How do you leave a band gracefully?

[WTF1967]

"In psychology, egocentrism is defined as

 

the incomplete differentiation of the self and the world, including other people and

the tendency to perceive, understand and interpret the world in terms of the self.

The term derives from the Greek and Latin ??? / ego, meaning "I," "me," and "self". An egocentric person cannot fully empathize, i.e. "put himself in other peoples' shoes", and believes everyone sees what she/he sees (or that what he/she sees, in some way, exceeds what others see)."

 

Please lock thread! LOL!

[tim_7string]

Please don't lock this thread...

 

[tim_7string]

Take a step back. Chill. You're a nice guy. And a solid guitarist. And a decent vocalist. But you ain't all *that*.

 

Never said I was, man. I'm just a guy singing and playing guitar on a local level. That's all I'm ever going to be. I realize this. I know my place in the food chain, so to speak.

 

At the end of the day, we all do what we feel we have to do. And I feel I have to do this. You can tell me I'm crazy or stupid for 10 more pages if you wish.

 

Take care.

[stratotastic]

LOL - I love the collective ADD of this group. I can't count how many times I saw a thread title, clicked on the last page to see the latest, and it has NOTHING to do with the topic of the thread.

 

And yes this includes my own critique of a thread that went off topic, which is off topic in itself. self-

 

Anyway, carry on...

[DevilRaysFan]

 

What's not to understand? If I had a dime for every random bar patron that said "you're great!" to me over the last 35 years, I'd be a rich man. But I've never let that go to my head to any great proportion and convince myself that *I* was the reason people were there or that *I* am the appeal to the people I play for or that *I* am the focus of what *I* do. Or that *I* need a "namesake" band because that's the only way that *I* will be able to have the control *I* need to get *my* vision out there to *my* fans who think *I* am so great. I play in a BAND. It's called a BAND for a reason. If *I* get a compliment, all they are REALLY saying is they like the BAND (whether they know it or not) because I'd be {censored} without everybody else around *ME* helping *ME* sound good. And it's good I know my place there because The Guido61/David Project would be a complete fail. I just ain't got the goods to pull that off. And in all seriousness and objective frankness, I don't think you're a better a singer/player/frontman than I am. But I get girls coming up to me after every show telling me I'm great. (Well, I did 20 years ago...now I just get the grandmas....) Like someone else said, I don't think you're an egomanic--that's something else altogether. But egocentric? To a degree it's probably holding you back in the long run? Yeah, I think maybe so.

 

 

 

I havent been following this thread but I do understand where you are coming from......The bottomline is that you have something/idea/plan that you want to do. This plan revolves around you. I dont think there is anything at all wrong with that. If anything, it reinforces the statement "If you want to get something done you have to do it yourself'

 

As a bass player, Ive felt that most of my career: Having things I want to say but choose not to because of everyone else's expectation of what a bass is supposed to do. There are many bass players and drummers that feel that we play an "instrument", just like anybody else. When we play in bands or, even when we go to jam nights, theres the expectation that you have a role to do. It doesnt matter that everyone else is jacking off and exploring ideas, just be the bass player and lay it down

 

I know that if I ever want to explore some of these unconventional avenues as a bass 'artist', I will have to form some type of project - either live or studio - thats based around me.

 

Is that Egotistical? Maybe, but I dont think so - Its no more egotistical than the 3 Million SRV Wannabe guys and their 3 piece bands playing blues and biker clubs nationwide.......

[BlueStrat]

Well, as someone who does do a band under my own name, let me explain why I did it. Ego? Pride? whatever, I'll leave that to the shrinks among us.

 

I did it because of two very basic and simple reasons:

1) ultimately, all any of us have to market is ourselves. We can be in a band, play in one for a long time, but that band will likely change members, direction, whatever over time. It all comes back to making ourselves marketable first. By using my own name, it put me in a position of having more control over my own destiny, to use a cliche. But it's true. Since I wrote all the songs, provided the PA, fronted the band, and so on, it was the best move for me. I got tired of doing all those things and yet having guys in the band insist on a democracy. It's really hard to be in a democratic band when you're a writer, especially the only one.

 

Bands exist for two basic reasons: one, the band is the object: you get together with your friends, play you r cover songs, party with the folks, get paid to have fun and drink a few drinks. Having a smoking hot band that people want to come and party with is a great thing and a lot of fun. But the band has no ambitions beyond that. They know they're a local band, will remain a local band, and they just want to be the best one out there.

