Yup, no argument at all, a music career isn't in my future at this point in my life. I'm OK with that. But I've been ignored by way too many band "leaders" to want to go that route again.
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.
Why are band dynamics so delicate?
- Thread starter stoggin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- band dynamics
Hey all. Want to get your thoughts. Not sure if it’s the right place in the forums but here goes. So for a few years I’ve been writing and recording songs at home with a guitarist, me supplying the bass lines....
cue last year: finally get a drummer. Guitarist is singing which is great. Then over time rather than collaborating, which is the main reason I play, the songs are coming in basically structured, chords etc. Any ideas generally get ignored or if changes are made the song is casually dropped. Last thing that happened was that we continued to write via digital channels. All good until a song came back and my bass was erasedis it wrong for me to feel slighted? The guitarist is a really good friend but he’s never been in a band before and I guess doesn’t get how important band dynamics can be. Or do I just have my head up my ass?
I would classify that, unreservedly, as passive-aggressive behavior:
Passive-aggressive behavior - Wikipedia
"Passive-aggressive behavior is characterized by a pattern of passive hostility and an avoidance of direct communication."
I remember from my Abnormal Psychology class, back in 1980, that passive-aggressive individuals are among those who are just about impossible to treat successfully.
Just to play devils advocate :
That presupposes the OP is operating at the same quality level, as the singer guitarist.
What if the singer guitarist is writing really good material, and the OP's songs are only average?
Looks like you have a small mistake in your patch. One of the gray wires is patched to the wrong jack.
Yes, which is why I believe the usual "have you had a conversation about this" overtures that I'd normally suggest are unlikely to work. But the OP should certainly give it a try.
Absolutely, you need to know that at least you gave it a try.
I would suggest that "band dynamics are delicate" because people are applying the wrong model to how their bands are designed and run.
If you expect a band to be like a big happy family with each member contributing creatively and everyone getting along and many if not most decisions being made collectively, that's when these "band dynamics" come into play. I think this model only works for a few bands where the creative output is of such high quality that all the disparate personalities subordinate themselves to the collective goal, and even then they only last a little while. Think of the Beatles during that "middle period" when George and even Ringo were making significant contributions - but even then, Lennon and McCartney remained the band leaders and primary decision makers. That middle period (pre-Yoko) only lasted, what, three or four years? And these were young men at the very top of their game putting out world class product, and with every possible incentive to make the interpersonal dynamics work.
On the other hand, if you expect a band to have a strong leader who makes the commercial decisions, possibly with a musical director who makes the creative decisions, you end up with an organization like the Count Basie Orchestra or the Rolling Stones (two leaders there) that endures for decades. The other musicians are there to play the music. Yes, they'll make creative contributions but it's not consensus decision making. Don't like the way the leader or MD decides something? You can either play it the way they want it, or you can suggest something different but accept if your suggestion isn't taken up, or they'll find someone who will. Sorry to burst people's bubbles, but in my book that's how you get stuff done.
I've been in bands of both types and the collective type always either evolve into a strong-leader model or dissolve. The ones that are up front about being a strong-leader band have the best track record for enduring, playing gigs, and thus actually creating quality work.
If you expect a band to be like a big happy family with each member contributing creatively and everyone getting along and many if not most decisions being made collectively, that's when these "band dynamics" come into play. I think this model only works for a few bands where the creative output is of such high quality that all the disparate personalities subordinate themselves to the collective goal, and even then they only last a little while. Think of the Beatles during that "middle period" when George and even Ringo were making significant contributions - but even then, Lennon and McCartney remained the band leaders and primary decision makers. That middle period (pre-Yoko) only lasted, what, three or four years? And these were young men at the very top of their game putting out world class product, and with every possible incentive to make the interpersonal dynamics work.
On the other hand, if you expect a band to have a strong leader who makes the commercial decisions, possibly with a musical director who makes the creative decisions, you end up with an organization like the Count Basie Orchestra or the Rolling Stones (two leaders there) that endures for decades. The other musicians are there to play the music. Yes, they'll make creative contributions but it's not consensus decision making. Don't like the way the leader or MD decides something? You can either play it the way they want it, or you can suggest something different but accept if your suggestion isn't taken up, or they'll find someone who will. Sorry to burst people's bubbles, but in my book that's how you get stuff done.
I've been in bands of both types and the collective type always either evolve into a strong-leader model or dissolve. The ones that are up front about being a strong-leader band have the best track record for enduring, playing gigs, and thus actually creating quality work.
The more I think of OP's situation, the more I wonder why a discussion hasn't taken place. If I were the collaborator and I happened to stumble on someone whining behind my back (on a public forum) about me without ever bringing stuff to my direct attention, that would be a deal killer. Time to man up, put your big boy pants on, and talk to each other. Not text. Actual talk.
A band can be like a hybrid of the most complex parts of a workplace and a romantic partnership - getting a stable blend with the multiple personalities, egos, schedules and goals involved is damn near impossible.
It’s gotten to where I’m more surprised when a band lasts, than when one implodes...
It’s gotten to where I’m more surprised when a band lasts, than when one implodes...
Is that really how most families, work, though? Speaking only for myself, my upbringing was more like, "Because I'm your father and I say so."
This was in an article in Electric & Acoustic Bass magazine. It seemed appropriate
35. Robert Trujillo, Metallica (January 2017)
“It’s important to play your instrument and be prepared, but there’s another side to all this. You have to get along with people and be able to balance personalities.“
35. Robert Trujillo, Metallica (January 2017)
“It’s important to play your instrument and be prepared, but there’s another side to all this. You have to get along with people and be able to balance personalities.“
Yeah, that statistic is ********.
Maybe it's true of 99.999% of the music that has ever been recorded.
But 99.999% of the music that has ever been recorded is garbage.
And it's nowhere near that percentage of the music that I love, personally.
Queen and The Band had multiple contributing singer/songwriters in-house.
Nobody asked me but you know, public forum.
Yes, but who was the leader?
I don't know who was the band leader in Queen, was it Mercury? For The Band it was certainly Robertson.
After all, Ellington had multiple writers in the band: Tizol, Strays, Hodges, and several others - but Duke was the band leader, made the decisions. Basie hardly ever wrote anything but you know who was the leader. As I noted above, Lennon and McCartney were the co-leaders of the Beatles even though George and even Ringo made meaningful creative contributions. Elvis hardly ever wrote any songs, but he was the leader of his band.
But my point wasn't really whether the band leader is the one doing all the writing and arranging - my point was that this theoretical utopia of a cooperative band where the decisions both creative and commercial are made by consensus, is almost always a fantasy, rarely ever exists in reality, and trying to structure your band to look like it willl generally not end well.
I think you need to apply the "traffic" rule. Next time you're stuck in traffic going 10 on the 10 look to your right, left, front, rear. Those guys are morons. Right? How did they even get their license?
Now assume those same people can work with you at your job, partner with you in your school project, play in your band, or maybe even book bands at the club you want to play at.
Tolerance is really a valuable skill because it's unlikely you're the only onw with an opinion and most people have dumb opinions, myself included. Get along. Or make a better situation. Life is short.
Now assume those same people can work with you at your job, partner with you in your school project, play in your band, or maybe even book bands at the club you want to play at.
Tolerance is really a valuable skill because it's unlikely you're the only onw with an opinion and most people have dumb opinions, myself included. Get along. Or make a better situation. Life is short.
