When looking at new bandmembers are you more interested in chemistry or ability?

[elbow]

I know, I know.. in a perfect world you want both.. but that may be a rare thing.

 

But let's say you need to replace someone in a relatively short time. Do you take the a-hole that can play/sing his/her brains out, or the perfect personality that is a little "rough around the edges".

[Roy Brooks]

They have to be folks I can get along with. When I am a hired hand it really doesn't matter whether I can hang out with them or whether they can play or not. But in bands that I am a big part of I have to get along with the folks I am playing with.

[KeysBear]

Tough question. We alternate between two bassists - one with great ability who's all about himself and the other with average ability who has stage presence and a good heart. We definitely sound better with the first but our performances have more sizzle with the second.

[FlogRock]

Depends...

 

Depends on what you mean by a-hole. If it is some arrogant prima donna type that refuses to listen to suggestions, that comes late and unprepared to practice, that doesn't help setting up etc., then I would never work with him. If it is someone with a different personality, someone that probably would not become a friend, then I would still want him in the band if he's good.

 

It also depends on what you mean by 'rough around the edges'. Some people are inexperienced or rusty, but have a lot of talent and drive, and if you remove these rough edges they can really become great. Some just aren't very musical or don't want to put in any effort, and will never become decent musicians. I love to work with the first type, even if it takes a little time.

 

But basically, I prefer being in a good band without slackers to having a good time with friends in a band. I can do that outside of the band.

[flip333]

Good info in this thread.

 

It depends on your aspirations. I am in the middle of deciding my aspirations. I am a mediocre singer and guitar player, but I love being in a band... I love it!

 

I must get along with band members. I must be friends with them. Chemistry is number one. If I don't get as many jobs because of that, then that is the price I will pay. If I do another gig with another band as a hired gun.... no, no... I won't even do that if I don't like the players.

 

I do not want to stink... but I do not do grand concerts, I do small bar gigs. Bar patrons are drinkers, and they have a great time with a mediocre band if the band is having a good time.

 

The worst situation I hate is playing with talented musicians who are slackers.... they have great talent, but refuse to practice and apply themselves.

[Knottyhed]

 

Originally posted by elbow I know, I know.. in a perfect world you want both.. but that may be a rare thing. But let's say you need to replace someone in a relatively short time. Do you take the a-hole that can play/sing his/her brains out, or the perfect personality that is a little "rough around the edges".

 

 

It'd depend on the role for me. I know i'm probably gonna get flamed for it but I think you can get away with a mediocre bassist, rythmn guitarist or drummer more than you can a mediocre singer or perhaps to a lesser extent a mediocre lead guitarist (which is kinda pointless) .

 

It also depends on what your motivations are - if you want to get a recording contract, you'd have to put more weight on ability. If you wanna do pub gigs for the free beer and the fun of it, then you'd probably go for personality more.

[GCDEF]

It has to be both. We fired a really good, fairly big name drummer (in this area anyway) because he was way too much of a drama queen. Auditioned and hired a few really nice guys who couldn't quite keep up and had to let them go too. Finally have 4 guys that work together well, but it took about a year to finally get the lineup right.

[RupertB]

 

Originally posted by Roy Brooks They have to be folks I can get along with. When I am a hired hand it really doesn't matter whether I can hang out with them or whether they can play or not. But in bands that I am a big part of I have to get along with the folks I am playing with.

 

 

Same here.

 

In a professional setting (music or otherwise) I don't need to like everybody or vice versa. My primary motivation for playing music is the enjoyment of doing it. Playing with people who I like to interact with is a big part of that.

 

Even if music was a more serious business for me, I want no part of the pricks & primadonnas. Don't care how well they play.

[KeysBear]

I agree that I don't have to like the guys I play with once we get off the stage as long as they perform like professionals. I've played in bands where we would go out to restaurants three times a week and were pretty involved in each other's personal lives. My current band is just business.

