Surving Band Drama

[Outkaster]

I have been on these forums for a long time now. One thing that strikes me is that most of our threads deal with band drama and musicians not doing the right thing. For me I always wonder what is it like on pro levels. How do they deal with musician Sh--?

 

I saw an interview with Mic Fleetwood who owns a restaurant. They asked why he would open one in Hawaii and he said “running a restaurant is like a band” there is always or will always be drama so it is similar” But that can’t be the case all the time. What if Chuck Levelle came up to Mick Jagger and said “’ I didn’t learn my parts”??? The Stones could really say F--- you if they wanted. There are two hundred guys that could fill his spot.

 

Don’t get me wrong but some bands can survive drama pretty well and some can manage it better than others but it would seem to me like any other top notch company the pro’s must have some kind of systems or contingencies in place to deal with it?

[Vito Corleone]

Few bands have put up with more band drama than Fleetwood Mac. But at least they got a great album out of it.

 

The Stones can deal with Chuck like you said because he's just on the payroll. Drama between Mick and Keith or Charlie would be a whole different deal.

 

You don't want band drama? Then run the whole thing yourself and out everyone else on the payroll. But then be prepared to be the guy who runs the business and everything the comes with that. And you better run a good business or no one will want to work for you.

 

Otherwise, you're a band and you deal with all the stuff that comes with everyone being equals and putting their lives into it and all that. Kind of like being married at that point.

[sventvkg]

Few bands have put up with more band drama than Fleetwood Mac. But at least they got a great album out of it. The Stones can deal with Chuck like you said because he's just on the payroll. Drama between Mick and Keith or Charlie would be a whole different deal. You don't want band drama? Then run the whole thing yourself and out everyone else on the payroll. But then be prepared to be the guy who runs the business and everything the comes with that. And you better run a good business or no one will want to work for you. Otherwise' date=' you're a band and you deal with all the stuff that comes with everyone being equals and putting their lives into it and all that. Kind of like being married at that point.[/quote'] No way!!! I've never seen a band that was equal work efficiently. My partner who is my best friend for almost 30 years and I will be running our company and bands. Everyone else is an employee.

[MarkGifford-1]

Let me answer that question with another one...

 

What do you think it was like, being in STP w/Scott Weiland?

 

On the one hand, w/o him you do not have a viable product - and we're talking millions of dollars here.

 

On the other hand, he's a total f***-up, and truly seems incapable of functioning, in any kind of professional setting.

 

Here's another:

 

You form a band, get signed and agree to split all writing credits and publishing money in a 3-way, even split.

 

After you have phenomenal success w/your first major release, a member of the band comes to you and says that unless he receives a significantly larger cut of the pie, retroactively, you can all go pound salt. And, he's the one who actually does the heavy lifting writing-wise, so he's got you over a barrel.

 

This happened w/Cobain and Nirvana.

 

And you think a kbd who doesn't learn the parts is drama?

 

MG

[Outkaster]

No it's one example. There are thousands. One person can fu-k things up really. It's a lead singer thing also.

[Vito Corleone]

No way!!! I've never seen a band that was equal work efficiently. My partner who is my best friend for almost 30 years and I will be running our company and bands. Everyone else is an employee.

 

Well, that's what I meant by saying you "deal with all the stuff that comes with". You can do it with everyone being technically equals, but there has to be a power structure involved. Someone has to run the band and call the shots. Democracies don't work in bands.

[Vito Corleone]

 

No it's one example. There are thousands.

 

And that's just it. Every band is different. Bands like Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles, STP all functioned in one manner or another with a large degree of band drama. Change a member in any of them and the whole process is likely to be different. It's all about the individual personalities involved. No two stories or examples are going to be alike.

 

Bands are part business/part family. And unless you're going to run your band in a strict "I'm the boss, everyone else shut up, do what I say, and collect your paycheck or I'll replace you" manner, you have to navigate the personalities of the people involved. I run my band pretty well (It's been going on 10 years now, so I must be doing something right in that regard) because of what I've learned from years of managing successful businesses and being in a successful marriage. You have to find that balance of knowing when to put the hammer down and when to be a soft touch. Management skills aren't something most musicians do well.