 

The second is where the band is the means: it is the vehicle that showcases the writer's material, and the songs, not the band , are the object. These are usually the bands who want more than a local following and trying to build a fan base for the music. Interestingly, bands that fall into this category but lose focus and end up making the band the object alway seem to end up falling a apart-GnR, Van Halen, the list is endless.

 

Both approaches are valid and one is not better than the other.

 

2) The second reason is less esoteric: I got tired of redoing my promo all the time, and since I'm basically marketing my self and my songs, it was so much easier to just put myself on the promo regardless of who came and went.

 

Of course, when you're under your own name, you have a lot more responsibility, and 'paying the cost to be the boss' is a phrase with which anyone doing this would do well to become acquainted. It usually means I do more work than anyone else, I pay my band more than I make in most cases (except concerts and festivals, private parties etc), I provide gas and rooms and even meals if I ask them to go out of town for me, and so on. It means I am charged with resolving conflicts between members, maintaining gear, providing transportation for it, etc. People who think it's only about ego ought to try it sometime. It's really a hell of a lot of extra work, but it was the right thing for me to do when I did it.

[wades_keys]

^

Yeah, but the act of putting your name on it tends to convey a certain "frontman" type of deal - you're saying: come to the show to see [insert name here].

 

I'm not so sure this is a good idea for Tim at this time, but then he lives in a close knit type of town, to where maybe just the friends angle could be enough to sustain the band at gigs. Hard to say really.

 

Definitely a gutsy type of move, putting your own name on "the project", and not without other risks too. The biggest one I see is that you might have a hard time finding people that will go along with it. But it does sound like he at least THINKS he can get some folks together behind that name.

 

Me, I'd want to know FOR SURE.

[Vito Corleone]

 

People who think it's only about ego ought to try it sometime.

 

 

I never thought it was all about ego, but sans the reasons you mentioned I'm not sure what else is left.

 

At best, a band name is a marketing device. If the band leader's name has more cache with audiences and venues than some random made-up name, I can see a good reason for using it. And especially if, like you say, the purpose of the band is to promote one person's songs. But THAT comes down to the whole original vs. covers thing. Original bands are in a whole 'nother league.

 

When we were first forming the earlier version of my present band (which was basically just 5 old guys forming your typical local "dad" band..) we spent FOREVER trying to decide on the name. I wanted to name the band after our bass player who was going to be the guy getting the gigs anyway. In our small town he's one of those guys who everybody knows and most everybody knew he played in bands although his reputation as a musician wasn't a draw, particularly. But since I figured it would be HIS face selling our band to clubowners initially, to a large degree, we might as well exploit that little bit of edge having his name on the band might give us at first.

 

He didn't want anything to do with the extra responsibility (percieved or otherwise) that would come with having the band named after him though. (If we sucked, that would be much more on him too!) So we didn't go that route.

[wades_keys]

I'm not sure I'd put Van Halen in that list (*making the "band" the object*) though. They swapped in Sammy for DLR, and while that created some backlash, Sammy wound up selling more records for them overall: including the back catalog.

 

VH imploded because Eddie turned into a freakin' head case meth addict.

 

I mean: if you're pissing off mr. good vibe Sammy Hagar, and then Michael Anthony, you're pretty much a world class dick, and the pictures of Ed's rotted-out grill leave no doubt that his drug of choice was meth.....

 

Glad to hear Ed's clean now: hope he keeps it up, cuz the other way wasn't getting it done.

 

Hell, GNR is pretty much the same deal. Hard drugs + hard personalities (AXL) = FAIL. Any band with AXL in it is doomed to fail at this point. Velvet Revolver proved that, pretty much - by succeeding in spite of hiring a drug-addict singer that has a track record of destroying bands.

 

They got 2 albums and a few good years out of that basket case though - that's more than STP has been able to pull off since getting Scott back, and it's a hell of a lot more success than AXL has managed to pull off, even though he got to keep the GNR name.

 

So it seems to me the problem with GNR was AXL, and not so much the band or any aspect of it besides that.

 

So hell, there's two good examples of where ego and dope ruined the band: Ed and AXL both just HAD to be the star of the show and the main attraction. Granted, they didn't always ask for it, but when they got it, it sure went to both of their heads in a negative way - causing bad decisions and broken bands.

 

Hard to keep ego out of it, it seems.

[Vermoulian]

Tim, good luck and more power to you. I think I understand where you are coming from.

 

Every band, even the most mercenary mainstream cover band, has to have somebody with a vision driving it. And, to move any project forward, the other people involved have to be on board supporting that vision. If they're not supporting the vision behind the band, then no matter how talented, creative, or technically proficient they are, the band is not going to work.

