Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
stay or go? what would you do?
- Thread starter Chango Malo
- Start date
- Jul 7, 2010
- 3,383
- 2,311
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist for: Duncan Pickups; Line6, Hipshot, GHS Strings, Somnium Guitars
Either:
1) Find a New singer
2) Get another guy to play acoustic
3) Take bassist with you and find or create another band
Personally would stick it out and talk to bassist and build another band.
When you are ready then say thank you for the opportunity to play and move on politely.
Don't burn any bridges (if possible)
Good luck with decision!
1) Find a New singer
2) Get another guy to play acoustic
3) Take bassist with you and find or create another band
Personally would stick it out and talk to bassist and build another band.
When you are ready then say thank you for the opportunity to play and move on politely.
Don't burn any bridges (if possible)
Good luck with decision!
The "band" dramas I read about on here provide much entertainment. I thought Joe Verve had the most Obi Wan advice. From the sounds of what pay is for gigging bands now days, love of playing music seems to be the only worthy motivation. I mentioned on another post this Blues group that I have heard twice now at two different breweries. They look to be 50ish to 60ish. All have been around the block...the bass a drummer are the flawless ones but I notice mistakes are made by the others. They know because I have seen the oops looks and responding grins. The audience is unaware because they are dancing or nursing an IPA. What comes through is these guys are having a blast. If there are politics present inside the group they sure don't let on. They come off as guys who would do it for free ( they don't) and that's refreshing.
I'm still not sure why you think it's a bad thing to "go behind the guitarist's back" with the other musicians. If there is a musician who is not cutting it, it's the band's responsibility to each other to get together and either get them up to speed (which probably isn't going to happen) or boot them out.
Why should he be allowed to sabotage the project?
If you don't or can't raise the issue of kicking him out, you should probably leave, because nothing you've written suggests that he is going to change and he is NOT acting professionally.
Why should he be allowed to sabotage the project?
If you don't or can't raise the issue of kicking him out, you should probably leave, because nothing you've written suggests that he is going to change and he is NOT acting professionally.
At present, we disagree on this point. So I hope that's okay. The answer to your question is because in all honesty, I personally think therapy is fundamentally a scam. So far as I can tell, and I have investigated the matter, therapy, per se, has never been substantiated scientifically to be functionally useful to anyone but the therapist. I do concede that there are some exceptions to this, of course. Nothing is black and white, especially in the behavioral sciences. But basically, I just don't buy it, and I think it probably does far more harm than good most of the time. And this is very disappointing, and makes me sad to see people who I know have been harmed by therapy, which, by the way, has a sorded history steeped in cocaine, among other things.
I have read a few studies that strongly suggest that talking to a trusted understanding friend, relative, etc., is equally effective in sorting out personal problems as expensive therapy sessions may be. But to my way of thinking, and based on my own personal experience with people "in therapy", the process itself promotes a victim mentality, and this is why so many people involved with it seek to tell everyone they know they are "in therapy" in the first place. The practice therefore promotes excessive dependency upon the therapist, which may be translated into cash in the therapist's pocketbook. Therapy, by its very nature creates a pecuniary interest on the part of the therapist in the clients weakness, and in so doing, it makes a mockery out of fiduciary duty. If you look into it as I have, you will find, I think, that many clients only terminate therapy when they run out of money. "I'm in therapy now, maybe someday I'll be happy", is what it amounts to.
My cousin is the stereotypical example. Once she's had a few stiff drinks (more than a few, actually), the first thing out of her mouth is usually something like, "I've been in therapy all my life". So one day when she came up with that one again, I finally said, "Well, it doesn't seem to be working very good, if it hasn't helped by now". I'll leave you to figure out the rest of what happened. The comment was not meant as an act of cruelty. The fact is she is a dedicated victim, and is someone who isn't happy unless she's miserable.
So with all respect, and I mean that in all sincerity, the answer to your question is that I mentioned the subject, and pulled that one thing out of a long post and dwelled upon it as a negative because in my book, it is a negative. I have learned the hard way to just wish them well, but to avoid people who broadcast that they are in "therapy" because it always (or always has for me) spelled drama that I don't need, or want. I can't help these people. I give them one shot at the truth as I see it, paid for with my own blood, sweat and tears, literally, and then, I withdraw from the scene. I truly admire your empathy and kind nature. I strive to achieve these attributes, as well. But there are a few lines I will no longer cross. And that's one of them. I hope we're still online friends even if we may not agree on this one point.
1? may not be possible in this situation. Perhaps the horse has left the barn on this project; TBD.
2? 5 is the limit for the gigs this band gets. No more room on the stage or room in the payroll...
3? Doing that. No reason that if this band continues it has to be the ONLY project in the mix. I play in a couple other projects right now as well, but they don't gig regularly.
Sounds like you have a good thing going on with everyone but the guitar guy. One way or another I hope you're able at least to continue playing with them. Musicians who take responsibility for their crummy behavior and put in the work to change it are a rare thing, in my experience, I have a lot of respect for that.
