when new members TAKE OVER THE BAND ?

[tinker925]

Ok you wise musicians here;

 

This has got to be an on going problem.....

 

I (lead singer) joined this already established band on the urgency of their NEW lead guitarist. We are both experienced and strong lead people. She was going to quit because the gal that was also a co-lead guitar was also the lead singer and she cannot carry a tune - (I mean real bad and she is also a medioce to crappy guitarist) and new guitarist said she just cant be in that {censored}ty of a project, so she talked me into singing for them - the rest of the band was THRILLED except the one who had the position taken away from her. And she was super jealous and ended up quiting (really what she did was FIRE us the two leads - she asked the rest of the band "as friends" to stay with her - but worded it as Im quitting - "Its not fun anymore").

 

How can this be avoided in the future?

 

BTW - the band went with the talent and we are moving on full steam ahead - but I do feel bad.

[SG1]

Don't worry about it. For a band to grow and move ahead, it needs to cut off all the deadwood, so that it becomes a well oiled machine. There are always going to be casualties as a band continues to improve, it might not be fair to the ones that get kicked out, but if they were pulling their weight, and continuing to improve their abilities as the band grew, they would still be there.

[BlueStrat]

 

How can this be avoided in the future?

It can't. The band hired you because you're better and you're going to help them get where they all want to be. Don't think of it as you're 'taking over', think of it as water finding it's own level. As bands progress, players come and go as progress is made. When no progress is made, sometimes players go. If your players are getting better, you're advancing. If your players are getting worse, you're going backwards.

 

Don't feel bad about someone else's reaction to change. You can't control it, and the reality is, this change might be exactly what this other singer needs. She'll either grow through it and become a better singer, or she'll flounder and fail and realize music isn't really her thing after all.

 

If you stay in this long enough (it's been nearly 40 years for me now-yeesh!) you will leave a trail of people behind, for all kinds of reasons-some will drop out ond quit, some will get fired for personality, substance abuse or musicianship issues, and sometimes a band naturally come to the end of it's life and everybody moves on, etc. The average life expectancy of the bands I've been in has been 2-5 years, and many had multiple personnel changes. The odds of a lot of those people you leave behind resenting and hating you for moving on without them are high. You just have to accept that that's how it is.

[Austincowbell]

best way to do it:

 

every time someone joins a band their role needs to be CLEARLY defined. For example: I'm looking for a new bassist for my original band. One guy emailed me and said that he had originals as well and he would like to play them. I was nice but very clear that this band has one singer and I'm him. I said that if he was ok with me doing his originals or co-writing with him we could work but the band identity needs to be clear and that means one singer, one lead guitarist, one bassist, and one drummer.

[MusicalSchizo]

I'm usually the new member who comes in a {censored}s things up. (and )

 

I will say it's never driven by ego, it's always driven by a desire to make the band the best it can be.

 

It's pretty unavoidable, really, because people's situations change, and usually people quit and you have to find new people who are always different from the people you had that just quit.

 

In my experiences, the bands (with one exception that was an almost COMPLETE change in lineup, with some VERY talented members leaving) have always done better after I've joined, partially because of what I contributed musically, but mostly because I think I've motivated them to be better on their own as well. I'm all about making bands sound even better. Like the best versions of themselves.

 

I hope it all works out for the best for you.

 

Any band is a combination of the personalities and talent that make it up, so when you get talented new people with strong personalities, it is obviously going to influence the progress of the band and people are going to adapt or go away.

 

When I joined my current band, it was as the bassist and backing vocalist. When our vocalist (who didn't play an instrument other than his voice) started to slack, I put pressure on him to get better, partially because I liked just being the bass dude/backing vocalist (and not having to worry about fronting the band), but partially because I knew I could do what he does better than him and that the band's sound was suffering from his lack of drive and showmanship. He had a drunken meltdown on stage and we had a come to Jesus meeting with him and said he needed to get better or he was gone. Initially, he committed to getting better, which made us really happy.

 

When he realized that it was work to improve, well, it stopped being fun for him, because it required homework (prior to this, we were essentially his karaoke backing as he read the words from his lyric book), so he quit. We considered getting a new vocalist, but with the caveat that they be either:

1. A way better singer than I am

2. An incredible frontperson

 

No luck finding anyone, unfortunately, so we ended up just becoming a trio, and I sing and play bass. And we make much more money now (even if we were to split it four ways, which we don't) and get better gigs than with the previous singer.

