What would you have done

[Bass Viking]

He gigs regularly as a solo artist (as do others in the band), but objected to my side project and asked me to cancel one of my side project gigs. When I pointed out he wouldn't cancel one of his solo gigs, he said that was different, because he'd committed to do those!

Hypocrites always think it's "different".

 

[LBS-bass]

Anyone is perfectly entitled to play with whomever they want, who also wants to play with them. A band stays together as long as the band is meeting the goals of each of the people in it; if someone finds their aims aren't being served, they're free to move on to find a situation where they are. In this case, there was nothing wrong with this guitarist wanting to try playing with some other people, but if the rest of you had goals that entailed everyone rehearsing and gigging together regularly, and she couldn't do that while also playing with the other people, then naturally y'all are going to part ways. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

But given that's the case, there's no call for recriminations or rubbing anyone's nose in it as though they had done wrong. The communications here were unprofessional.

Yep, this is what I was trying to say. What I am doing with my free time on any given day is my own business and that includes any other musical activities I might have planned.

It's a strange thing to me that some people think there's ownership over a person's time when they join a band. I had someone approach me a few months back about playing in his cover band- it was an elaborate production with backing tracks, etc., and it sounded pretty good but they were still only playing a couple of shows a month. I mentioned something about playing in different bands and he pointed out that he only wanted to work with people who were exclusively dedicated to his band. I pointed out that no band has been able to keep me busy enough to demand that sort of commitment since 1991.

You do have to set some boundaries in this business; I currently play with four bands and if each of those bands wanted a weekly rehearsal I would be worn out with no free time of my own. But I do my homework and come to whatever rehearsals we do have well-prepared to play the material, and in my experience I'm better prepared for those rehearsals than most people who only have one band to prepare for. You're going to get a strong commitment from me, but it's not necessarily going to look the way you think it should. And if you're worried about my availability for shows, stop doing the amateur thing of booking last-minute and start booking out by several months.

I have learned that these are the conversations I need to have early on in the vetting process. Not everyone has the same expectations, but higher level bands generally understand because their members are in similar situations.

Some folks spent too much time watching the Monkees and the Partridge Family when they were kids and think that bands are families where the members owe some sort of blood-allegiance to one another. They aren't. As you move up in the ranks and find yourself working with better players, you're also going to find yourself working with people who have very limited availability due to other work in music. In the end, for most of us, this is an elaborate hobby, and the amount of time we sign over to it is going to be limited.

The problem with the OPs situation seems to be that the lead GP isn't as skilled as he would like, and it sounds like he seized on her desire to limit her availability as an excuse to squeeze her out of the band, and the others agreed. It should have been handled more professionally, but it wasn't. My concern is that an unrealistic demand for exclusivity is going to limit their choices in the future, but as long as everyone remains happy with that arrangement and is in agreement with the demand to hold this particular band in a priority position, it can work. I just don't see that as a fair ask these days.

 

[fishdude101101]

The tone of the text in general.

It wasn't "We've moved on. You are officially no longer part of our band. Best of luck with your next venture."

It was "You didn't like my ideas and we found somebody even better than you so suck it."

Again, this communication was AFTER the band had moved on. So it was a bona-fide "screw you" and nothing more.

In the case of your team meetings, there's also a graceful way to move things along without having to hear the hour-long version of every single idea. But "You guys are stupid and we don't have time for this BS" isn't the way to go about it. You do NOT have to be rude to he forceful. You do NOT have to he rude to motivate people.

And, in OP's situation, he made is where he's no better than she was. She disrespected the band's time. He simply sent a disrespectful text. Both are immature. End of story.

And it's binary. You're either acting in an immature manner or you aren't. "Yeah, well she was ever worser-er than me!" only serves to prove my point.

I've run meetings. I've never offended anyone that I'm aware of. But I haven't had to be a doormat to spare everyone's feelings. I can still be motivating and decisive without being a D word.