As for playing ability, I too was pretty rusty when I got back into playing live two years ago. When I listen to some tapes we made then I can hear that I was rushing my leads and in many tunes the music was playing me more than I was playing the music with style. Now I feel like I'm better than I ever was.

One type of player I'll pass on is the one who's been doing it for years, doesn't want to practice, and still has the same chops he started out with a decade ago. IMHO, if you're not challenging yourself to constantly improve you don't really love playing music.

[XamendedX]

chemestry is FAR more important IMO...especially for a band that plays live. Ability can be attained through practice, chemestry cannot.

[Tedster]

Assuming of course that there's a base line of ability there...I subscribe to the philosophy of King's X guitarist Ty Tabor:

 

"If you have a choice between two players, one who's an okay player and a really cool guy, and one who's a phenomenal player but kind of a jerk, ALWAYS choose the cool guy".

[FlogRock]

Originally posted by Knottyhed I know i'm probably gonna get flamed for it but I think you can get away with a mediocre bassist, rythmn guitarist or drummer more than you can a mediocre singer or perhaps to a lesser extent a mediocre lead guitarist (which is kinda pointless) .

 

I agree that there are many great bands where the rhythm section never does anything flashy. No complicated drum breaks, fast metal riffs on the guitar, etc... However, in any good band these guys need to be very tight, and able to make a groove, and the drummer should be able to always nail the tempos. A lot of mediocre drummers, bassists and rhythm guitarists can't do this.

 

But it is true that in a lot of (rock) music the vocal and lead guitar parts are a lot more challenging than the bass/drums/rhythm guitar parts (unfortunately ), and it's not necessary to have virtuosos on these instruments.

[Meatball Fulton]

Chemistry over ability every time.

[Knottyhed]

 

Originally posted by XamendedX chemestry is FAR more important IMO...especially for a band that plays live. Ability can be attained through practice, chemestry cannot.

 

 

Very true.

[FlogRock]

Originally posted by Tedster Assuming of course that there's a base line of ability there...I subscribe to the philosophy of King's X guitarist Ty Tabor: "If you have a choice between two players, one who's an okay player and a really cool guy, and one who's a phenomenal player but kind of a jerk, ALWAYS choose the cool guy".

I agree, but I put the bar for 'okay player' higher than some others...

[Meatball Fulton]

 

Originally posted by FlogRock in any good band these guys need to be very tight, and able to make a groove, and the drummer should be able to always nail the tempos. A lot of mediocre drummers, bassists and rhythm guitarists can't do this.

 

 

You do have to draw the line at BASIC COMPETENCE. The guy has to be able to execute the music at a basic level (in tune, in time, no mistakes). That means the bar is higher for a jazz band compared to a punk rock band.

 

The tough calls are when you come across someone who is ALMOST competent...can you afford to take the chance they will get better or not?

[Knottyhed]

Originally posted by FlogRock I agree that there are many great bands where the rhythm section never does anything flashy. No complicated drum breaks, fast metal riffs on the guitar, etc... However, in any good band these guys need to be very tight, and able to make a groove, and the drummer should be able to always nail the tempos. A lot of mediocre drummers, bassists and rhythm guitarists can't do this. But it is true that in a lot of (rock) music the vocal and lead guitar parts are a lot more challenging than the bass/drums/rhythm guitar parts (unfortunately ), and it's not necessary to have virtuosos on these instruments.

 

Wow, I thought I was going to get a plethora of drummers and bassists wanting to lynch me . I think to an extent, having too many flashy players in a band can actually be a bad thing: I played in a band once where I was one of 2 lead-guitarists; we were constantly competing (more him than me of course ) and trying to make everything complex - often to the detriment of the music. I've since realised that being solid, in time and having a good groove is more important to a prospective audience than playing 2 million notes every second (time and place for everything). Some of the most successful bands I can think of had fairly average musicians (in terms of technical, rather than song-writing ability). The Beatles and Nirvana sold and still sell way more records than Van-Halen, Iron Maiden and Steve Vai...

