Is a Band a Democracy?

[strathound]

Yes but being hard to get along with and naming the band after you go hand in hand

Perhaps in your experience, that's true. However, in the blues world, it is simply a tradition where you name the band after the front man. In my town, here is a list of the bands I'd be honored to play in:

1. Anson and the Rockets
2. Smokin' Joe Kubek
3. Hash Brown and the Browntones
4. Mike Morgan and the Crawl
5. Holland K. Smith
6. Lucky Peterson
7. "Mighty" Mike and the Majestics

But feel free to insinuate that we're all egomaniacs. Doesn't bother me a bit. All the guys I've listed above, myself included, are great guys to work with that gig regularly and treat their band members well. And almost all of them played in someone else's band for a long time until they felt they were ready to headline. It's just part of the business. Heck, even our own Pat Coast has a band named after himself. And I'd work for Pat anytime.

[Kevin T]

Yes and no
you missed a detail I said bands with first and last names "John Smith" band
are trouble Most not all on your list like " John & the cruisers" It takes a major ego to clearly take personal top billing and the power trip that it implies

Perhaps in your experience, that's true. However, in the blues world, it is simply a tradition where you name the band after the front man. In my town, here is a list of the bands I'd be honored to play in: 1. Anson and the Rockets 2. Smokin' Joe Kubek 3. Hash Brown and the Browntones 4. Mike Morgan and the Crawl 5. Holland K. Smith 6. Lucky Peterson 7. "Mighty" Mike and the Majestics But feel free to insinuate that we're all egomaniacs. Doesn't bother me a bit. All the guys I've listed above, myself included, are great guys to work with that gig regularly and treat their band members well. And almost all of them played in someone else's band for a long time until they felt they were ready to headline. It's just part of the business. Heck, even our own Pat Coast has a band named after himself. And I'd work for Pat anytime.

[strathound]

Yes and no you missed a detail I said bands with first and last names "John Smith" band are trouble Most not all on your list like " John & the cruisers" It takes a major ego to clearly take personal top billing and the power trip that it implies

Ok, so you aren't including "Bob and the ....?" Fine. Although I would suggest that there's not much difference.

Does it take an ego to put your name on the band? Sure. I'd go so far as to argue that if you're gonna front a band, you'd better have an ego and enough self confidence to command a room and draw a crowd. But categorizing it as a "power trip" is just insulting. You don't get it. Again, blues might not be your thing. But I'm talking specifically about the blues community. Name me one blues band that doesn't have a person's name in it? I'll spot you "Roomful of Blues". I'll even throw in "The Mighty Blue Kings", although they just renamed the band "Ross Bonn and the Mighty Blue Kings."

Why does this happen in the blues community? Are all blues musicians on a power trip? LOL. Maybe so man. Maybe so. But there are other factors. First of all, blues players are total whores (in a nice way ) when it comes to playing in multiple bands. If you're a good player, you're constantly sitting in with other people. This keeps 'em workin' all week long. So if you have a gig, they don't care who's name is on the marquee, they only care if they are getting paid or not. And it works both ways. If an individual musician is willing to do the leg work to develop a name for themselves and book gigs, they can recruit people to play no matter what they call it.

Are the guys in the rock-n-roll world on a power trip when they do this? Maybe so. I can't speak for that. But I know down here where I play, it ain't so.

YMMV,

[coyote-1]

I like the benevolent dictatorship model. In my band I am the leader - but I solicit opinion on everything and am entirely willing to make changes that suit the players.

I just joined another band. The singer is the leader, and he consults everyone on everything but when decision time comes he's the one who has to step up.

The "everyone's a leader" thing just does not occur in the real world. It's CEO-speak, and has no place in the reality of being in a small, intimate group of musicians working toward a goal. IMO ya gotta have one person that steps up and makes decisions, while being conscious and respectful of the other people in the room.

[tim_7string]

Yes and no you missed a detail I said bands with first and last names "John Smith" band are trouble Most not all on your list like " John & the cruisers" It takes a major ego to clearly take personal top billing and the power trip that it implies

Soooooo....

John Smith: cool
John Smith & The Brainiacs: cool

John Smith BAND: NOT cool?

Seems a little odd to me.

Orrrr...am I missing something here?

My own two-cents on working in a band called John Smith Band or just John Smith (since I currently work in one) is that I get along with the bandleader very well. He is a nice, friendly guy and gives everyone their own moments to shine onstage.

However, whenever there is a moment that he feels like singing a little longer or starting out a song we didn't previously agree to (but one we usually know how to play), he will...and we respectfully step aside as he does so.

I feel that if his name is on the marquee, we have a built-in crowd. A guaranteed audience that has seen the guy over many, many years. I get the benefit of playing with someone established and am also allowed the opportunity to strut my stuff for a few songs. It's a cool job.