Therapy, like anything can be abused and like nearly any treatment or substance, the user can be come dependent. Still, that's not a reason to throw it all out as quackery and I've known more than a few people who have benefited greatly from it.
Not going to hate on you for your opinion, but if you have "investigated the matter" and not read of the proven benefits of cognitive behavioral therapy, then I'm not sure where you've been investigating it (maybe a ******ology website?). Also, it should be noted that "Therapy" covers ALOT of ground. It's probably best to be specific before trashing dozens of fields and disciplines.
EDITED to conform to TB guidelines regarding discussion of religion.
Last edited:
Step 1. Turn his guitar down in the mix and wash it out with reverb and modulation.
Step 2. Find another instrument to fill in the missing notes in the 7th and 9th chords as applicable.
Step 3. Do whatever else it takes to work around his style/personality. Grow a thicker skin. Creativity typically comes with personality flaws.
I mean, you're a band. Right? He's only a fraction of the total equation. Think beyond your preconceived notion of what a good rhythm player *should* be and start thinking about what it would take to make the *whole* sound acceptable. Some of the greatest bands in history had some of the worst musicians. But they made it work and every once in a while something original came out of it.
Seems like you've talked yourself into your own solution on this one. Sorry it has to be this way, but it sounds like one of you has to move on and that you've already chosen which one that will be.
Thank you for your kind words.
Let's see how long I can go without getting banned this time.
Well, I'm glad you don't hate me. I am also encouraged by your observation that you know people who have benefited from behavioral therapy. I can't say I have ever met anyone who has, so this is all good in my book. I have nothing against people benefiting from anything.
Rigorously speaking, though, I would ask how do you quantify the benefit of any practice associated with the behavioral sciences? Ultimately, whatever benefit there may be tends to be subjective in nature as reported by the client or research subject. So as I see it, any proclaimed benefit is not scientifically confirmed, really. I also question who did the "proven" studies on "cognitive behavioral therapy". If it was another behavioral scientist or scientists, I say that disqualifies the outcome of the study unless an objective testing protocol independent of subjective criterion can be devised to prove the outcome in a multi-institutional double blinded, placebo controlled study. So far, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever devised such a protocol for any form of behavioral therapy. Although the use of PET scans, for example, is a step in that direction, we're not there yet. At least, not in the openly published research literature.
I did not mention the religion you mentioned because this is a clear violation of forum rules. However, no, I do not practice that particular religion.
I certainly would not think of relegating the behavioral sciences into the realm of quackery. By definition, science is the practice of understanding, predicting and controlling the forces of nature. Therefore, we may know for certain that behavioral science is the practice of understanding, predicting and controlling human behavior. If only it were mere quackery. It is not. For now, then, and for the foreseeable future, I'm afraid I will have to content myself with trashing dozens of fields and disciplines associated with the behavioral sciences, something which constitutes a noble undertaking as I see it. Others, of course, may disagree.
Here is a quote from B.F. Skinner, for contemplation: "Some people think I am some kind of monster who wants only to control people. Nothing could be further from the truth. People have always been controlled. I just want them to be controlled more effectively". Cheers!
Yeah, I think a lot of this depends on the therapist, the type of therapy being offered, the kind of problem being addressed, and (not least of all) the attitude of the patient. There are a lot of things that have to come together correctly for therapy to be worthwhile. I wouldn't go alone to a therapist if I had relationship problems (but I have done couples counseling in the past, however now-ex wasn't really committed, so it was pointless). But if I was seriously suffering with something like PTSD? Absolutely worth a shot, and no shame in it.
So many people don't seek help because they are told that it's not useful, or something to be ashamed of, or just a scam. I know there are a lot of dead people who didn't bother to try and thought it was all hopeless. I know that because I personally know at least one person like that who would not seek help, actively railed against "big pharma" whenever it was suggested she might benefit from professional advice, made a video about it and then took her own life.
Maybe it would help and maybe it wouldn't, but those people will never know, because they are dead.
Good call on the Religion rules. Edited.
The rest of this scree only confirms that you've come up with your own excuses to discount science you don't agree with and a few cherry-picked quotes and ideas to ascribe malevolent, controlling intent to the rest of the field and it's practitioners.
I think I'm done here.
If his singing is great, but his guitarwork is utter crap...seems like the best solution is to get him OFF the guitar.
The roadblock I'm seeing on that is he probably doesn't want another mouth to feed when it comes to splitting the band income checks. If he's not open to having someone else cover that, or just eliminating it altogether, your answer is to split and take as many of the bandmates with you as possible. My $0.02...
The roadblock I'm seeing on that is he probably doesn't want another mouth to feed when it comes to splitting the band income checks. If he's not open to having someone else cover that, or just eliminating it altogether, your answer is to split and take as many of the bandmates with you as possible. My $0.02...