 

But it also is important the band be somewhat successful in whatever it's trying to do. I've been in two bands that were run in a pseudo we're-all-equals (but still with a clear leadership structure) style that have run 10+ years. The major key to both bands being together that long without major membership changes is that everyone in the band WANTED to be in the band. There weren't tensions between members about stuff like not gigging enough (or too much) or wanting to play different types of music. We were all on the same page with that. Everyone was in the band they wanted to be in, so it worked.

 

And this included, in the first band, surviving past a Mac-ish type situation where the lead singer, who was the guitarist's girlfriend, briefly had a fling with the bass player. They somehow all got past that and all worked together for another 8 years. (Personally, I've always had a strict "don't f' the help" rule with every band or job I've had. Saves a LOT of drama that way.) But they got past it because being in that band was more important to them than dealing with personal BS.

 

So, like with Fleetwood Mac or STP, if you are providing a band that everyone really wants to be a part of, everyone will be much more likely to figure out a way to get along because it's in their best personal interest to do so.

[Vito Corleone]

Here's what I've learned from running businesses that I apply to running bands:

 

Unless you're paying people really, really well, most people aren't going to happy very long in a strict "just shut up and do what you're told" factory-job like environment. You at least have to give them the impression that they are integral to the operation and how it's run, if not actually utilize them in such a manner. You learn everyone's individual strengths and weaknesses and work with/around both in order to get most out of everyone and put together the best band you can. This includes what they do both onstage and off. And don't expect more out of people than they are capable. I try to get 100% out of everyone, but keep in mind that one person's 100% isn't going to be the same as someone else's 100%. Try to encourage everyone to leave their personal issues at home.

 

Here's what I've learned from being married that I apply to running bands:

 

Don't go to bed angry. Know when to stand your ground and when to shut up; not all arguments are worth having. Sometimes you can't do anything with Crazy Uncle Charlie at the Thanksgiving dinner table except just smile politely and ignore him.

[Kramerguy]

Not sure what my 2 cents is worth, but I've seen a lot of drama.. Been the cause of it from time to time.. Here's my take-

 

First off, drama exists everywhere. I work for one of the best companies ever, and they bend over backwards for the employees, and yet STILL people bitch and moan and complain. We grill FREE lunch outside every Friday, and wouldn't you know, a handful of people actually bitch about it.

 

That being said, the thing with band drama is that it's always there, the only thing that differs is the amount and intensity of it. Running your own band and calling all the shots reduces the drama by exactly nothing, it just becomes different drama- I've been there and done that too.

 

There's drama in my current band, yet we've been together 6 years now. How do we deal with it? Well, for the most part, we learn to simply accept that this guy shows up unprepared, or that guy needs new gear badly.. Part of the "dealing with it" means we sometimes will make comments or rag on someone about it, but it's all in jest- can't get angry over stuff or it just makes everything worse. If you do get angry, just vent, and move past it.

 

The real problems start when someone draws lines in the sand.. then someone has to go.. as long as you can avoid having a person who draws lines in the sand, most stuff can be overcome at least to a point of being able to apply the "dealing with it" method.

[SpaceNorman]

Well, that's what I meant by saying you "deal with all the stuff that comes with". You can do it with everyone being technically equals, but there has to be a power structure involved. Someone has to run the band and call the shots. Democracies don't work in bands.

 

Every band has to have effective leadership if it's going to have be remotely successful. That may be a singular band leader ... that may be shared leadership. There is no single formula for what works best in all situations. A real band leader has to be able to get their bandmates to follow their leadership by convincing them that going in a given direction is in their best interest. A band leader who tries to rely on a "band leader" title to lead a band is no band leader at all.

 

This is especially true when it comes to the world of part time / weekend warrior bands that the vast majority of us work with. If a band leader can't sell the rest of the band on a direction based upon it's merit - that's a band that will be short lived. Neither I or the circle of musicians I hang with will waste our time following a fool simply because he has the title of "band leader".

 

I've never been part of band who's organizational structure was a single guy who simply "called all the shots". There's not enough money in the part time / weekend warrior game to put up with an "I call all the shots" sort of management structure - especially if one is not on board with how the railroad is running.

[GtrGeorge!]

All I can add is "The juice has got to be worth the squeeze"..wether its a noprofit original band..or a tribute band to some well established PRODUCT. The participants needto know what they bring to it, and what they get out of it. Communicating that is key and being grateful to listen as well as be heard, that's essential,as well.