[strathound]

The "everyone's a leader" thing just does not occur in the real world. It's CEO-speak, and has no place in the reality of being in a small, intimate group of musicians working toward a goal. IMO ya gotta have one person that steps up and makes decisions, while being conscious and respectful of the other people in the room.

 

 

I agree. In fact, in the best bands, that band leader typically goes out of his/her way to keep the band happy because without them, he's playing solo. It's a good system.

[Los Padre]

I vote no.

[SpaceNorman]

The debate over what is the "best" way to govern a band is sorta like the Abbot and Costello "Who's on First" skit. There is no "best" - so there is no right answer.

The reality is that a band without effective leadership is doomed to fail. Bands with a "designated leader" that everybody doesn't willingly follow -or- "democratic" bands who's group decisions don't get real buy in from all members suffer from a similar leadership crisis that sooner or later will lead to the group's demise.

Successful bands find a leadership solution that works for them - and not worry about what it's called.

[strathound]

Successful bands find a leadership solution that works for them - and not worry about what it's called.

 

 

I agree. Give me any successful "democratic" band, and I bet with a little observation, you would see that there is an implied hierarchy. Sometimes this can be as simple as one or two guys have more mileage or ability. It's a respect thing. In any group of people, these dynamics are always at play.

[SpaceNorman]

I agree. Give me any successful "democratic" band, and I bet with a little observation, you would see that there is an implied hierarchy. Sometimes this can be as simple as one or two guys have more mileage or ability. It's a respect thing. In any group of people, these dynamics are always at play.

....or control of the "means of production" - i.e., PA, lights, rehearsal space and/or contacts and relationships for work. In many cases it's simply effort. A guy who makes the effort to lay out a plan .. AND... puts in the effort to make it come together and work will usually find the rest of the band happily following his lead simply because it's the path of least resistance. As long as the "destination" the path of least resistance is headed for isn't totally offensive to the rest of the band - he who provides it IS the de facto leader.

I'm usually very happy to support somebody who "leads from the front" - even if I'm not 100% crazy about the direction he's leading it in. I've always come out by following a "do-er" than by stymied by somebody who attempts to "lead" through veto power.

The SpaceNorman

[wades_keys]

I'm usually very happy to support somebody who "leads from the front" - even if I'm not 100% crazy about the direction he's leading it in. I've always come out by following a "do-er" than by stymied by somebody who attempts to "lead" through veto power. The SpaceNorman

I hear ya.

Having been in a situation that was stymied by contrary folks using their veto power, I've oft wondered what motivates such people?

Maybe they feel "left out" of the decision making, so they use obstructionist tactics as a way of feeling like they are important?

[Kevin T]

SHEEESH I give up can't anyone besides me not see the difference between using your
( A) first name "and the cruisers" and
(B) using first PLUS Last name on first billing ?
with (A) no one knows who John is
with (B) everyone knows who John Smith is Big Difference

And yes I'm a 10 yr blues keyboardist & understand this has a different meaning in that world But in rock pop etc IMHO John Smith band = power trip

Soooooo.... John Smith: cool John Smith & The Brainiacs: cool John Smith BAND: NOT cool? Seems a little odd to me. Orrrr...am I missing something here? My own two-cents on working in a band called John Smith Band or just John Smith (since I currently work in one) is that I get along with the bandleader very well. He is a nice, friendly guy and gives everyone their own moments to shine onstage. However, whenever there is a moment that he feels like singing a little longer or starting out a song we didn't previously agree to (but one we usually know how to play), he will...and we respectfully step aside as he does so. I feel that if his name is on the marquee, we have a built-in crowd. A guaranteed audience that has seen the guy over many, many years. I get the benefit of playing with someone established and am also allowed the opportunity to strut my stuff for a few songs. It's a cool job.

 

[Terry Allan Hall]

My buddy Jeff, a/k/a 12Pack, and I have been gigging together since May of 04. We started as an duo, and have grown one member as a time to our current 5-person arrangement. Through all of the changes I have always considered the band as "ours". While we seek the advice of the other members, in the end we have always made the final decisions. Our most recent addition joined us just a few months ago. A great musician with a lot of depth, and a good guy too. But he clearly wants creative say in the band, to the point of advocating a change in our structure. I've made a point to keep my mouth shut to keep harmony amongst the band, but I'm at my breaking point. I'm about to tell this new member that the band is Jeff and mine, and that while we value his input, we will make all decisions. If he can not accept this, he should move on. Jeff and I have built a good band with a real nice following. It's been incredible fun, but this member is beginning to suck the fun out of things - for me at least. I'm sure at this point it's only bothering me, and that's why I haven't said anything. This new member is a friend of another member, so if I anger him, I may loose two members. I feel as though I'm stuck. If I say something I loose two members and I'm looking at a lot of work to replace them. But if I say nothing, the band may change direction. Am I just being a jerk? A control freak? Selfish? I feel as though I need to protect what Jeff and I have built. Are bands democracies? In my mind, they are not, but if I'm wrong I will change my position.

