Thoughts On Organization

[bluewine]

In order to make a point lets say we are talking about bands,established bands that have sold at least 50,00 copies of a cd and are touring.

Things that cause friction if they are not established

What is the mission of the band? If you don't have one your in trouble..

If the band is established and your making money you should be like any other company. You might have a "Director" title given to those members that deserve it. Only Directors for example would have a percentage of the organization.

Management
Without management and proper administration it will be difficult to keep any band together.

Leadership

You really need a leader to lead the troops into battle, because as you guys know there is always a lot of crap going on.You have one guy going one way and another going a different way.

It's only the bands that are united that survive.

Please share any thoughts or ideas on band survival.

blue

 

[Munjibunga]

So who would give out these "Director" titles? Would there be elections to the Board of Directors? Who gets to vote? Would there be an Executive Committee?

The most important factor is all members having common objectives.

Once it's decided who are partners, or "Directors" in your scenario, and who are sidemen, very specific contracts should be drawn up. Each party should have the contract reviewed by his/her own entertainment attorney. Ask Don Felder about that.

Each year, the value of the stock of the partners should be evaluated by an accounting firm, based on parameters agreed upon by the shareholders. In that way, any departing shareholders would know how much to expect in a payout. All bands experience personnel turnover for various reasons.

All band members should be required to have rock-solid pre-nuptial agreements with significant others which exclude said significant others from any interest in the band in the event of a divorce. If a member dies, however, the value of his shares goes to his estate. In the event of the death of a member, there should be "key man" insurance to benefit the band while seeking a replacement.

Sidemen should all be independent contractors with no equity interest in the group. This should also be made very clear in their contracts.

Anyway, I don't understand the point of your post at all.

 

[Depth_Charge]

Perhaps the point is to hilight the fact there is no standard measurement of 'made it' in this industry to compare against. . . ?!?

 

[bluewine]

So who would give out these "Director" titles? Would there be elections to the Board of Directors? Who gets to vote? Would there be an Executive Committee?

The most important factor is all members having common objectives.

Once it's decided who are partners, or "Directors" in your scenario, and who are sidemen, very specific contracts should be drawn up. Each party should have the contract reviewed by his/her own entertainment attorney. Ask Don Felder about that.

Each year, the value of the stock of the partners should be evaluated by an accounting firm, based on parameters agreed upon by the shareholders. In that way, any departing shareholders would know how much to expect in a payout. All bands experience personnel turnover for various reasons.

All band members should be required to have rock-solid pre-nuptial agreements with significant others which exclude said significant others from any interest in the band in the event of a divorce. If a member dies, however, the value of his shares goes to his estate. In the event of the death of a member, there should be "key man" insurance to benefit the band while seeking a replacement.

Sidemen should all be independent contractors with no equity interest in the group. This should also be made very clear in their contracts.

Anyway, I don't understand the point of your post at all.

Good question, I didn't reallly think about who would have the authority to give out these titles.

I know Ron Wood of the Rolling Stones was not always a Director. I wonder if Daryl Jones their bass guitarist is considered a sideman.

There is no point to this post just looking for comments.

 

[Depth_Charge]

In order to make a point...

Sorry man, but you started it!



AFAIK way back when (like the 70's etc) it was quite taboo for band members to play in multiple groups (or advertise the fact I suppose). Nowadays it seems standard practice. So the concept of band survival is pretty much redundant today, don't you think?

Then again, you could argue any band with an album still on the shelves could be considered established even if the members aren't anymore. GnR are a good example of that. Doesn't matter what those members are doing today, I can still see and buy Appetite for Destruction, so GnR 'the band' continue to survive...

Interesting topic. A bit too open to interpretation to get up I think.

 

[bluewine]

Sorry man, but you started it!



Interesting topic. A bit too open to interpretation to get up I think.

Yeah, I thought I had a good topic for a thread, but I only halfway thought the thing out when I drafted the post. If anything, my quote;

"Only The United Survive" is pretty relevant

But you and Mung came up with some useful stuff.

blue

 

[tZer]

I wonder if Daryl Jones their bass guitarist is considered a sideman.

My bet is he is a very well paid sideman.

As for the point of this thread - IMO, and IME the best, most successful bands or ensembles have a clear organizational structure. A director, section leaders, administrators and players/side-people.

In more formal situations these roles usually exist already and people vie for them by auditioning and competing.

In more causal situations these roles exist because one person forms the band and other people agree to play with that person. They agree that the vision and direction are mostly the responsibility of the leader/director - and how much say they get in things is usually determined by how much say the director/leader wants them to have.

In most of my personal experiences there's been a clear 'leader' who called the shots - booked the gigs - set the song list - called and ran rehearsals and so on.

The roles of other people in those various bands varied. In some, the leader was it - no other voices allowed - like it or lump it. In others, the leader was the leader but relied on the input and assistance of others. When it came down to decisions, he was the last word, but considered what others had to say before saying it.

And there have been many variations of that model. But the one thing I've consistently seen is that the bands with a leader and clear organizational structure (for lack of a better way to describe how everyone knew their place) were the most reliable and successful. The ones where everyone was "equal" (and really, when is everyone ever equal?) - while there were nice warm fuzzy feelings, the band eventually shredded do to too many people pulling in too many different directions.

 

[kb9wyz]

Word:
Band (noun)

Definition:
A group of individuals with little to no business sense who endeavor to enter into a business enterprise as a seller of services.