Heck, my band mates and I disagree all the time. None of us has any problem expressing his/her opinions. But we remain respectful. And we're great friends as a result. Nobody is a doormat. And nobody is a D word. It can be done.

Sounds to me like you lived your life as a doormat so long that your pendulum has swung too far the other way. I admit I'm guessing here.

You're guess is potentially right.

But I'll say this, I'm very, very good at my day job, and I'm very busy. I don't have time to humor people's ideas that I know will not work based on solid technical reasoning, and I didn't sign up to be a mentor or coach. I just ended the meeting with something like "hey I think you guys need me to be part of the solution, if you feel the same way, here is how we are going to do it, I will not put more time or energy into what has been tried but proven not to work. If you don't want me to be part of the solution that is fine too." Of course they are free to do it "their way" but I'll not accommodate it. The wouldn't have me on the call if they could handle it.

 

[gln1955]

Yep, this is what I was trying to say. What I am doing with my free time on any given day is my own business and that includes any other musical activities I might have planned.

It's a strange thing to me that some people think there's ownership over a person's time when they join a band. I had someone approach me a few months back about playing in his cover band- it was an elaborate production with backing tracks, etc., and it sounded pretty good but they were still only playing a couple of shows a month. I mentioned something about playing in different bands and he pointed out that he only wanted to work with people who were exclusively dedicated to his band. I pointed out that no band has been able to keep me busy enough to demand that sort of commitment since 1991.

You do have to set some boundaries in this business; I currently play with four bands and if each of those bands wanted a weekly rehearsal I would be worn out with no free time of my own. But I do my homework and come to whatever rehearsals we do have well-prepared to play the material, and in my experience I'm better prepared for those rehearsals than most people who only have one band to prepare for. You're going to get a strong commitment from me, but it's not necessarily going to look the way you think it should. And if you're worried about my availability for shows, stop doing the amateur thing of booking last-minute and start booking out by several months.

I have learned that these are the conversations I need to have early on in the vetting process. Not everyone has the same expectations, but higher level bands generally understand because their members are in similar situations.

Some folks spent too much time watching the Monkees and the Partridge Family when they were kids and think that bands are families where the members owe some sort of blood-allegiance to one another. They aren't. As you move up in the ranks and find yourself working with better players, you're also going to find yourself working with people who have very limited availability due to other work in music. In the end, for most of us, this is an elaborate hobby, and the amount of time we sign over to it is going to be limited.

The problem with the OPs situation seems to be that the lead GP isn't as skilled as he would like, and it sounds like he seized on her desire to limit her availability as an excuse to squeeze her out of the band, and the others agreed. It should have been handled more professionally, but it wasn't. My concern is that an unrealistic demand for exclusivity is going to limit their choices in the future, but as long as everyone remains happy with that arrangement and is in agreement with the demand to hold this particular band in a priority position, it can work. I just don't see that as a fair ask these days.

I guess I missed the part where the OP was demanding exclusivity. Asking about priorities is not making a demand, just establishing where she stands after severely limiting her availability.

 

[LBS-bass]

I guess I missed the part where the OP was demanding exclusivity. Asking about priorities is not making a demand, just establishing where she stands after severely limiting her availability.

Nobody else gets to set my priorities. That's pretty invasive, and tantamount to a demand for exclusivity. It is implicit in the question that you expect to be my priority and there's only one satisfying answer for you.

I'm going to give everyone the same amount of dedication and I'm going to get the job done for you, and if people don't like it, there is a big pile of sand over there that they can pound

 

[coy garcia]

Move on....that's why I show up on time and prepared so I don't get replaced. I've had members out for medical reasons and we use a sub...but we don't hold their spot if another band takes priority in their life. Most of us play in multiple groups...but once a time and date is set we don't change our plans for better offers.

 

[two fingers]

You're guess is potentially right.

