In hard economic times, does going to a trio format make sense?

[tim_7string]

It's an interesting question that I wrestle with... Should we add a 5th member? Right now we're a 4-piece with a dedicated lead singer, so from an instrumentation standpoint, we're a trio. We're ding well, making decent money, but we're definitely far from the "ceiling". Herein lies the argument. On one side: Making $1,000 and splitting it 4 ways sounds a lot better than splitting it 5 ways. And the other: Adding a 5th member would allow us to sound better, therefore allowing us to increase out rate... I lean towards the second option being more in line with the truth, but, it's hard to say definitively.

 

That is what I forgot to mention with my friend's approach to putting together trios with me back in the '90s. My mentality was that if we actually rehearsed and got people in the band that gave a {censored} about the music, a four or five-piece would eventually get us FAR more money than the little trios with no rehearsal playing for chump change would. I guess he was more into short-term gain and I was looking at the bigger picture. I did give his ideas a try for a while, though.

 

Well, I am back into that mindset of putting together a great package, regardless of how many people are there. Yes, we are only making crap money right now and could make more if pared down, but it doesn't feel like a band to me unless all four of us are there. I'd rather be remembered for putting on a great show than for people to say "Yeah, I guess they were okay...," even if we made a killing moneywise.

 

Another consideration is band chemistry. Right now, it is great. We are firing on all cylinders and enjoy each other's company. None of us drinks to excess, we all respect the music (and the idea of band practice), we have a similar sense of humor, etc. We feel comfortable around each other and that is a big factor in my happiness in a band. This is the most ideal situation I have ever had in a band.

[Vito Corleone]

That is what I forgot to mention with my friend's approach to putting together trios with me back in the '90s. My mentality was that if we actually rehearsed and got people in the band that gave a {censored} about the music, a four or five-piece would eventually get us FAR more money than the little trios with no rehearsal playing for chump change would. I guess he was more into short-term gain and I was looking at the bigger picture. I did give his ideas a try for a while, though. Well, I am back into that mindset of putting together a great package, regardless of how many people are there. Yes, we are only making crap money right now and could make more if pared down, but it doesn't feel like a band to me unless all four of us are there. I'd rather be remembered for putting on a great show than for people to say "Yeah, I guess they were okay...," even if we made a killing moneywise.

 

 

Nothing worthwhile comes without a price, IMO. You gotta spend money to make money---that sort of thing. We just added a sixth member because I'm PRETTY SURE we'll be able to make more money by doing so. We'll look better, sound better, etc. But it takes time. We've got a bunch of gigs on the books booked at the "old" rate, so everyone is going to have to take a cut in pay we wouldn't necessarily HAVE to take. And we have to spend money on new promo, etc. Plus extra rehearsal time. But if my hunch is correct, the sacrifice we're making now will pay for itself in the long run.

 

Bands that don't want to spend extra time/money up front are often doomed to just spin their wheels in Smalltimeville. Try to stay focused on the long term and the bigger picture. You'll almost certainly be happier with the end result that way.

[TIMKEYS]

That would be ideal. Unfortunately, these guys don't seem to just fall of trees... :poke:

 

 

NO you have to have somthing that they feel is attractive. Have you really started looking? How many guys have you auditioned?

[tim_7string]

 

Bands that don't want to spend extra time/money up front are often doomed to just spin their wheels in Smalltimeville. Try to stay focused on the long term and the bigger picture. You'll almost certainly be happier with the end result that way.

 

 

That is where my focus is right now. It's a concern because we are all older just how long it will take, but we are all appreciating the results of our new lineup and the way we sound now. We had rave reviews at the club we just played a week and a half ago, so I believe we are on the right track. The next step is to get some good lights.

[Vito Corleone]

Well if you're getting rave reviews and there is great band chemistry as a 4-piece then--why mess with any of that? The LAST thing I would is consider paring down the band and risk being a lesser band just because you might save a few bucks in the short term.

Band chemistry is first and foremost, IMO. If you got that, the rest is gravy.

[tim_7string]

 

Well if you're getting rave reviews and there is great band chemistry as a 4-piece then--why mess with any of that? The LAST thing I would is consider paring down the band and risk being a lesser band just because you might save a few bucks in the short term. Band chemistry is first and foremost, IMO. If you got that, the rest is gravy.

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, I have no intentions to do so. Like I said, I want to present a great package regardless of how many people are there. That wasn't the intent of the thread. I was just wondering how many people lost members along the way or downsized and what their reasons were for it and also why some people kept their lineup despite dwindling money over the years.