How To Fire a Band Member

[jive1]

So I sent off the email, being as diplomatic as possible and approaching it as clinically as possible, claimed it's my opinion as a musician only and that I like him a lot on a personal level. I asked her if it's show business or show friends?

Anyway, in her eyes I must have seemed like a real jackass. Her first message back to me on the phone after getting the email was simply, "Ouch! That's harsh!" Then launches into a few pages of, paraphrasing here, "YOUR replaceable too! Everyone is. I could record my whole sound with just Tyler (her husband and guitar man) in the basement with a keyboard and drum machine and Ableton. You know how hard it is to put together a band!?! We should be lucky to have Jim!

The business/friends thing was unnecessary IMO. I imagine it probably rubbed her wrong by implying that she needs to choose one or the other, and the truth is that she doesn't.

Here's my POV as a bandleader. BLs of working bands usually have a lot of work to do, especially original bands since they have to come up with the material as well. Once the band is established, it's usually due to some effort done beforehand. Who knows how many drummers she went through before finding this one? She may have spent alot of time putting together the band to create the sound she's looking for. Who knows how much conflicting feedback she has heard prior to putting this all together? Who knows how many rejections she's gotten from various bars and clubs until she got something put together that they will book? There's a whole lot of behind the scenes and prior work for an established band. Then after all this work and thought, someone comes in and tells them that they need to do something different. To top it off, this person wasn't involved in the struggle and work beforehand, and accepting this person's input would mean more work and turmoil for you to deal with. Yeah, I'd be irked by it.

Imagine this situation. You have an idea for a band, and the sound that you want to achieve. You spend weeks to months to years to find the right people in the band. You put up with alot of people who just aren't good fits, but because you are passionate about the project, you push through. You fire some people along the way, and some of it may have been difficult to do. You have people quit along the way, and deal with the set backs. Then you finally get the pieces together, and then you take a break from dealing with the lineup. During that time, you're working on your material. You get feedback ranging from your friends telling you that you need to rock harder, your parents telling you to mellow it out, a promoter telling you that you need to sound like xxx, a fellow musician saying that it's great but needs more xxx, some stranger telling you that you would be better if you had less xxx, a bartender telling you his crowd prefers more xxx, while thinking I wish I had more yyy. After all this feedback, trashing ideas, returning to the drawing board, spending tons of time, spending tons of money, you finally come up with a recording that you're happy with. Now, you spend time trying to book your act while getting tons of rejections along the way until you finally get to a point you can play out with a little bit of regularity at a handful of places that appreciate what you do. While you're dealing with the struggles of putting your band together, creating your material, creating recordings, creating promo material, booking gigs, etc.., you're dealing with your own self-doubt about whether this is going to work and if it's even worth it. You work your way to a situation where you're not struggling as much, and the new guy in the band tells you that you need to make some drastic changes. How would you take it if you were the BL? For me, it would feel like a kick in the nether regions.

One of the challenges of the music business is that you will have people giving advice who have little to no experience with running a band, but feel that they know how to make it succeed. It's harder when it's the musicians who do this because there's an expectation that they should know better. Like parenting, or any significant endeavor, the worst advice usually begins with "Why don't you just......"

 

[Fat Steve]

Drummer sounds fine in the recordings. He may be a little loud, but it wouldn't really bother me, ESPECIALLY if the vibe and hang is there with the rest of the band. Also, after reading the back and forth between you and the singer, it's just a matter of time till you get voted off the island. May as well start looking for your next gig, as the rest of the band probably wont be too cool with you after having dropped a turd in the punch bowl like that.

Oh well, you live and you learn.

 

[40Hz]

...after reading the back and forth between you and the singer, it's just a matter of time till you get voted off the island. May as well start looking for your next gig, as the rest of the band probably wont be too cool with you after having dropped a turd in the punch bowl like that.

Oh well, you live and you learn.

@Capt.Obvious - Yeah. The above.

Some days you get the bear. And some days, the bear gets you.

Right now it looks like the bear got you.

I think the time has definitely come for you to make some deep apologies to all and sundry (because you never want to completely burn your bridges) and probably take your leave as well. Because if you were serious about the drummer being the problem, your credibility goes right out the window if you stick around after your failed attempt to get a personnel change.