But I'll say this, I'm very, very good at my day job, and I'm very busy. I don't have time to humor people's ideas that I know will not work based on solid technical reasoning, and I didn't sign up to be a mentor or coach. I just ended the meeting with something like "hey I think you guys need me to be part of the solution, if you feel the same way, here is how we are going to do it, I will not put more time or energy into what has been tried but proven not to work. If you don't want me to be part of the solution that is fine too." Of course they are free to do it "their way" but I'll not accommodate it. The wouldn't have me on the call if they could handle it.

You could have said essentially the exact same thing, every bit as effectively, with a nicer tone. Your tone said "I'm done with you twits. I'm doing it my way. If you don't like it, suck it."

My way.....

"I appreciate all of your contributions. We have to wrap this up due to the constraints of time. I've noted your suggestions, acknowledging that some of you weren't here when some of those ideas were tried and failed in the past. Looking at things through that lense, I'm going to have to proceed in this manner. I would ask that you try it my way and we'll revisit the issue on (enter date here) and see if that is an effective way to proceed. Thanks for your time everybody. Bye." *click*

I pretty much left the team no choice but to a) wrap up the dang meeting and b) do things my way. The difference is that I didn't say "my way or the highway losers" like you did. And nobody would be #$%@&ing about me at the water cooler later.

End results are identical, other than your leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Diplomacy is not weakness. Some of the most brilliant businessmen/women and world leaders are/were diplomatic. I could site examples throughout history of situations when a soft-spoken diplomat mowed over everyone else in the room and likely saved countless lives and property in the process. (It would likely devolve into a political debate quickly so I'll spare everyone.)

I am ridiculously effective at my job. It requires talking my way into, and out of, some difficult situations.

(Try walking into an OR with a tool bag during a surgery to hot swap a defective piece if medical equipment all while an overgrown 4 year old egomaniac surgeon and the vice president of the company argue through the observation glass. Gear got swapped. Doc (politely) got asked to change his tone with me so that I could resolve the situation quickly. Vice president got asked (politely) to leave us both alone so that the surgery could proceed. Risk management attorney invited me to lunch after our session, which started off with his grilling me from about 6" away. By the end of it, nobody was mad at me, or each other. I was the only cool head in the room, at first. I was the only diplomat involved. I was effective. I was polite....bordering on kind. Situation resolved.)

Getting back to OP.....

Remember, the situation was ALREADY RESOLVED! They had moved on. As they were "walking away" he felt the need to turn around and belittle the former guitar player. That was a useless exchange. He didn't "teach her a lesson". He didn't "get her back" for anything. And he certainly didn't bring himself or the band up in any way. He just got emotional and needed to "knock her down a peg". That's not useful. Period. End of discussion.

 

[LBS-bass]

He didn't "teach her a lesson".

Oh, but he did. He taught her something about who he is.

 

[fishdude101101]

You could have said essentially the exact same thing, every bit as effectively, with a nicer tone. Your tone said "I'm done with you twits. I'm doing it my way. If you don't like it, suck it."

My way.....

"I appreciate all of your contributions. We have to wrap this up due to the constraints of time. I've noted your suggestions, acknowledging that some of you weren't here when some of those ideas were tried and failed in the past. Looking at things through that lense, I'm going to have to proceed in this manner. I would ask that you try it my way and we'll revisit the issue on (enter date here) and see if that is an effective way to proceed. Thanks for your time everybody. Bye." *click*

I pretty much left the team no choice but to a) wrap up the dang meeting and b) do things my way. The difference is that I didn't say "my way or the highway losers" like you did. And nobody would be #$%@&ing about me at the water cooler later.

End results are identical, other than your leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Diplomacy is not weakness. Some of the most brilliant businessmen/women and world leaders are/were diplomatic. I could site examples throughout history of situations when a soft-spoken diplomat mowed over everyone else in the room and likely saved countless lives and property in the process. (It would likely devolve into a political debate quickly so I'll spare everyone.)

I am ridiculously effective at my job. It requires talking my way into, and out of, some difficult situations.