 

There are times I wish we had a fourth member (usually when I'm trying to play something complicated and sing at the same time), but it has worked out for the best, musically and professionally, for this band.

 

Brian V.

[MusicalSchizo]

best way to do it: every time someone joins a band their role needs to be CLEARLY defined. For example: I'm looking for a new bassist for my original band. One guy emailed me and said that he had originals as well and he would like to play them. I was nice but very clear that this band has one singer and I'm him. I said that if he was ok with me doing his originals or co-writing with him we could work but the band identity needs to be clear and that means one singer, one lead guitarist, one bassist, and one drummer.

 

Excellent points!

 

People definitely need to know what to expect and understand their role. Expectations must be clear, or it will certainly lead to drama. Especially with crybaby musicians.

 

Brian V.

[rhat]

 

best way to do it: every time someone joins a band their role needs to be CLEARLY defined. For example: I'm looking for a new bassist for my original band. One guy emailed me and said that he had originals as well and he would like to play them. I was nice but very clear that this band has one singer and I'm him. I said that if he was ok with me doing his originals or co-writing with him we could work but the band identity needs to be clear and that means one singer, one lead guitarist, one bassist, and one drummer.

 

 

 

Hmm I dont think I would ever limit a band to one singer. If you have really good back up singers typically they are also good enough to front some songs. Its in your best interest to let them do a few. cuts the workload and keeps the back up singers a little more happy. Single vocal bands are boring and a dime a dozen. As for doing the guys originals,,, thats a band leader choice. One can choose his way right out of a great potential bandmember. Its a fine line.

[New Trail]

 

Hmm I dont think I would ever limit a band to one singer. If you have really good back up singers typically they are also good enough to front some songs. Its in your best interest to let them do a few. cuts the workload and keeps the back up singers a little more happy. Single vocal bands are boring and a dime a dozen. As for doing the guys originals,,, thats a band leader choice. One can choose his way right out of a great potential bandmember. Its a fine line.

 

 

Yeah, you can't name a single famous band that only has ONE lead vocalist!

[GuitarPlayerFL]

There are times I wish we had a fourth member (usually when I'm trying to play something complicated and sing at the same time), but it has worked out for the best, musically and professionally, for this band.

 

This is when you pre-record your bass, play that during the tune and have the drummer follow along with a click track. You just pretend to play....it won't matter if you mess up.

[boomboomdrums]

 

Yeah, you can't name a single famous band that only has ONE lead vocalist!

 

 

RUSH

Living Colour

[rhat]

 

Yeah, you can't name a single famous band that only has ONE lead vocalist!

 

 

Sure ,, but the ones I liked the best all had multiple singers and great back ups. In the local scenes ,, the bands with multiple vocalists typically always make the best money. Sorry I like harmony along with the vocals... and more than one guy that can front. It gives you a major advantage

[New Trail]

 

........ I like harmony along with the vocals... and more than one guy that can front. It gives you a major advantage

 

 

Yeah, me, too, I totally agree.

[SteinbergerHack]

 

How can this be avoided in the future?

 

 

I rearranged two of your sentences to make the point clear. Do you want the most capable group of individuals, or are you out to play around with a few friends?

[Mario-C.]

if a new member takes over and it's for the better I'm all for it.

[Austincowbell]

 

Hmm I dont think I would ever limit a band to one singer. If you have really good back up singers typically they are also good enough to front some songs. Its in your best interest to let them do a few. cuts the workload and keeps the back up singers a little more happy. Single vocal bands are boring and a dime a dozen. As for doing the guys originals,,, thats a band leader choice. One can choose his way right out of a great potential bandmember. Its a fine line.

 

It's an original band not a variety band and judging by 99% of original bands in existence you're dead wrong. And don't say "well, I like multiple singers better" because that's your personal preference and it runs completely counter to the opinion of the record buying and ticket buying public.

[whataracket]

To me having the band have capability to do harmonies well makes things more enjoyable and people seem to really like it in a cover band.

 

As a front person where I am the primary singer, I still like having another person who sings a quarter or even a third of the tunes. It makes it much easier to get through 3 and 4 set gigs because you can get a few breaks from the singing. Also, if that other person can also do a large number of your songs in a pinch, you have a back up plan if you get a cold or something and can still do a good job covering a gig.