 

You clearly have a vision for your band, and I think it was absolutely the right thing to do for you to part ways with your old bandmates, since they clearly did not share that vision, and were not willing to get behind your vision.

 

If your goal was first and foremost to maximize your popularity/marketability/income, then you might want to make different choices. (Although if you are indeed already drawing enthusiastic crowds to your shows under your own name, maybe you're onto something.) But there's nothing wrong with pursuing a vision for a band that is not a standard mainstream cover band, as long as you realize that there may be compromises involved in doing that, and clearly you do realize that.

 

I suspect some of the people criticizing your decisions have forgotten just how lucky they are to have bands full of people who are generally on the same page as them, and I doubt any of them would put up with somebody in any of their bands who wanted to go in a different direction for one moment longer than they had to.

 

And the whole "egomaniac" thing is some of the most disingenuous bull{censored} I have read on this board. ANY band leader has to have that sense of "I know what I want" and believe in their own vision for the band, or else they will get walked all over and the band will go nowhere. There's no commandment graven in stone that says you have to entertain other opinions and facilitate anybody else's goals. The only thing you have to do is, if you want other people involved to help you realize your vision, you have to understand what they want out of playing and give them at least enough of that to keep them involved. Generally, if you can provide opportunities to perform and the prospect of making a few bucks, you can find people willing to play with you, without having to accommodate somebody else's concept of what the band should be and where it should go. Nor is there anything wrong with wanting to be the singer and lead guitarist. I have no idea what you're like as a singer, player, or front man, but, ultimately, that doesn't matter---no matter who you are (on this board, anyway) there's somebody better out there. Everybody does the best they can with what they've got.

 

Once again, good luck. Pursue your vision and see where it goes. I think you're approaching the situation with maturity and with your eyes open, and I think you're in as good a position as you can be, re attitude and outlook, for what you're trying to do.

[wades_keys]

^ Hey man, that's pretty harsh with that "disingenuous bull{censored}". Tim's been around here a while and knows us pretty well at this point.

 

Disingenuous is the exact opposite of what is happening here: in fact, I'd say that it takes more balls to come out in a spirit of good will and say what's on your mind, even when it may hurt or offend that person.

 

Disingenuous would be to say: "Sure, I've seen that work a thousand times for someone in your situation. No risk at all in that. Go for it"

 

You Chicago guys always seem to come out swinging. Lighten it up a little dude: I mean - no need for this "disingenuous bull{censored}" type of stuff. You can't pretend to know my motives or anyone elses for that matter, so please keep your judgements to yourself.

[tim_7string]

 

Tim, good luck and more power to you. I think I understand where you are coming from... ...Once again, good luck. Pursue your vision and see where it goes. I think you're approaching the situation with maturity and with your eyes open, and I think you're in as good a position as you can be, re attitude and outlook, for what you're trying to do.

 

 

Thank you, Vermoulian.

 

And that's all I need to say.

[Vito Corleone]

I'm sure there's as many reasons guys start "namesake" bands as there are "namesake" bands, but I always picture it something like this:

 

at some point a seasoned vet is between bands and is talking to a clubowner who says "well, let me know when you get your next band together and I'll put you on the schedule. I know whatever you put together will be good and heck, you're the main reason people come to the bands you're in anyway."

 

When your career and reputation get to THAT point, then it only makes sense to start flying under your own banner.

[tim_7string]

I'm sure there's as many reasons guys start "namesake" bands as there are "namesake" bands, but I always picture it something like this: at some point a seasoned vet is between bands and is talking to a clubowner who says " well, let me know when you get your next band together and I'll put you on the schedule. I know whatever you put together will be good and heck, you're the main reason people come to the bands you're in anyway. " When your career and reputation get to THAT point, then it only makes sense to start flying under your own banner.

 

You know what, David?

 

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY.

 

[kmart]

 

But you ain't gonna be hosting any Bluegrass anytime soon.

(Which, BTW, is 100% incorrect. I'm not going to dignify you with details on the Chicago Bluegrass & Blues Festival's history, however)

 

 

...well, you'll just have to pardon me and the rest of the Chicago-folks up here in 'the North' for thinking you're talking out of your ass, because up here we understand what those words you're stringing together into sentences actually mean, and the way you're using them means that you don't know squat about what you're going on about.

Again.

 

Like I posted previously, if you merely meant to say that in your area people really appreciate guitar, which NOBODY has disputed, do everyone a favor and be a man and admit that you chose the words in that initial post poorly.

 

If you still can't see that there's a difference in that initial post and what you're now claiming you said...well I'd strongly suggest you look into some ESL classes.