(Try walking into an OR with a tool bag during a surgery to hot swap a defective piece if medical equipment all while an overgrown 4 year old egomaniac surgeon and the vice president of the company argue through the observation glass. Gear got swapped. Doc (politely) got asked to change his tone with me so that I could resolve the situation quickly. Vice president got asked (politely) to leave us both alone so that the surgery could proceed. Risk management attorney invited me to lunch after our session, which started off with his grilling me from about 6" away. By the end of it, nobody was mad at me, or each other. I was the only cool head in the room, at first. I was the only diplomat involved. I was effective. I was polite....bordering on kind. Situation resolved.)

Getting back to OP.....

Remember, the situation was ALREADY RESOLVED! They had moved on. As they were "walking away" he felt the need to turn around and belittle the former guitar player. That was a useless exchange. He didn't "teach her a lesson". He didn't "get her back" for anything. And he certainly didn't bring himself or the band up in any way. He just got emotional and needed to "knock her down a peg". That's not useful. Period. End of discussion.

Your right, to admit it. I need to be less of an ahole. It's hard for me though, especially on calls like this where I'm the scapegoat right away, getting blamed for stuff when I've changed nothing on my end.

What's the best way to tell someone their wrong in a diplomatic way? I'm busy I'd like to be able to say "I don't think that will work and I don't have time to try it out"

 

[hrodbert696]

Yep, this is what I was trying to say. What I am doing with my free time on any given day is my own business and that includes any other musical activities I might have planned.

It's a strange thing to me that some people think there's ownership over a person's time when they join a band. I had someone approach me a few months back about playing in his cover band- it was an elaborate production with backing tracks, etc., and it sounded pretty good but they were still only playing a couple of shows a month. I mentioned something about playing in different bands and he pointed out that he only wanted to work with people who were exclusively dedicated to his band. I pointed out that no band has been able to keep me busy enough to demand that sort of commitment since 1991.

You do have to set some boundaries in this business; I currently play with four bands and if each of those bands wanted a weekly rehearsal I would be worn out with no free time of my own. But I do my homework and come to whatever rehearsals we do have well-prepared to play the material, and in my experience I'm better prepared for those rehearsals than most people who only have one band to prepare for. You're going to get a strong commitment from me, but it's not necessarily going to look the way you think it should. And if you're worried about my availability for shows, stop doing the amateur thing of booking last-minute and start booking out by several months.

I have learned that these are the conversations I need to have early on in the vetting process. Not everyone has the same expectations, but higher level bands generally understand because their members are in similar situations.

Some folks spent too much time watching the Monkees and the Partridge Family when they were kids and think that bands are families where the members owe some sort of blood-allegiance to one another. They aren't. As you move up in the ranks and find yourself working with better players, you're also going to find yourself working with people who have very limited availability due to other work in music. In the end, for most of us, this is an elaborate hobby, and the amount of time we sign over to it is going to be limited.

The problem with the OPs situation seems to be that the lead GP isn't as skilled as he would like, and it sounds like he seized on her desire to limit her availability as an excuse to squeeze her out of the band, and the others agreed. It should have been handled more professionally, but it wasn't. My concern is that an unrealistic demand for exclusivity is going to limit their choices in the future, but as long as everyone remains happy with that arrangement and is in agreement with the demand to hold this particular band in a priority position, it can work. I just don't see that as a fair ask these days.

100%.

Way back, when I had never even had a paying gig, I joined this band, which only ever managed one open mic appearance. At the same time there was a keyboardist/singer in another town who I was trying to put together a band with. So my wife and I are at the music store and run into the guitarist from the first band, and I introduce him as "the guitarist from the Manchester band." He looks at me like I had spat on his mother and says "THE band. I'm the guitarist from THE band." Geez man. We're not married, it's not like I'm having an affair.

I have three current music projects with overlapping personnel, plus I play in church twice a month. I've told everyone concerned; I can do two practices a week. More than that and my wife starts getting prickly that she never sees me. It's a little bit of a juggle, but everyone has been cool with it and it works out.

 

[Marko 1]

"One less female in a band is always a good thing"...