[SteinbergerHack]

 

It's an original band not a variety band and judging by 99% of original bands in existence you're dead wrong.

 

 

Lacuna Coil?

[BlueStrat]

 

It's an original band not a variety band and judging by 99% of original bands in existence you're dead wrong. And don't say "well, I like multiple singers better" because that's your personal preference and it runs completely counter to the opinion of the record buying and ticket buying public. __________________

Yes, that seems to be the norm now.

 

Just 30-40 years ago ( seems like an eternity, but the older you get the shorter is seems!) multiple lead vocalists in original bands were quite common. The Eagles, CSNY, Los Lobos, The Byrds, Cream, The Band, The Dead, Earth Wind and Fire, and so on.

 

Now, not so much. I often wonder why. I mean, one of the reasons I get bored with hearing any band, in a bar or at a concert, is listening to one guy sing all night. Even in my own band, I have the keyboard player sing a song or two in each set.

[iamjethro]

Ease of Marketing. Easier for a lazy person to market a "sound" or image. I do see the business sense, but it seems to me that The Beatles, Kiss, CSN, EWF, Queen (in early days) etc. found a way to make variety of voices an advantage.

 

But Van Halen, Bad Company, Led Zep, etc. did the one voice thing well, too. I am not sure you can say one approach is the devinitive way to do this thing.

[Austincowbell]

 

Ease of Marketing. Easier for a lazy person to market a "sound" or image. I do see the business sense, but it seems to me that The Beatles, Kiss, CSN, EWF, Queen (in early days) etc. found a way to make variety of voices an advantage. But Van Halen, Bad Company, Led Zep, etc. did the one voice thing well, too. I am not sure you can say one approach is the devinitive way to do this thing.

"Devinitive"? I wouldn't say that god commanded us to have one singer... but whatever....

 

I keed, I keed.

[iamjethro]

Man, speed typing is not my strength.

[tinker925]

As a front person where I am the primary singer' date=' I still like having another person who sings a quarter or even a third of the tunes. It makes it much easier to get through 3 and 4 set gigs because you can get a few breaks from the singing. QUOTE']

 

Ditto! Retaining the lyrics to 40 plus ( after a few Jack and Cokes) is a responsibility I like to share! Gives me and my voice a break and I can do sound checks!

[rhat]

 

It's an original band not a variety band and judging by 99% of original bands in existence you're dead wrong. And don't say "well, I like multiple singers better" because that's your personal preference and it runs completely counter to the opinion of the record buying and ticket buying public.

 

 

 

Tell that to the eagles or the beatles,,,or any of the big country acts. it may just be my age,,, but multiple part vocals are a big part of what attracts my dollar when it comes to buying a CD and have always proven to be the thing that made bands I have been in more money. No hard fast rules ,, but vocals sell. more vocals sell easier. What percentage of that 99 percent really go anywhere?

[slight-return]

 

it may just be my age

 

 

Dunno if it's your age. I mean

Mammas & Pappas, Three dog night, Sha Na Na , ABBA, Brothers Gibb, Oak Ridge Boys, Donnie and Marie, Human League, Thompson Twins, B-52s, Bananarama, Chumbawamba, TLC, En vogue, Menudo, New Kids on the Block, Spice Girls

 

appeal to different age groups and segments, but use a lot of ensemble vox

 

 

Percentages can be dicey, I mean it shows frequency of incidence not even correlation and correlation is not the same as causation (to assume so is superstition...I don't mean pejoratively, I mean in the skinner sense)

[Austincowbell]

 

Dunno if it's your age. I mean Mammas & Pappas, Three dog night, Sha Na Na , ABBA, Brothers Gibb, Oak Ridge Boys, Donnie and Marie, Human League, Thompson Twins, B-52s, Bananarama, Chumbawamba, TLC, En vogue, Menudo, New Kids on the Block, Spice Girls appeal to different age groups and segments, but use a lot of ensemble vox Percentages can be dicey, I mean it shows frequency of incidence not even correlation and correlation is not the same as causation (to assume so is superstition...I don't mean pejoratively, I mean in the skinner sense)

you could have added in Roxette.... but my point was in looking at last year's top selling albums:

http://www.prefixmag.com/news/coldplay-tops-global-list-of-2008s-best-selling-al/26149/

there is exactly ONE with multiple singers and that's Abba.