[THX1138]

Give me a team player over a hotshot anyday.

[Tedster]

Originally posted by FlogRock I agree, but I put the bar for 'okay player' higher than some others...

 

Well, again, it depends...and that's assuming a baseline of skill...wherever that baseline is.

 

If you're doing Allan Holdsworth type stuff, that baseline is going to be higher than if you're covering George Thorogood stuff.

[guitarmook]

we're ALL 'rough around the edges'...

 

our music is not precise, so we don't need a 'great' player... because it's kind of a loose, feel-thing, it's VERY much about personality.

 

 

If they know how to listen, and how to fit-in, and play along w/ 'the band', then for the most part, chops don't matter.

 

 

 

At least that's how it works with this band.

[Lee Flier]

 

Originally posted by Knottyhed It'd depend on the role for me. I know i'm probably gonna get flamed for it but I think you can get away with a mediocre bassist, rythmn guitarist or drummer more than you can a mediocre singer or perhaps to a lesser extent a mediocre lead guitarist (which is kinda pointless)

 

 

I don't agree about the drummer. I've long held that no matter how good everybody else is, a band is really only as good as its drummer. And a great drummer can cover a multitude of a band's sins.

 

Now that said, a "great drummer" does not mean necessarily "a flashy drummer" (depending on your musical style of course). But you could line up 10 different drummers and have them even just play a straight backbeat and it will sound different between the 10 of them. A great drummer's ability is not always obvious until you play with a lesser drummer and realize how un-enjoyable the whole experience of playing is by comparison.

[Lee Flier]

 

Originally posted by elbow But let's say you need to replace someone in a relatively short time. Do you take the a-hole that can play/sing his/her brains out, or the perfect personality that is a little "rough around the edges".

 

 

Well, I have a tendency to make friends from among talented musicians. That is, I go to see live bands a lot when I'm not gigging, and if I think somebody's a great player I make a point of talking to them. If they're a jerk, oh well, nothing happens from there. But if they're cool, then we'll hang out and end up getting to know each other. In general, people who have the talent and perseverence and sensitivity to become good musicians are also the kind of people who make good friends.

 

As a result, if I need somebody to do a gig or session on short notice I have a bunch of people I could call, who are good players, and not assholes.

 

If I had to pick somebody cold though, it would depend on the situation. If it was a short term thing, I'd probably go for the better musician. For a long term band situation, I'd rather not play with a band than play with jerks. Life's too short. So if I found somebody who maybe wasn't the world's greatest player (within reason), but was easy to get along with, I'd go for that and hope they got better. If they didn't get better over time though, I might start getting frustrated and keep looking around for that more "ideal candidate."

[worthyjoe]

I think it depends on your situation. I have a day job and have no plans to ever quit it, and I play in a cover band purely for fun and some extra cash. So I value chemistry/attitude over ability. On the other hand, if you are really ambitious with an original or even cover band, and want to really make a name for yourself and be as huge as possible.. then I think you might want to value ability over everything else.

 

Either way, I think you have to strike a reasonable balance, but you can either lean one way or the other.

[FlogRock]

A lot of you seem to take 'basic competence' for granted...

 

Don't you ever meet drummers that rush whenever they play live, bassists that play before the beat, sloppy lead guitarists, singers that do not always sing in tune...?

 

I do.

But I agree that once this basic competence is covered, you rarely need someone with insane chops.

[Lee Flier]

 

Originally posted by FlogRock A lot of you seem to take 'basic competence' for granted... Don't you ever meet drummers that rush whenever they play live, bassists that play before the beat, sloppy lead guitarists, singers that do not always sing in tune...?

 

 

Sure. I don't bother joining a band with anybody like that.

 

Well, actually some singers who don't always sing in tune are fine. They might have a unique style that doesn't really require them to be perfectly in tune (e.g. Dylan, Jagger). It just depends on the music... some styles work well when they're done a bit sloppy.