A SEXIST WOULD SAY!

 

[Dwsmit]

Not that I have to defend myself, but I did have a private conversation with the singer about 10 days after I had asked the guitar player what her priorities were in a group chat. Pretty sure that was in my story. Remember she never did answer that question. I found out the singer felt exactly the same way as I did. She then proceeded to talk to the drummer as they are a lot closer than he and I. Also yes I probably took the band but they went willingly once they had one practice with a new guitarist, I didn’t drag them away. Their original intent was to play with old and new bands, new band on dates old guitarist wasn’t available.
The only thing I really regret was my last group text, but by then she wasn’t responding to any texts by the singer and had removed her from all administrative levels of the band’s Facebook and Instagram. Nor did she reply to a private text I sent her.

This ...



... doesn't equate to:





Clearly, she doesn't "act as boss"; not based upon what you've shared here.

First off, you sent a GROUP message. From what I can tell, you were instigating this. There were no private discussions with the singer or drummer to see if they felt similarly to you? No private discussion with the lead player, voicing your concerns and giving her a chance to either explain herself or to make it right with you guys?

This kind of sounds like a classic, passive/aggressive, power-play taker over.

Then, after a replacement was found, you sent another GROUP message where you seem to be taking a bit of a vindictive posture (highlighted in blue) and belittling her, publicly. In the military, we had an saying: "Praise in public. Punish in private." you seem to have gone out of your way to do the opposite.

Lastly, you mention that YOU've taken the band ...

Based upon what you wrote, YOU seem to be "act(ing) as boss".

ETA: I apologize. I didn't answer the question in the title, directly.

1) I would have had a side (private) discussion with the lead player. I would have been brutally honest ("You're not even the best guitar player in this town ..."), but I would have made sure she knew why I felt the way I did.

2) I would have had a private discussion with the drummer to see if he agreed with my musical assessment. I would have asked him if he was okay with my divulging details of the conversation with the singer.

3) I would have had a private conversation with the singer and "taken her temperature" on the situation, possibly telling her about the drummer's comments.

4) I would have had a conversation with the drummer and singer, preferably face-to-face.

5) I would have asked for a group meeting and let the lead player know where everyone stood.

 

[Dwsmit]

Her lack of an answer to my question about her priorities and subsequent dismissive reply was the final straw that made me decide to leave. It was quite obvious by her sudden lack of availability that she had shifted focus to the new band and we were getting the crumbs.


UPDATE

Our drummer had to go over to old guitarist’s place a few days ago to pick up a few pieces of his kit. He was told by her that the new band didn’t work out and she seemed on the verge of tears talking to him about it. She then posted something to Instagram and Facebook under the old band account about needing a new “gig” and new beginnings.

I'm replying to this, because I both agree with it, and disagree with it!

I was on the receiving end of something similar a few months ago, when my main band "discovered" I had a side project, and the BL was pissed off that I had a "secret". My "secret" was blown when we sent him an invite to the first gig - guess I need to work on my secret keeping. He gigs regularly as a solo artist (as do others in the band), but objected to my side project and asked me to cancel one of my side project gigs. When I pointed out he wouldn't cancel one of his solo gigs, he said that was different, because he'd committed to do those! In several years with the band this was the biggest conflict there'd been, but what I did in my spare time was none of his concern, and if I mark a night as busy in the calendar (as we all do), then that's a night I'm not available - no questions, because that's how it is for everyone in the band.

From that experience, the guitarist should be free to join another project, and manage her time.

Where I think this is slightly different is that she's playing catch up. She' s struggling to keep up with the band, and after a long break she needs to put some work in to get up to speed. The band did the right thing standing by her while she was unwell, but now she's back she should be repaying that with effort. If she can't do the work needed to learn material for one band, then taking on a second band is probably a deal breaker.

I think the band probably should have asked if she had the time to commit to both bands. It seems like she didn't, at which point she should have been allowed to make the choice. But it seems like there's a bit more history here that led them to make that decision for her.