[Outkaster]

You can communicate it all you want that doesn't mean people are receptive.

[SpaceNorman]

You can communicate it all you want that doesn't mean people are receptive.

 

At the risk of being argumentative - I am of the opinion that for the most folks hear and actually listen to what their band mates have to say. Obviously I'm not saying that everybody agrees with what gets said. My experience has been that when somebody's ideas aren't embraced by the group - it's usually NOT because the group isn't receptive to new ideas or suggestions - but rather because whoever is proposing it has failed to put forth compelling reasons as to why or how the idea at hand is going to make a material improvement. I certainly listen to every suggestion that my band mates put forth. Some I embrace wholeheartedly ... others, not so much or not at all. IMHO, blaming others' lack of receptiveness for an idea that doesn't get supported is more often than not a failure to realize that the idea wasn't "sold" properly in the first place.

 

[Outkaster]

Yes I agree with you about that 1000%

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

 

I've never been part of band who's organizational structure was a single guy who simply "called all the shots". There's not enough money in the part time / weekend warrior game to put up with an "I call all the shots" sort of management structure - especially if one is not on board with how the railroad is running.

 

Neither have I. But I do know bands who operate in that fashion. But most are operating on a pretty high level with a lot of good, high paying gigs. To what degree any of the members consider working in such a band part-time....I dunno. Some just play in those bands on the weekends. Others are pros who rotate in and out of a few bands and play with whoever needs their services that night.

 

But I've never had good experience with bands who try to be full on democracies. Whether it's agreeing on a band name or choosing a song list, whenever a band decides to only do things that everyone in the band agrees on, all you end up with is the least-offensive, most bland choices. And not a band that is really going to move or excite audiences much. That's my experience anyway.

 

The bands I've been in that worked best have been the ones where one or two people have the vision, take charge, and the rest fall in line because they've been sold on the vision. And selling it means a combination of good communication at the outset and then backing it up with results. Sometimes that person has been me. Sometimes I've taken a back seat and let others run the train. As long as it works, I'm all good with it.

[SpaceNorman]

.... I do know bands who operate in that fashion [a guy who simply "called all the shots"]. But most are operating on a pretty high level with a lot of good, high paying gigs.

 

I've seen a few of these bands too. Typically, it's one or two guys who own the PA and have the connections (and the time!) to chase the bookings who are calling the shots. My observation has been that these bands are typically "revolving door" bands with a steady stream of musicians coming and going. The guys I know who've worked in these types of organizations displayed very little of the loyalty (perhaps ownership is a better term?) that I typically see from the guys I work with.

 

Obviously it's an approach that works for some ... however, I suspect that it's a near certain failure if there isn't a lot of good, high paying gigs. I doubt that I'm unique in my sentiment that if I'm expected to strictly do as I'm told - I'm not doing it for cheap.

 

The bands I've been in that worked best have been the ones where one or two people have the vision, take charge, and the rest fall in line because they've been sold on the vision. And selling it means a combination of good communication at the outset and then backing it up with results. Sometimes that person has been me. Sometimes I've taken a back seat and let others run the train. As long as it works, I'm all good with it.

 

I'd argue that this describes democracy in action. The group's leadership emerges (it's NOT arbitrarily appointed!) - and is validated by the fact that the rest of the group willingly follows. In any group of people there are those that tend to be natural leaders ... having a vision, having the ability to build consensus, are willing to make investments (time and/or resources) to influence how the railroad runs, etc. Others are more than happy to follow - so long as they feel comfortable in the knowledge that their input will at least be considered.

 

Bands like this have a process (informal though it likely is) for bringing "issues" (proposals, decisions, etc.) to the table - and then working through everybody's input to shape an outcome that everybody is willing to get behind and support.

 

IMHO, that's how a functioning democracy functions.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I've seen a few of these bands too. Typically, it's one or two guys who own the PA and have the connections (and the time!) to chase the bookings who are calling the shots. My observation has been that these bands are typically "revolving door" bands with a steady stream of musicians coming and going. The guys I know who've worked in these types of organizations displayed very little of the loyalty (perhaps ownership is a better term?) that I typically see from the guys I work with.

