Probationary period?

[thenazz]

After having issues over the years with new bandmates, I've been considering having a 90 day probationary period before someone is in the band permanently. Past problems were stuff like the new guy wanting to take over and run everything, basically just being an ******* once he was hired. Or the guy just wasn't as good as you first thought, playing the same solo on every damn song, terrible feel or no feel at all for what the band is playing. Different goals become apparent soon after joining. Has anyone done this before?

 

[Joe Nerve]

For me it would depend on many things. If you're paying them, then I think its absolutely appropriate and probably a good idea. If NOT hiring them it might still be a good idea, but I'm not too sure its something that needs to be stated. And I wouldn't so stern on the 90 day thing. If someone is working out its usually clear, and I don't think it would take 90 days to figure out someone wasn't worth the bother.

As you said, I think one of the most important things before even working with others is to make sure that either everyone is on the same page, or they're willing to go along with the band leaders vision, regardless. The most drama I've experienced in bands has come from people with different goals. Get 2 strong personalities in the band where for one money is priority and the other its, "just getting out there," and there is guaranteed to be trouble.

 

[buldog5151bass]

I think it's a bad idea. Would YOU want to commit to a new project knowing in three months they would have no qualms about dumping you?

Have a discussion before you make the offer. If the guy/gal turns out to be different than what they seemed, you can consider options.

 

[joelns]

I won't sign on to that arrangement. If the band won't commit to me, I won't commit to the band. If it doesn't work out, fire me. But a "trial period" smacks of lack of decisiveness and commitment. But that's me. Others may have different opinions.

 

[Ketbass]

I wouldn’t say 90 days, 30 days with a review period. I own my own company and that’s always been my hiring policy. You’ll know after 30 minutes but you want to be fair about things and allow a break in period, nervousness, how often you rehearse, etc…

 

[lfmn16]

So if they aren't on probation you can't get rid of them?

 

[JRA]

After having issues over the years with new bandmates, I've been considering having a 90 day probationary period before someone is in the band permanently.

are you the BL? if not: what's the penalty for impersonating one?

seriously: most of the bands in which i've participated (or the BL) just delivered the message "it's not working out --- we need to move on...without you."

 

[nickpc]

I see two problems with this:

1. People can be on their best behavior for 90 days, then turn that off and go back to their true selves. By having a date out there that they need to cross is going to allow some people to fool you
2. After finishing the probationary period people will expect to have tenure - they'll resist the "new member" label and feel that they are safe in the band no matter how they behave.

I'd prefer to just tell the new person that you have expectations for how they behave in the band, and if things aren't working out you're not unwilling to make changes.

 

[Kevan Campbell]

30-day probationary periods are VERY common in my circles. I think it’s more often than not meant to impress upon the new member that it’s a time period for both parties to think about if they’re a good long-term fit for each other or not, and if it doesn’t work out then it’s “no harm, no foul”.

 

[Aloe]

well, do you make a contract for the band members? like describing that for what and how they can be fired?
if no, a probation period makes no sense, as probation period is corporate thing like 'usually we fire people like this, but if this happens in first months, we can do it faster'

if your band relations are non-contract, nearly everyone is on eternal probation period though, as they can be dumped without a grace period.

 

[SLPimp]

I won't sign on to that arrangement. If the band won't commit to me, I won't commit to the band. If it doesn't work out, fire me. But a "trial period" smacks of lack of decisiveness and commitment. But that's me. Others may have different opinions.

I agree. I've been hired as the "prim as a primary sub" before taking over shortly after permanently, but I avoid employers with these types of things, and I don't need it in my off time.

 

[Rabidhamster]

Probationary period would make me laugh in your face unless you’re offering health insurance.

Does your band provide health insurance?

 

[Ralph Manak]

To avoid a probationary period being disingenuous, it should include specific goals and an orientation towards professional growth. How someone responds to the growth part is useful information in addition to whatever is happening musically.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

Your probationary period would cause you to lose the very people you want. Just reassess after a month or two and if it's not working out, let them go. If you want top players, are you getting top gigs with top pay?

 

[40Hz]

In every band I was ever in there was certain bar its members understood they were expected to play up to. And in the better bands that bar was constantly being raised.

Members who weren’t up to the standard , or were unwilling or unable to up their game to meet that standard, were eventually let go after appropriate warnings or attempts at remediation failed.

So I guess you could say every member of the bands I was in was on perpetual probation. No one was exempt, or could consider themselves ‘safe’ if they weren't cutting it. And in every case whether or not you were cutting it was pretty obvious to both yourself and everyone else in the band.

Now in fairness, these bands all had ambitions and fairly serious goals. So the music and money far outweighed the hang as far as their members were concerned. With a more casual “night out with the guys” social circle type band that might be too extreme an approach to take. But a little intolerance for slacking off never hurt any band IMO. Because what’s the point if the results aren’t worth listening to because one or more bandmates aren’t carrying their fair share of the load?

So yeah, probation is a good idea IMO. But I wouldn’t lock myself into a fixed timeframe about it. Longtime members are just as capable of slacking off, developing personal issues, or just losing interest as a newbie member is. So be upfront about goals and expectations and let each bandmate show by their actions whether they intend to remain in the band or not.

FWIW, most times when it did become necessary to cut someone loose, the guy himself walked voluntarily well before it reached the point where the band was forced to give him the axe. Actual firings were extremely rare. And except for a few times, all the departures were cordial and politely handled because the band’s expectations were clearly understood and shared.

Ok. End of sermon. Good luck!

 

[john_g]

I think it would be better to have a discussion with any potential new member about the expectations without putting a time limit on it. My band went through a few rounds of changes in the last year and a half. The first time someone left/was replaced, we "kinda sorta nicely" told the potential new person what we are hoping for. By the last round of changes, we were more emphatic about what the expectations are and how if its not working we will just move on. The only problem is...everyone always initially agreed that they have to do their homework, learn their parts, show up on time, etc., but then would promptly not. It was alot easier to cut ties when we specifically laid out the expectations in the beginning though.

 

[TheReceder]

To a degree isn't everyone on a probationary period? Including the band?

I'd have no problem auditioning for a band that has a probationary period as long as the expectations are up front and they agree that if they let me go they at least give the reason why so I can possibly avoid the same problem down the road.

What I hate... auditioning, getting hired, only to find out a month later the old bassist's conflict has resolved it self and they want to hire back "their long time friend". It doesn't matter to me whether he's been cleared of all charges... I would have liked to know about the possibility when I got hired.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

I won't sign on to that arrangement. If the band won't commit to me, I won't commit to the band. If it doesn't work out, fire me. But a "trial period" smacks of lack of decisiveness and commitment. But that's me. Others may have different opinions.

When you join a new band, you're on a trial period whether you think so, like it, or not. You are joining their band. They are judging your every move. For X amount of time.

 

[Joe Nerve]

After reading the other responses I changed my mind . I agree that its a bad idea. Why is it necessary? Either they're working out or they aren't. Putting that 90 day thing out there would probably turn many people off. If I were told that by a band leader I'd just move along. I wouldn't want to put my time and energy into something that may end after 90 days on the whim of another person.

Imagine a player coming INTO the band saying I'm giving the band 90 days and then I'll decide.

 

[kmon]

IME everybody's on probation forever and can be fired at any time. Everybody's also free to quit.