Minor thought: I've never been in a group where the bass player was anything but the lowest man on the totem pole - no matter how good he was - if he wasn't also the BL, or lead singer, or a major songwriter for the group. Which tells me most band members don't see the average bass player's contribution (purely as the bass player) as being all that crucial or irreplaceable. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the way it seems to be.

It also pays to sometimes remember that a bass player is probably the most easily replaced member in any group. And there are plenty of replacements out there to choose from.

Contrast that with the ease of finding an even minimally competent and acceptable drummer...

That's something else to think about going forward.

-----
Addendum: if it's any consolation, I listened to both of the videos you posted and wasn't impressed by either the vocals, their far too laid back delivery, the complete absence of phrasing and dynamics, nor the stage presence of the singer herself.

She's certainly a lovely looking woman with a cool name and a pleasant enough voice. And it seems she is capable of writing and performing an acceptable pop song in a workmanlike manner - if the live video was indicative of what her music and shows are usually like. But hardly hit material or a star's performance by any stretch.

Or so I think anyway. YMMV.

 

[jwilson67]

Wow . Would have loved to have seen the unedited version.

Haha - sorry. It just brought up bad memories.

 

[jwilson67]

View attachment 699240

YOU'LL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN!!!

 

[MrLenny1]

Yup, make it a unanimous band vote or
see if he can be trained to play with dynamics.
I have a similar situation, the drummer brought me in but
it's his gig and I respect that.

 

[AltGrendel]

seems ok to me. i was a lot more bothered by the chick cupping the mic, that's more to blame for the sound than the "bonehead sound guy" in my book.

I agree. Cupping the mic contributes to feedback, thus limiting the volume you can get out of your monitors. It also affects the sound of the vocals as well. IMO, it wasn't bad. You can certainly hear the drums and they are forward, but they aren't drowning out the other instruments.

I think it's just a different type of energy and feel with and without the drummer. It's obvious what feel and energy the OP prefers, but it's not necessarily 'the best'.

A good sound person can properly EQ the mike so this (feedback) doesn't happen cupped or not, monitors or not. Believe me, I've seen it more than several time. Just depends on how good your board operator is.

@Capt.Obvious:
Lesson learned, I hope?

 

[Capt.Obvious]

seems ok to me. i was a lot more bothered by the chick cupping the mic, that's more to blame for the sound than the "bonehead sound guy" in my book.

Cupping the mic is a legitimate technique for vocalists. Sometimes it can simply help make the singing louder, which she desperately needed to be on this show, it also isolates the vocal line preventing ancillary stage sounds from going through her mic. It also changes the tone quite dramatically.

The sound engineer is responsible to make sure the vocals can hear themselves on stage through the wedges, that was probably the biggest complaint that show though he could have backed all of us up a bit so we weren't burying the lead.

 

[jive1]

A good sound person can properly EQ the mike so this doesn't happen cupped or not, monitors or not. Believe me, I've seen it more than several time. Just depends on how good your board operator is.

The issue with cupping the mic isn't so much that the EQ is changed, it's that you change the pattern of the mic to omnidirectional. When you do that, instead of just picking up stuff in front of the mic, it also picks up stuff from behind the mic too. Omnidirectional mics are more prone to feedback. If you use in-ears, no problem as long as you don't mind extra stuff in your mix and you don't step out in front of the mains. But for floor wedges, cupping a microphone will make that mic more prone to feedback. How you deal with it in terms of EQ is that you ring out the monitors for the frequencies that cause feedback. If you are getting more frequencies feeding back because your mic is omni, you'll have to cut more frequencies which may result in a bad monitor mix. If you're another band on a multi-band bill with 15 minutes to set up, you're probably not going to get your monitors rung out. So, what most soundmen will do is turn down the monitors.

It's a whole lot easier and more effective to just properly hold the mic than to have the soundman compensate for it.

 

[AltGrendel]

@jive1

I'll be honest, I think we're both right about this one, so I'm just going to leave it at hoping Captain Obvious the best of luck.

 

[jive1]

....it also isolates the vocal line preventing ancillary stage sounds from going through her mic. It also changes the tone quite dramatically.

That is just absolutely wrong. If it's a cardiod mic, it's already rejecting signals behind the mic. By cupping it, you change the pattern to omnidirectional. And by it being omnidirectional, the vocals become less clear because of all the extra signals that are now being introduced.

 

[Capt.Obvious]

I agree. Cupping the mic contributes to feedback, thus limiting the volume you can get out of your monitors. It also affects the sound of the vocals as well. IMO, it wasn't bad. You can certainly hear the drums and they are forward, but they aren't drowning out the other instruments.

