Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Band Management [BG]' started by zachoff, Oct 8, 2013.
Would you rather be the best player or the worst player in your band? Why?
The worst. That's the only time I grow as a musician.
The only times I find myself the best in the room with a band, I know we're in trouble. Usually find out within two measures of the first song, or if the drummer is warming up before we play.
Worst. I love being surrounded by pro players. Better players push my game to the next level.
Yeah, gotta say worst, for the reasons stated above. I dunno where I sit in my current band.
Huh. I'd rather be worst too, but only because I want a drummer that's better than me.
Playing the Devil's advocate though... If you were the best you'd probably have most of the control over the musical direction of the band. That'd be neat, right? If you're in an originals band, you could show the rest of the band what to play and if you're in a cover band you'd play the stuff you like, provided the other folks can play it too.
I was best in a band once. I had only owned a bass for 6 months then. Guess what happened to that band!
Sorry to challenge your premise, but neither extreme would be acceptable to me - with the caveat that no two players are at exactly the same level of skill, of course.
The most stable bands are those in which the players are all pretty much in the same, relatively narrow band of musicianship and accomplishment - past a certain reasonable threshold, of course. Those bands in which one or more players is significantly more skilled or less skilled than the others are inherently unstable and less productive. Either the highly-skilled player(s) gets fed up and quits, or the barely-skilled player(s) gets fired.
Many times I've been 10 or 20 years older than other band members. I've also played for more years and played guitar nearly as long as bass. That by default has made me best in some cases.
I'm confident in my ability, so I would much rather be in a band with musician who are better than me. That would be a hot band.
Although it depends what you did with those extra years as to whether experience counts
As for me I'd rather be the worst. It's motivation and I enjoy playing with people who know what they're doing.
Add me to the "rather be the worst" pile. I'd rather be challenged/inspired to step up my playing. The last time I was the best player in a group and not the primary songwriter, I overplayed like crazy out of boredom. I listen back to those recordings occasionally and cringe. The instances where I was the best player, but also the primary songwriter, everyone else tended to step up and meet the challenge in the music. Being the worst player is humbling, but motivating.
I've been in a band were I was the best (only defined as having the least difficulty doing my part, I'm by no means a great musician) and it nearly killed my motivation to practice and get better. I could fake my way through every rehearsal and gig while yawning the whole night. Not a good mindset at all and I had to finally kick myself in the backside and start developing my parts regardless what others did or didn't do.
Now I'm in a band where I'm challenged, several of the band members are way better than I am and I have to be interested and make a real effort to hold my own.
I agree though that ideally the differences in skills shouldn't be too big, and neither should differences in ambitions for where the band is going, that doesn't work in the long run.
I don't really care if I am the best or the worst in the band as long as I can use my hip thrust moves on stage.
Any band where I am the best is not good enough for me to be in for any length of time. I could be the worst, but only if it is a close worst, and not way behind. I would need to be close enough that the others could see the improvement.
VVVVVVVV THIS VVVVVVV
worst so the band makes you better.
i see nothing but frustration if your the best.
Theres nothin worse then playin out...just waitin for the weak link to f it up..id rather be the weakest link..at least I can control it that way.
thats not to say I want to suck...i just want the rest to be as good preferably better.
I'd prefer to be the best or close to it. I want to be able to guide the music when it's appropriate and have a well respected opinion of what we should be doing.
That said, I've been in situations where I was in the worst end of things and found that it made me think about things too much.
The perfect situation, though, is where everyone is on a similar level and can not only play at a strong level, but communicate musical ideas verbally on the same level.
I think I understand what you're getting at here - I doubt it's psychologically healthy to always be either. If you're always the least accomplished member of the band, your ability will increase quickly but you might struggle to develop confidence and leadership. Let's call this the "Stefan Lessard Effect."
On the other hand, you will stagnate if you are never challenged.
The answer is to place yourself in a number of different musical situations, some which challenge you and others which allow you to lead and influence.