[wades_keys]

 

Always a pleasure....

 

Ya know,even if I was somehow insinuating that Louisville has a "better" blues scene than Chicago, or even more guitar fans per capita: you trying to trot out some bull{censored} bluegrass festival on me, when I grew up in {censored}ing KENTUCKY, is pretty funny.

 

I mean: how many times have YOU seen Bill Monroe, live? It would've had to be a few years back. {censored} dude, I can get in my car and drive 2 miles and sit right in the middle of some of the same cats that make the drive up to your city. All the best bluegrass musicians come from KY, because guess what moron: It WAS INVENTED HERE.

 

LMFAO.....

[Peckerwood]

 

Let me ask you this, David. Would you be able to stand playing with a bass player that kept messing up on every song for four hours a night? For nearly a year? When you tried several ways to get him on the same page as the rest of the group, yet it still didn't work? In a five-piece, it's one thing, but in a trio, it's extremely noticable. I have to be the lead singer, the rhythm guitarist, the lead guitarist and sometimes the bass player pulling him back to where he needs to go in the song, all at the same time. It's like I traded one kind of stress for another. I've played for so many years now that it's difficult for me to just deal with mediocrity. I can't handle it. I have to have musicians that give a {censored}. Musicians that want to improve. I have neither situation with these guys. I'm sure with your band, everyone strives to do the best they can, because it makes the band better (and gets more money for their pocketbook), right? I don't have that here. And that, ultimately, is why I am leaving.

 

 

You call that dealing with mediocrity? If it is really as you describe it then I don't even know why you are still there. I would describe him as a person with a bass. He is no bass player. No matter how many people are in the band the bass has to be solid and tight with the drums. That is the most important thing. You can't have a good band without a solid bass player who is tight with the solid drummer. Everything else is optional. You don't HAVE to have a great lead guitar player. You can not have a decent band without a really good bass player. By good I mean solid and the bottom end NEVER falls out EVER at gigs or in the studio. I mean the bottom end does not fall out even for one second.

 

A bass player that I hate and would never jam with even if he was the last bass player on earth is Billy Sheehan. I could handle jamming with AC-DCs bass player for the rest of my life though. He blows Sheehan away. It is ok if a bass player wants to play all over the bass IF and only if the bottom end NEVER falls out of the band.

 

Because on his list of duties number one is keep a solid bottom end all night long constantly. Whatever else they do they can't ever not do that. Apparently that is beyond Sheehans talent. Your bass player sucks man ditch him. The first time you play with a real bass player it will seem like the first time you ever played in a band. Everything will be so easy for you.

 

As a guitar player if you have a good bass player/drummer combination it makes playing SO EASY. But if you don't it makes it SO HARD.

[Peckerwood]

You can't worry about hurting anybodies feelings in the music business. Pussies never last long. Even other places besides Chicago.

[tim_7string]

 

Your bass player sucks man ditch him. The first time you play with a real bass player it will seem like the first time you ever played in a band. Everything will be so easy for you. As a guitar player if you have a good bass player/drummer combination it makes playing SO EASY. But if you don't it makes it SO HARD.

 

 

You got it, man. I have played with some fantastic bass players that just had a groove so thick, were so solid, it actually made me smile several times throughout the night whenever we played. And paired with the right drummer who had the same approach? Heaven. The drummer I played with is great and I just might work with him again in the future, even though the band is apparently continuing on with another guitarist/vocalist. He's certainly open to the idea. But I'll never work with that bassist again. Like you, I have to have a guy who is solid on his instrument. If it becomes a struggle just to get through every song, where is the fun in that?

[Peckerwood]

 

I'm not sure I'd put Van Halen in that list (*making the "band" the object*) though. They swapped in Sammy for DLR, and while that created some backlash, Sammy wound up selling more records for them overall: including the back catalog.

 

 

Van Halen sold 34 million records with David Lee Roth VH1 through 1984. A total of 6 records.

 

Van Halen sold18 million records with Sammy Hagar. A total of 5 records.

 

Doesn't everybody like David Lee Roth better?

Also firing a musician just for being a drug addict is stupid and its discrimination too.

 

I could list bands all night long who messed up big time doing that but I will only list one.

 

Ted Nugent. Best band he ever had by far was Derek St. Holmes, Rob Grange and Clive Davies. He fired them all because he found out they were drug addicts. Ted has never been near as good or near as popular ever since. I mean not even close. He went from selling out stadiums two nights ion a row to playing in bars. Now if they {censored} up fire them. But don't fire them just for being drug addicts. Just because somebody is a drug addict and you are straight doesn't mean they are not a better musician than you are.

