What are the issues in playing in multiple bands?

[Lee Flier]

Kramer, my remarks weren't meant to be harsh at all. You said yourself that none of the bands you're in have ambitions to tour or anything much beyond what you're doing now, due to everyone having day jobs and families. And that's fine. If everybody's on the same page, then it works for you. If you were in a band with people who wanted to be full time musicians and tour all the time, then you probably couldn't do that - in fact you'd probably consider that a pretty {censored}ty thing to do to your family. Right? What's harsh or ignorant about that?

 

I believe you that you're well prepared and all that - I've worked with plenty of musicians who are in multiple bands and have no trouble keeping up musically. That's why I work with them in the first place. But that doesn't mean it's not a major buzzkill, again, when you have to turn down a great gig because someone else is gigging with another band. That effectively knocks down the level of commitment that anyone including the band leader can have, and I don't think a lot of people consider this.

[New Trail]

 

.....Strangely, the bands/bandmates that griped the loudest about my other projects have always been the bands that gigged the least.......

 

 

Man, isn't THAT the truth! And I've also noticed that they want what other bands have, gigs, exposure, prestige, etc., but they aren't willing to do what it takes, what the other bands are willing to do, to get it.

[rhat]

I think the best model for a band is a solo act that runs an expandable show. it lets the main singer songwriter work as much as they can. I play keys for a guy that does that. Its very flexable. He can do a duo , a trio , a full band. the guys who back him can still do other projects with other acts. Its really the only way for a full time musican to make it work. He doesnt have to feed a whole band. Typically these guys have guys who can fill in if they have a regular guy MIA.

[Rekel]

 

Alot of it depends on if you have players that are full time guys who have to support themselves as musicans.

 

 

Exactly.

[ChordGirl]

 

Alot of it depends on if you have players that are full time guys who have to support themselves as musicans. Its pretty hard to do that with one band if you are not a solo act.

 

 

That's how almost all of the truly full-timers do it around here, too. They're all in multiple bands (unless they're the frontman) and they work together with subs to play as much as they all can.

[Kramerguy]

 

If you were in a band with people who wanted to be full time musicians and tour all the time, then you probably couldn't do that - in fact you'd probably consider that a pretty {censored}ty thing to do to your family. Right? What's harsh or ignorant about that?

 

 

But...

 

My originals band DOES have that ambition.. Maybe I could have explained things better, but it's my MAIN band, and if we can make a solid living touring, then that's what we will do. And I do stress SOLID living, meaning the ability to support my family, home, bills both at home and on the road, etc.. The other bands would obviously get dropped in that case. But right now.. We're not at that level of songwriting or performance.. so it's a bit of a stretch to even think about, but I rule nothing out for the future... I also don't bank on dreams. I'm pretty grounded on logic with it all, but I don't see going on tour as being {censored}ty to my family.

 

Am I to believe that every touring musician out there is single and has no kids? What about traveling salesmen? Professional sports players, coaches, bus drivers, towel boys? What about everyone else who is on the road a lot? Sure they have kids. Why are musicians singled out as bad parents for going on tour, yet the 3rd baseman for the Phillies is a great {censored}ing guy?

[Rekel]

 

Am I to believe that every touring musician out there is single and has no kids? What about traveling salesmen? Professional sports players, coaches, bus drivers, towel boys? What about everyone else who is on the road a lot? Sure they have kids. Why are musicians singled out as bad parents for going on tour, yet the 3rd baseman for the Phillies is a great {censored}ing guy?

 

 

You're right, man. Some tours I did lasted for as long as 8 months. I'm talking about living non stop in hotels all over the world for that long and never get home once. Now, I don't have kids myself but some members of the band did and they just flew their families in to join them every once in a while. I remember their wives and children had a great time when they visited us on a tour for a few days.

[Lee Flier]

 

Am I to believe that every touring musician out there is single and has no kids? What about traveling salesmen? Professional sports players, coaches, bus drivers, towel boys? What about everyone else who is on the road a lot? Sure they have kids. Why are musicians singled out as bad parents for going on tour, yet the 3rd baseman for the Phillies is a great {censored}ing guy?

 

 

I'm not singling anybody out, and I never said any of those other people were great. All I said was that IF a musician (or anybody) makes a decision that he or she can't be as committed to being in a touring band full time because of being a parent, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make them any less of a musician or anything, which is what you seemed to take exception to.

 

As for touring or any job that requires someone to be away from the family a lot... like Rekel said, I don't think it's so bad if one isn't away for really long stretches at a time. Pro athletes play home games a lot and they have an off season, so they're actually home quite a lot. A band going on tour for 6 months when you have small children, I'd have to say would be pretty {censored}ty. Yes, people do it, and if they're making enough money to take the family on the road for part of the time, then they can make it work.

