred to touring. Again, it wasn't about whether or not he could "cut it".

Pete Best was a hack whom had happen to him something much like the topic presented by the OP. They never intended to keep him.

mugre

 

keep them until you find the "next step" player. Music is a revolving door, it always has been and always will be, forever.

 

And if the pretence for removing them from the partnership is that they're disabled, then it becomes a Human Rights issue as well. Not a good place to be in a business where reputation is everything, and the crowd always sides with the little guy.

 

I find this question slightly confounding. You get to the next level by being at the next level. Why do you want to hold on to the guy if you feel that he's holding you back? If you feel like you want to get to the next level artistically and/or commercially and this guy is holding you back, why play with him for one more minute? OP hasn't really specified the role of the weaker player in the band.

If you're already gigging, and you get a gig with the guy, you can probably play the gig with guy. If he's holding you back, he's holding you back right this second.

One possibility is to give him an HONEST chance to improve, while taking stock of the real capacities of the other band members, the realities of who gets people to the gigs, and the likelihood of finding a better player.

The second is to let him go now, because if he's gonna hold you back in the future, he's holding you back right now.

The notion that he's good enough for the current go-along-to-get-along band, but not good enough for the future perfectionist band, is perplexing to me.