There seems to be many threads about bands having a band leader, and what the band leader should or should not do. I agree that in some situations having an individual in charge is probably the way to go, it ought to keep everything focussed and make decision making simple... However, the covers band I am in at the moment has no leader as such. It has worked out that we each take various leadership responsibilities and in effect share that role. I am doing the admin and musical arrangement, printing out lyric sheets, writing the set list, working out the songs etc. The guitarist provides the rehearsal space and van, the singer and guitarist between them arrange gigs. The drummer brings a good attitude and plays very well. Everyone suggests new songs and everyone has the power of veto, although it is only usually me who occasionally says that we are not doing a particular song... I do prefer this way of working, without an individual calling all the shots. Everyone is involved in decision making so the decisions are more informed and better grounded. It does mean that time is taken discussing stuff that would not usually be discussed with a band leader making the decisions. However, as people get used to this way of working the actual discussion time is getting less and less as the same points come up again and again. Everyone is involved and perhaps consequently more commited as they feel an ownership. Everyone is doing only what they are best at too, I am good at suggesting guitar parts, vocal harmonies, getting a song up to performance level but I am lousy at getting gigs... What does everybody think? Can you have a band without a band leader?