I think it's just a different type of energy and feel with and without the drummer. It's obvious what feel and energy the OP prefers, but it's not necessarily 'the best'.

Usually agree with you on most things, but not here.

Cupping the mic actually can prevent feedback from highs and mids because you are limiting the ancillary stage noise that makes it into the vocal mic, it's admittedly not going to help with the lows, often the biggest issue with feedback live. BUT it also makes the vocalist sound louder and creates the illusion of a deeper voice because the cupping effect boosts lows and mid frequencies. It's a unique sound that can't be accomplished at the board.

It's also a defense mechanism when the singer can't hear herself well, like on this show. Rather than damaging her voice by singing louder, she can cup and boost her own signal.

 

[lfmn16]

One of the challenges of the music business is that you will have people giving advice who have little to no experience with running a band, but feel that they know how to make it succeed. It's harder when it's the musicians who do this because there's an expectation that they should know better. Like parenting, or any significant endeavor, the worst advice usually begins with "Why don't you just......"

Everybody want to tell the BL how to run the band, nobody wants to put in the hard work to become a band leader.

 

[Capt.Obvious]

That is just absolutely wrong. If it's a cardiod mic, it's already rejecting signals behind the mic. By cupping it, you change the pattern to omnidirectional. And by it being omnidirectional, the vocals become less clear because of all the extra signals that are now being introduced.

Fair enough, not that up on mics but it seemed logical. This guy says it does cut down on ancillary highs and mids though. It's also clear that it boosts the vocal signal quite dramatically.

*shrugs*

I believe this guy if only for his accent.

 

[jive1]

Cupping the mic actually can prevent feedback from highs and mids because you are limiting the ancillary stage noise that makes it into the vocal mic, it's admittedly not going to help with the lows, often the biggest issue with feedback live. BUT it also makes the vocalist sound louder and creates the illusion of a deeper voice because the cupping effect boosts lows and mid frequencies. It's a unique sound that can't be accomplished at the board.

It's also a defense mechanism when the singer can't hear herself well, like on this show. Rather than damaging her voice by singing louder, she can cup and boost her own signal.

But you are not limiting the ancillary stage noise, but the exact opposite. Take a look at a hypercardioid mic that has a tight directional pattern and you'll usually a see larger rear grill. Take a look at an omnidirectional mic, and you'll see that the back is sealed. The back of the mic doesn't pick up anything, but it affects the pattern. It seems counterintuitive, but every soundman worth his salt and his microphones know this.

Ever see an inexperienced speaker deal with feedback during a speech? The natural response is to cover the mic, which only exasperates the issue. Stand with the back of the mic pointed towards the monitor, and you may be surprised at how close you can get before feedback. Cup the back of the mic and see how much feedback you get. Cup the mic completely with your hand from the top and see how much feedback you get. Now you'd think when you cover up the mic completely you'd get the least feedback since it's 'isolated', but the exact opposite is the case.

Proximity to the mic is going to effect low frequencies more than cupping the mic will. Sing far from the mic and cup it, it won't add bass to the tone (other than feedback). Sing close to the mic uncupped, and that will give you bass. That's called proximity effect. You can still get that effect without cupping it.

If she can't hear herself at the show, tell her to not cup the mic so you can turn the monitors up louder without feedback. You may be surprised at how good microphone technique can make a soundman seem more competent.

 

[jive1]

Fair enough, not that up on mics but it seemed logical. This guy says it does cut down on ancillary highs and mids though. It's also clear that it boosts the vocal signal quite dramatically.

*shrugs*

I believe this guy if only for his accent.

He's in a studio setting. He has no ambient stage noise. The mic can be omnidirectional because he has nothing else for the mic to pickup other than his voice and ambient room sound. If he did that in a live setting with a metal band, it would be feedback city and every single instrument on stage would be coming through his mic and muddying up his mix.

At that point, I'm handcuffed as a soundman. If I try to turn up the vocals in the monitors at all, I'll probably cause feedback, so I won't. If I try to turn up the vocals in the mains, I'll also bring more signal of the other instruments coming in through the omnidirectional mic while not making the vocals much clearer. I could try to EQ the vocals, but I'll also be EQing the other instruments coming in the mic. I could add some upper mids to add some clarity to the vocals, but I'll also be adding upper mids to the cymbals and guitar amps that are also coming through the mic. I suppose I could add a gate, but if all the instruments are coming through the mic anyway, the gate will be open most of time anyway unless I really limit it. But at that point, the attack of the vocals will be altered as well as being muddy.

