1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Kill the band and move on or ?

Discussion in 'Band Management [BG]' started by Bluto, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. Bluto


    Sep 23, 2011
    Hey guys/gals need some advice.

    I don’t post much here but do frequent this site due to the sites wealth of knowledge.

    Here’s the situation, the band, a little older than a year had to replace our lead singer and lead guitarist who for non band related personal reasons quit just when we started gigging. The new members were brought up to speed and we gigging again a couple months ago. The issue I am finding out is that the new members’ being in other bands is making it difficult to schedule new gigs. For example between the two of them, Aug and Sep is a complete bust as they each have other band commitments (Sep was open until yesterday). This leaves the remaining members, hanging, and trying to get gigs scheduled 3-4 months out which is difficult for new bands around here.

    Now I am not bashing anyone for being in multiple bands because I understand as in my case this is a living for some, and I understand that some bands never make it out of the garage so why not be in a few. So my question is how your bands go about staying alive if multiple members are constantly out. I realize that we knew the situation going in however at this time they are getting scheduled faster than us so it become a cycle between us staying an unknown and having only a few gigs and them playing out with their other bands. It becomes hard to get out of the garage if you will. So, I have been kicking around some ideas for those of us that remain in limbo but still want to meet our goal and I’m hoping you guys may have some as well.

    Option 1: Find a new singer and lead guitarist after Oct when the last gig we do have scheduled is done.

    Option 2: Keep the band as is, but start a new band underneath it, meaning get a new singer and guitarist, develop a song list, and get ready to roll while still getting whatever gigs we can with the original band. Practices with the original band would drop to just a couple before scheduled gigs thus freeing time to rehearse and audition the new band. Once complete either kill the original band or keep it as gig options if there are scheduling conflicts.

    Option 3: Deal with status quo and hope to get gigs scheduled before they do. (Don’t care for this option since these members don’t go out of their way to promote us much since they have other opportunities. I’m starting to feel leeched upon.

    Option 4: The rest of us join other bands which to be me says, why have the band.

    Anyone run into this issue or have any advice?
  2. DiabolusInMusic

    DiabolusInMusic Functionless Art is Merely Tolerated Vandalism Supporting Member

    I am all for side projects, but one of the bands has to be YOUR band, otherwise your just a sideman playing in a couple bands. You need to all be dedicated to one cause, and it has to be priority #1, otherwise your band is their side project.

    From the sounds of it, you are already in the pet project band.
  3. I think you have to determine if they are worth it. If they make a huge positive impact that another singer or guitarist can't then maybe you'll just have to stick it out. If they suck or are unreliable in areas other then having other responsibilities (being another band or not) then find someone new.

    You knew what you were getting into adding them on.

    I've never been on your end of the problem before. Usually i'm in the singer and guitarists shoes. Right now I play in 3 gigging bands while doing my solo work and other various jams on the side. Whatever band gets the gig on my schedule first gets my time. I have just as much allegiance to one band as the others. I give 100% at which ever band has my time.
  4. tycobb73


    Jul 23, 2006
    Grand Rapids MI
    Option 5: Keep the songlist as is, find another guitarist and lead singer and have a revolving door of players based on who can make it.
  5. hrodbert696

    hrodbert696 Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    I'm not opposed to people having multiple projects, AS LONG AS they can give each one the time and attention that are expected - including availability for gigs. If these guys' other projects are holding your band back from getting gigs it's ready for, then they need to decide which band they are actually committed to and leave the other one. If they can't juggle both, they can't juggle both. If they won't make a decision, make it for them and fire them.
  6. Bluto


    Sep 23, 2011
    I’m all for keeping it my band mostly when the pa equipment is owned by the 3 members left holding the bag. I also agree that it seems to be a pet project for some, unfortunately though it is at the expense of the rest of us. I will say this not to defend anyone but the ones in the other band are committed to whatever band has the gig scheduled first. Only problem is that their other bands or more established so naturally getting gigs is a bit easier than our new one.

    Option 5 does sound compiling and something to think about. Start auditioning new members and use the two guys in other bands as backups. I can keep the set list pretty steady so that shouldn't be an issue. We can continue to try and get gigs as I can so we can still play out for now. If the new members more committed and are ready then we move out and it wouldn’t matter if the others are schedule all month or not.

    Personally this whole thing sucks to be honest but if we keep things as is, getting to play out on a regular basis is going to be difficult.
  7. jgroh

    jgroh Supporting Member

    Sep 14, 2007
    Its tough. I say find new members and make it clear from the get go that if they want to join, it needs to be a priority.
  8. Mike N

    Mike N Missing the old TB Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jan 28, 2001
    Spencerport, New York
    I'd bail and find something else.
  9. Dantreige


    Oct 22, 2009
    It's hard to mix full time musicians (who tend to play in multiple bands) with those who don't. It's like mixing oil and water.

    It's even harder to find three, four or five people who agree on who/what/when/where/why/and how much to play.

    I'd try to find a new singer and lead player. Better yet, find people who can sing and play and instrument. Spread the lead vox out amongst three or four people with everyone contributing harmonies. It's easier to replace someone who sings ten songs then one who carries the whole band. More bang for the buck and less distruptive if one member leaves. Also, start looking for subs before you need them.

    All advice based on you being in a cover band. Original bands are a different animal. (You did not say.)

    Good luck!
  10. Alrod


    Apr 7, 2012
    Given the current state of the world where time is a commodity. This option seems to be the best.

    If we are talking strictly a cover band, this is not a bad option at all. I sit in as a guitarist with this old school R&B band that changes players constantly. The cool thing is that the players that rotate are on top of their game. Sometimes I (and other players) get called the day of the gig. It just works, I love it.
  11. Corbeau


    Dec 14, 2011
    One of my band members is in another band, but he is able to dedicate his time equally between the two bands. So I have no problem with it. However, it sounds like those two members in your band can't commit fully to this current band, so it might be an idea to find replacements. It does sound like you are their side project right now, and I don't think the situation is going to improve.

Share This Page