 

I know lots of people who were the children of executives or salesmen who had to travel all the time, and as adults, they resent it, and think it was {censored}ed up, and make a point of not doing the same thing to their kids.

[rhat]

 

I'm not singling anybody out, and I never said any of those other people were great. All I said was that IF a musician (or anybody) makes a decision that he or she can't be as committed to being in a touring band full time because of being a parent, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make them any less of a musician or anything, which is what you seemed to take exception to. As for touring or any job that requires someone to be away from the family a lot... like Rekel said, I don't think it's so bad if one isn't away for really long stretches at a time. Pro athletes play home games a lot and they have an off season, so they're actually home quite a lot. A band going on tour for 6 months when you have small children, I'd have to say would be pretty {censored}ty. Yes, people do it, and if they're making enough money to take the family on the road for part of the time, then they can make it work. I know lots of people who were the children of executives or salesmen who had to travel all the time, and as adults, they resent it, and think it was {censored}ed up, and make a point of not doing the same thing to their kids.

 

 

 

The time a job takes really has nothing to do with being on the road. Some career paths are hell on family life. I was in aviation. It really didnt matter if i was out on the road flying or in town. I still spend 7 days a week at the airport. Now I did end up divorced. My time with my daughter suffered because of the job, but dad had to do what dad had to do. Ideal no. You really need to look at these things from a career point of view. The career path I had required dear old dad to be on call,, and spend pretty well every day at the airport. It didnt matter if i was in timbuck two or 10 miles away in my office baby sitting the phones and taking care of the flight schools and flying charters. You are either willing to buck up and do the job or not. Lots of guys would never have been willing to do what I did.... but they always seemed to be the ones that expected to get the career breaks that I got. The reason why they didnt get them was they were trying to straddle the line between a normal life and one of an aviation nomad.

[stomias]

Have played in up to 4 bands. As long as your open and honest....no problems. The biggest problem has been playing the same songs in different bands. Different arrangements different keys. When you commit to a booking with one of the bands you have to stick to it. If band A books a club gig at $100 a man and a week later band B calls with a corporate gig for $750 a man....you know the answer.

[Kramerguy]

I don't pretend to say I don't see your points. I just don't see touring as all doom and gloom for one's family, nor do I see it as {censored}ty. I just feel there's a balanced way to handle everything in life, and most peoples failures are because they didn't take a balanced approach, or didn't try hard enough. Of course there are other people involved - an uncooperative spouse will surely screw that balance up.

 

I guess people need to be happy where they are before they can advance in life? I'm pretty happy right now, even though I might be coming off as {censored}ty.

 

It's all in the end.

[Rekel]

I forgot to mention: I was in the fortunate position to have toured with acts that could afford to pay us musicians well. Fees of nearly $700,- a gig per person were quite common (and this is recalculated using today's exchange rate, I have no idea what it amounts to nowadays since I'm speaking of the '90's in this particular case).

 

Anyway, people would generally make enough money during a few months of touring that they could take the rest of the year off, so to speak, although they (and I) would still gig locally with other bands and do studio sessions during this break, though.

 

Most of my colleagues would then have plenty of quality time to spend with their families at home everyday for months on end and make up for 'lost time'.

[Lee Flier]

I don't pretend to say I don't see your points. I just don't see touring as all doom and gloom for one's family, nor do I see it as {censored}ty. I just feel there's a balanced way to handle everything in life, and most peoples failures are because they didn't take a balanced approach, or didn't try hard enough.

 

I tend to think it's because they didn't think it through enough, and that's really my only point in this thread - not to judge anybody as an individual, but just to put some points of view out there that don't seem to be said too often. I have no idea what anybody's individual circumstances are, only that a lot of bands break up or don't reach their potential because of family obligations (which again, I don't think is a bad thing unless you are holding other people back who don't have families and have bigger ambitions than yours), and a lot of families break up due to somebody's career ambitions (musical or otherwise). A lot of people don't think through all the options, what would really make them happy, before jumping willy nilly into another musical project OR a family, for that matter. So if expressing these points helps anybody make a decision, then my work here is done. If you're already doing something that works for you and your bandmates and/or family, then none of this applies to you.

 

I guess people need to be happy where they are before they can advance in life?

 

Not at all - in fact most people are driven to advance in life because they're NOT happy where they are. Then too, there are people who are happy and don't realize it until they do something to screw it up. Everything is a trade off, and it's important to do some real soul searching and figure out what's most important to you, and then do what you have to do to protect that.