So you could have a soundman compensate for a cupped mic so that you can have a passable mix with some effort, or have a singer hold the mic like it's meant to be and make it easier to have a great mix.

 

[the yeti]

Cupping the mic is a legitimate technique for vocalists. Sometimes it can simply help make the singing louder, which she desperately needed to be on this show, it also isolates the vocal line preventing ancillary stage sounds from going through her mic. It also changes the tone quite dramatically.

The sound engineer is responsible to make sure the vocals can hear themselves on stage through the wedges, that was probably the biggest complaint that show though he could have backed all of us up a bit so we weren't burying the lead.

it's a common habit, arguably looks cool i guess, but really just a technique to get muffled vocals. if that's what you're going for cup away. people that do that are the nemesis of the sound man.

 

[Capt.Obvious]

He's in a studio setting. He has no ambient stage noise. The mic can be omnidirectional because he has nothing else for the mic to pickup other than his voice and ambient room sound. If he did that in a live setting with a metal band, it would be feedback city and every single instrument on stage would be coming through his mic and muddying up his mix.

At that point, I'm handcuffed as a soundman. If I try to turn up the vocals in the monitors at all, I'll probably cause feedback, so I won't. If I try to turn up the vocals in the mains, I'll also bring more signal of the other instruments coming in through the omnidirectional mic while not making the vocals much clearer. I could try to EQ the vocals, but I'll also be EQ around the other instruments coming in the mic. I could add some upper mids to add some clarity to the vocals, but I'll also be adding upper mids to the cymbals and guitar amps that are also coming through the mic. I suppose I could add a gate, but if all the instruments are coming through the mic anyway, the gate will be open most of time anyway unless I really limit it. But at that point, the attack of the vocals will be altered as well as being muddy.

So you could have a soundman compensate for a cupped mic so that you can have a passable mix with some effort, or have a singer hold the mic like it's meant to be and make it easier to have a great mix.

I'll defer to you guys, sounds legit to me and I suppose that's why you're staff here, you actually KNOW what your talking about. I'll mention all of this to her next rehearsal and make sure she feels shame for cupping the mic. Just enough that she cries a little, not like a full on mental breakdown, just a few tears.

Thanks! I'll let you know how it goes!

 

[Imaginary Pony]

Well, I can tell you how NOT to fire a band member! I don't want to hijack this thread, but I would like to share a very recent experience with you all. As a founding member of a blues band I was in (until last Friday..) I was involved with the marketing of the band, trying to get gigs, etc. The 'band leader' is more than a 'bit' of a power and control freak, but I knew that. So, he was away for a weekend that we had the opportunity to play a local Blues & BBQ show, in the last spot available. That same night, we had a gig scheduled in a local tavern we had played in before. The BL plays harp, so we were short there; but a friend who came to the BBQ said he would be coming to see us at the tavern. Being a friend, and also a pretty good harp played, I invited him to come up and blow on a few numbers with us. Which he did; the rest of the band had no problem with that. I posted a few video clips on our private band Facebook page. Well, the BL came down on me so hard - I was inconsiderate of how he would feel about that; I didn't ask him for his permission to have this cat play, etc. I was taken aback, to say the least! Then, in the two weeks following that outburst, I was getting a bad feeling about things. No response to IM's, posts on the Facebook page, weird vibe. SO I private messaged him. This is how not to fire a band member : He called me and said that the band had decided to replace me, as there was a conflict in personality. Personally, it would have been nice if we had got together over coffee or something an discussed this issue, as it was the first time I'm hearing about it. My conclusion, is that it was he who instigated this because he has to be in control. Sorry for the rant, but bottom line? Consider the feelings of the band member, and do it face to face.

Have you talked to the other band members to see if this is actually true, and that the BL hasn't simply told them that you quit the band?

 

[the yeti]

I'll defer to you guys, sounds legit to me and I suppose that's why you're staff here, you actually KNOW what your talking about. I'll mention all of this to her next rehearsal and make sure she feels shame for cupping the mic. Just enough that she cries a little, not like a full on mental breakdown, just a few tears.

Thanks! I'll let you know how it goes!

whatever you do DO NOT mention the bad mic technique to the singer.