[wades_keys]

 

Van Halen sold 34 million records with David Lee Roth VH1 through 1984. A total of 6 records. Van Halen sold18 million records with Sammy Hagar. A total of 5 records. Doesn't everybody like David Lee Roth better? Also firing a musician just for being a drug addict is stupid and its discrimination too. I could list bands all night long who messed up big time doing that but I will only list one. Ted Nugent. Best band he ever had by far was Derek St. Holmes, Rob Grange and Clive Davies. He fired them all because he found out they were drug addicts. Ted has never been near as good or near as popular ever since. I mean not even close. He went from selling out stadiums two nights ion a row to playing in bars. Now if they {censored} up fire them. But don't fire them just for being drug addicts. Just because somebody is a drug addict and you are straight doesn't mean they are not a better musician than you are.

 

Those back catalog sales happened while Sammy was in the band is what I was saying. So Sammy sold the current catalog quite well and also got people interested in the back catalog: he kept the band going.

[tim_7string]

 

Van Halen sold 34 million records with David Lee Roth VH1 through 1984. A total of 6 records. Van Halen sold18 million records with Sammy Hagar. A total of 5 records. Doesn't everybody like David Lee Roth better? Also firing a musician just for being a drug addict is stupid and its discrimination too. I could list bands all night long who messed up big time doing that but I will only list one. Ted Nugent. Best band he ever had by far was Derek St. Holmes, Rob Grange and Clive Davies. He fired them all because he found out they were drug addicts. Ted has never been near as good or near as popular ever since. I mean not even close. He went from selling out stadiums two nights ion a row to playing in bars. Now if they {censored} up fire them. But don't fire them just for being drug addicts. Just because somebody is a drug addict and you are straight doesn't mean they are not a better musician than you are.

 

 

I dunno, man. I don't think Ted's reasons for firing the band were based simply on the other band members being drug addicts. He probably had a bit of ego going on there as well. He might have thought that anyone can be in the band and he'd still be fine. Obviously, that was proven wrong when he made followup albums with other musicians and his popularity waned. But it might have also been that his schtick was getting worn out and was turning off his audience. There may have been many other factors that led to the demise of his being able to pack stadiums. For Peter Frampton, it was being burned out too quickly and trying to put out some great music too fast instead of taking a break to write a great followup album to his live album. He couldn't do it and he fell from grace.

 

I will say this, though. The one thing I did like about playing with the band I just left was that none of us drank (I did very rarely, but they drank O'Douls) or smoked or did drugs. At least, I never saw the guys do drugs. But the other two things for sure. Drugs affect your mind and your body. People act irrationally under the influence of substances like that. I've seen it many, many times over the years I have been playing. I'd rather deal with people that can think clearly and act professionally and a lot of people I have dealt with that were alcoholics and drug abusers were not able to act that way.

[Vito Corleone]

 

But it might have also been that his schtick was getting worn out and was turning off his audience.

 

 

Bingo. That and the fact that he barely had any good songs even when he was at his peak. "Cat Scratch Fever" and "Stranglehold" were one-riff wonders that found some appeal back in the day when something like "Smoke On The Water" could become a classic. By the end of the 70s, audiences were looking for something a LITTLE deeper and/or complex from their stadium rockers besides "Wango Tango".

[TIMKEYS]

 

Bingo. That and the fact that he barely had any good songs even when he was at his peak. "Cat Scratch Fever" and "Stranglehold" were one-riff wonders that found some appeal back in the day when something like "Smoke On The Water" could become a classic. By the end of the 70s, audiences were looking for something a LITTLE deeper and/or complex from their stadium rockers besides "Wango Tango".

 

 

 

He has done ok though ,,,, hasnt ended up dead,, seems to still look pretty good despite his age. He still can make a living. we hired the dukes to play a college gig in 71. ted was pretty well at a real low tide in his career. I would not feel too sorry for him.

[Vito Corleone]

 

He has done ok though ,,,, hasnt ended up dead,, seems to still look pretty good despite his age. He still can make a living. we hired the dukes to play a college gig in 71. ted was pretty well at a real low tide in his career. I would not feel too sorry for him.

 

 

I don't feel sorry for the guy in the least. He's obviously a savvy dude. One of those "always comes up smelling like a rose" types. Whether it's landing a spot with Damn Yankees or turning his survivalist/right wing wacko persona into enough of a cartoon to be good for a reality show or two, Ted's always managed to stay working a fairly high level.

 

Just saying that songwriting was never one of his strong suits, and that's probably been the reason for the few career low points he HAS had more than anything else.