Now if you asked how NOT to run a band, I would have something useful to say. For example, DO NOT incorporate a band that has had half of an album recorded in 7 years, loses members about every 9-12 months, and can now show any actual income stream that approaches the black thereby inviting IRS audits for all the members.

 

[bluewine]

My bet is he is a very well paid sideman.

As for the point of this thread - IMO, and IME the best, most successful bands or ensembles have a clear organizational structure. A director, section leaders, administrators and players/side-people.

Thanks Tz nice insight. I have a friend who plays drums in Billy Joel's band.I understand Billy is very generous.

blue

 

[bluewine]

Word:
Band (noun)

Definition:
A group of individuals with little to no business sense who endeavor to enter into a business enterprise as a seller of services.



Now if you asked how NOT to run a band, I would have something useful to say. For example, DO NOT incorporate a band that has had half of an album recorded in 7 years, loses members about every 9-12 months, and can now show any actual income stream that approaches the black thereby inviting IRS audits for all the members.

And I would bet the reason for the turnover of members is no leadership management or administration.

 

[kb9wyz]

And I would bet the reason for the turnover of members is no leadership management or administration.

You would be wrong, actually. While this might be the reason for many band's turnover, in this case is it a singer and lead guitarist with severe attitude problems. Basically, they are prima donna rock stars without the skill, charisma, and success to pull it off. To wit, one of the drummers left because the band was losing gigs because of the attitude of the "leadership" and every time the band had an unsuccessful gig (which was most all of them) the answer was always, "Well the crowd just wasn't our target audience."

You gotta figure, if your band is losing gigs with other bands and you can't get to the point where you have a local following, your band is the problem and not the audience.

 

[bluewine]

You gotta figure, if your band is losing gigs with other bands and you can't get to the point where you have a local following, your band is the problem and not the audience.

Our band has similar issues.For example, we were offered to open for a national act and our lead Singer turned it down because he had to work the next day.

The reason all that nonsense happens is because we don't have the leadership or management to stop it

 

[kb9wyz]

Our band has similar issues.For example, we were offered to open for a national act and our lead Singer turned it down because he had to work the next day.

The reason all that nonsense happens is because we don't have the leadership or management to stop it

Personally, I think you should have punched your singer in the throat for that.

I think that together we have the whole answer. Without good attitudes and solid management/leadership, a band will suffer.

 

[bluewine]

I think another thing to look out for;


If your in a band and somehow you get to the level where your starting to see some real money, if you don't have good management and if the money is not handled properly it will cause a multitude of problems.

blue

 

[kb9wyz]

I think another thing to look out for;


If your in a band and somehow you get to the level where your starting to see some real money, if you don't have good management and if the money is not handled properly it will cause a multitude of problems.

blue

Oh how I can relate to this. Thankfully not from my own experience. But I have seen the damage this can cause.

 

[bassbully]

Our band has similar issues.For example, we were offered to open for a national act and our lead Singer turned it down because he had to work the next day.

The reason all that nonsense happens is because we don't have the leadership or management to stop it

I dont agree. My band has turned down good gigs too due to family and job issues. We are not a full time professional musicians or are you or your singer. We have jobs to pay the bills and music has to be second unless you like the box under a bridge approach to living. Leadership or management would not stop a player from saying no unless there is a contract.

This is why I was told alot of booking agents wont touch Joe average bands due to scheduling conflicts with work, family's etc. I would love to play every week but know my role as a provider, father and last as a musician. I'm good with it and it works on my end.

 

[bluewine]

I dont agree. My band has turned down good gigs too due to family and job issues. We are not a full time professional musicians or are you or your singer. We have jobs to pay the bills and music has to be second unless you like the box under a bridge approach to living. Leadership or management would not stop a player from saying no unless there is a contract.

This is why I was told alot of booking agents wont touch Joe average bands due to scheduling conflicts with work, family's etc. I would love to play every week but know my role as a provider, father and last as a musician. I'm good with it and it works on my end.

I understand your position, however I am on a different page.

I am not in the family and straight gigs come first camp. I don't have any family and I can always alter my work schedule.

If you're going to cancel important shows because of family, I say quit the band and stay home and play with the kids.

 

[bassbully]

I understand your position, however I am on a different page.

I am not in the family and straight gigs come first camp. I don't have any family and I can always alter my work schedule.

If you're going to cancel important shows because of family, I say quit the band and stay home and play with the kids.

Understood but you still have your limits and lets face it, the ship has long ago sailed on a music career for both of us
I juggle both family and gigs. Family for me is first since music is fun and has to be that for me to enjoy it. Anything more it becomes a job and burden, I dont need more burden or another job.

The love, care and support will always be there from my family and I need that. Music? Bandmates? Hardly! I enjoy what I have and what music gives me in my life... thats it. Sometimes you have to lower your expectations.

 

[dvh]

If you're going to cancel important shows because of family, I say quit the band and stay home and play with the kids.

Let's say your current singer decided to do just that. Where would that leave the band and you?

 

[bassbully]

Let's say your current singer decided to do just that. Where would that leave the band and you?

I think you said what I was trying to say just shorter and better. It is what it is... job, family, whatever. Unless you are a pro and this is what makes your living, music will have to be second to "those" issues.
Its better to accept and deal then moan about them. You can always find a band where no one has any outside commitments but music...good luck there.