My trio is definitely NOT a democracy, and I've honestly never heard of a successful band that was! When I hire a bassist or percussionist, I emphasize this fact, so there's as little drama as possible. I pay them a specified rate and if the venue stiffs me (as has happened, but only a few times), they still get paid that specified rate.

I will listen to suggestions, and am open to good ideas, but when all is said and done, I call the shots...they are employees and I treat them w/ respect and pay them well.

Just as an orchestra needs "that dude that waves the stick" (conductor and baton, respectively), there has to be someone who leads the others...otherwise, there'll be as many directions as there are members and nothing gets done right!

Set this fellow down and politely (but firmly) correct his notions...if he can't live with it being the way it has to be, he's simply in the wrong band...might as well get this over with!

[GreenAsJade]

 

I'm about to tell this new member that the band is Jeff and mine, and that while we value his input, we will make all decisions. If he can not accept this, he should move on.

 

 

There's a step before this, which you can try, which is to just be the leader.

 

For example, pick the next suggestion that you don't want from the guy and say "Yeah, I've thought that through, but we're not doing it". That's what the leader does. You don't _have_ to beat your chest and wear a leader badge.

 

If it comes up again, "Actually, I think I already mentioned we're not doing that".

 

Third time, then you have no choice but to put it in a person's face who's the leader. This will be an "interesting" thing to handle. To do it quietly to one side, so as not to create face-saving hassle? Or to do it with the whole band in the discussion, so as to have their backing. What if they've never really thought about it, and are happy with it when it's just how it is, but get twitchy when some guy starts beating his breast?

 

Tricky!

 

Let us know how you go (or how you went, if you already did!)

 

GaJ

[Gary in NJ]

Let us know how you go (or how you went, if you already did!)

 

 

I actually did respond back in post #45...

 

"At our rehearsal last night, the member in our band that prompted this thread made a few suggestions about dropping two songs. The band discussed it and agreed to drop the songs. I didn't agree with one of the suggestions, but in the end it didn't matter, the consensus was to drop the song.

 

I believe that our band is a democracy, with defined leadership (Jeff and I). Jeff and I have established who we are (acoustic rock band, dancable covers, working every other week), and the band as a whole operates within that framework.

 

I really appreciate all of the feedback everyone has provided. It really helped me work through something I was struggling with and I now have clarity on our band dynamics."

 

There has been great input to this thread. As an update, in the last month our band has really found itself and is working well together. I have learned that our newest member didn't have bad intentions; he just speaks his mind.

 

We have a very active 2008 ahead and I look forward to working with all of my...er...the members of the band.

[tim_7string]

SHEEESH I give up can't anyone besides me not see the difference between using your ( A) first name "and the cruisers" and (B) using first PLUS Last name on first billing ? with (A) no one knows who John is with (B) everyone knows who John Smith is Big Difference And yes I'm a 10 yr blues keyboardist & understand this has a different meaning in that world But in rock pop etc IMHO John Smith band = power trip

Think I gotcha now. Using the full name is bad in either case, whether it's "Johnny Appleseed & The Rotten Apples" or "Johnny Appleseed Band," but not "Johnny & The Rotten Apples." Correct?

Somebody and the So-And-So's is better if you want to feature the main songwriter (ala Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band) and they have been established for a while (perhaps starting out as just The E Street Band), but if some yo-yo just comes out with his first or second band as "The Joe Doofus Band," it would make some people scratch their hands and think, "Who the hell is that and why should we care?"

So the trick is this...at what point is someone "allowed" to go out as their own name, other than as a solo vocal/acoustic guitar or solo vocal/piano person?

I used to think this way about people in bands called "John Smith Band," especially if they acted like a tyrant on stage, even if they're only playing the local dive. But not every bandleader is that way. I know because I've been in two bands that were billed as the lead singer's stage name and both are very nice people. Granted, one went by the "& The Band Name" and the other by "blah blah Band." Still, most of the time, the places that advertise us would use the lead singer's name only on the marquee (not enough room for the complete name). Did it bug me? As long as I got paid what we agreed to, we could have been called "The Piece Of {censored} Band" for all I cared.

Well, maybe I'd put a stop to that one.

Some people just prefer band names as opposed to featuring one performer over all others. That's fine and might be the situation in your case. I guess I am lucky and found it isn't so bad playing in a group that has someone else in the big spotlight.

[anothertxn]

We followed the rule of the majority. It works best in a trio, but can work in any other group...although even numbers could make it interesting. Basically, you have a vote on any particular issue. The majority takes it, the minority is required to stop complaining. The theory is that I wouldn't be in a band with these folks if I didn't trust their tastes and talent. Thus, if they think something is good and I'm resisting, they're probably right and I'm being a prick. Perhaps consider that option?