 

Obviously it's an approach that works for some ... however, I suspect that it's a near certain failure if there isn't a lot of good, high paying gigs. I doubt that I'm unique in my sentiment that if I'm expected to strictly do as I'm told - I'm not doing it for cheap.

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

I'd argue that this describes democracy in action. The group's leadership emerges (it's NOT arbitrarily appointed!) - and is validated by the fact that the rest of the group willingly follows. In any group of people there are those that tend to be natural leaders ... having a vision, having the ability to build consensus, are willing to make investments (time and/or resources) to influence how the railroad runs, etc. Others are more than happy to follow - so long as they feel comfortable in the knowledge that their input will at least be considered.

 

Bands like this have a process (informal though it likely is) for bringing "issues" (proposals, decisions, etc.) to the table - and then working through everybody's input to shape an outcome that everybody is willing to get behind and support.

 

IMHO, that's how a functioning democracy functions.

 

True. Problem with many bands is often how long it takes to get to that point. Everything starts out as "we'll all have an equal say" and by the time the natural leaders emerge and the power structure takes form, it can sometimes be years down the road. Meanwhile, precious time that could have been spent building the band has been lost spinning wheels and trying to find your way. I've seen many bands break up before they ever reach that point due to frustrations with the slow nature of the process. And if there is no natural leader in the group? Forget it.

 

 

[SpaceNorman]

True. Problem with many bands is often how long it takes to get to that point. Everything starts out as "we'll all have an equal say" and by the time the natural leaders emerge and the power structure takes form, it can sometimes be years down the road. Meanwhile, precious time that could have been spent building the band has been lost spinning wheels and trying to find your way. I've seen many bands break up before they ever reach that point due to frustrations with the slow nature of the process. And if there is no natural leader in the group? Forget it.

 

Hey! Nobody said it would be easy! Effective leadership is just as critical to the success of a band as music choices, quality musicianship or any of the other things that - if absent - will doom a band.

 

I'll add another observation - and say that if a band starts of with a utopian sentiment like "we'll all have an equal say" ... and it takes time for leaders to emerge and a structure to take form - my bet would be we're talking about a band full of kids who are still growing up themselves (which most likely dooms them from the start due to their lack of experience and maturity).

 

Anybody who's been around the block knows there's rarely ever such a thing as an equal say. Anybody with experience knows that those who invest more into the band (providing PA, hustling gigs as well and/or make a stronger musical contribution (i.e., an instrumentalist who sings in comparison to an instrumentalist only)) - have a greater influence on it's direction and operations. Bands that can't find common ground on the simple stuff like band names and playlists - are doomed out of the gate regardless.

 

I'll also opine that there are no shortcuts. It's a "catch 22" scenario. A group that can't/won't voluntarily coalesce around whatever leadership is present will certainly never fall in line behind anybody who attempts to unilaterally take the reins and "call the shots".

[Vito Corleone]

Not just kids. There's a lot of older dad-band types without much real prior band experience who are just as clueless.

[SpaceNorman]

Not just kids. There's a lot of older dad-band types without much real prior band experience who are just as clueless.

 

Good point ... I have run into a few of those over the years myself. I've tended to simply lump them under the heading of "slow learners" while I was loading out.

[PRSJim]

When I first read this without my glasses on, I thought it said, "Surviving Buck Dharma."

[StratGuy22]

I always prefer to join a functioning band if I can, instead of starting from scratch. I've done both, and trying to start something was futile and was basically basement jamming. It was what it was. My current band, I had 2 weeks to learn 60 songs. Pulled it off. I had played a lot of then already. It was a challenge, and a bit of work.

[AJ6stringsting]

Nirvana's second album sucked .... it killed Grunge

[AJ6stringsting]

Yup, them older Dad bands are showing up more than UFO's ...

[AJ6stringsting]

My Attitude is just , show up to practice early / be reliable, give 110% for the crowd and have a blast.

I had to deal with a drummer who was jealous of everyone for everything, he was upset at the singer for getting the gals and claiming I was being to flamboyant on the guitar .... I told him, "Duh, we're in a Metal band, the Guitar is supposed to up front, technical and aggressive !!!! .... and singers are supposed to get more ass than a toilet seat at an exlax convention !!!! "