#1
So ive joined this new prog band and things are good. Unfortunately tho the other guys are pretty inexperienced with playing in bands especially in prog where its more difficult to get things done. They dont learn stuff in advance, which is a pain, but in prog its just a nightmare because you cant get through a song together without stopping. I dont want to be taking over the band but i have more experience than anyone and i think that i have to say what i think the situation should be.

I think the singer is getting the impression that i am trying to dominate the band because i have a lot of full songs written with mp3s and tabs, but its purely to get the band started because at the moment no one else writes their stuff down or puts things on mp3 and if it is an 8 minute song its impossible for everyone to learn that inside the rehersal room. We play through the singers songs and he doesnt even know that the chords he is playing are, so we are trying to do 8 minute songs by ear. We jam songs for 15 minutes then by the next week no one remembers the jam or bothers to record it so we just do another jam which i feel is a waste of time.

How should i approach this?
#3
Quote by iwannabesedated
Tell them exactly what you told us and don't take their crap.


+1

They won't get anywhere if they don't fall in line. Sad, but true.
Quote by Jesus_Dean
There's bound to be a drummer here that can help you, otherwise check YouTube for tutorial vids.
Quote by yoduh4077
MY TIME HAS COME.
Quote by Jesus_Dean
^^^See! Told ya so!
#5
Quote by yoduh4077
+1

They won't get anywhere if they don't fall in line. Sad, but true.


This and if they start to give you any **** Growl at the that aut-a-show-em.
Seriously tell em i mean the worse thing that could happen is that they kick you out of a ****ty band.....
#6
Quote by stalestrings
This and if they start to give you any **** Growl at the that aut-a-show-em.
Seriously tell em i mean the worse thing that could happen is that they kick you out of a ****ty band.....

.


#7
Why would they be mad that your doing most of the work?

If all your doing is writing songs that go in the musical direction everyone has agreed with I don't see a problem with what your doing. Keep doing what you're doing and if they don't like it at least you have a bunch of stuff to start your own band with.
(\__/)
(='.'=)Help the Bunny
(")_(")
#8
I used to be in a similar situation, the other members wouldn't write any music, just wanted to jam, not record those jams or anything, but when I would write a song, bring it to the table they would be upset because it wasn't something they wrote or had input in.

The simple fact was they would not contribute any work but complained about how I wrote songs. In the end I left the band and the bassist is addicted to drugs again and I've written plenty more songs.

So what I suggest is either lay down some ground rules, or leave. Bands rarely work as a democracy, especially if there's one doing all the work.
#9
oh man, i was in your band, and worst of all, I WAS YOU!

my old singer wanted so badly to run the show, but he knew absolutely zero theory, didn't play an instrument, and thought that "chorus" meant "the part where he was supposed to shout... always."

i eventually left that band, but before doing so, I tried this, and the results were positive:

explain to your singer (that's who you said had the problem, right?) that a band is really two bands... there's the band that an audience sees on stage. He's the leader of that band. He's the "frontman," it's what he does... he sings, and as such, he speaks for all of you...

...on stage.

but then there's the other band made up of the same members: that's the band that shows up for practice, that's writing and arranging songs. You're the leader of that band, because you're the biggest contributor thus far, and until your bandmates can replicate what you bring to the table, it's in everyones best interrest to (use kinder words in place of these when you're standing at the plate) STFU and do as they're told.
#10
Quote by trem7
I used to be in a similar situation, the other members wouldn't write any music, just wanted to jam, not record those jams or anything, but when I would write a song, bring it to the table they would be upset because it wasn't something they wrote or had input in.

The simple fact was they would not contribute any work but complained about how I wrote songs. In the end I left the band and the bassist is addicted to drugs again and I've written plenty more songs.

So what I suggest is either lay down some ground rules, or leave. Bands rarely work as a democracy, especially if there's one doing all the work.


Because you left the band?

Anyhow TS, what GrisKy said is the way forward, it works a treat!
#11
Quote by Myshadow46_2
Because you left the band?

Anyhow TS, what GrisKy said is the way forward, it works a treat!


Basically because there's no reason for him not to be. It was understood that while I was around he wasn't indulging in that **** and now that I'm not my understanding is he's fallen back into old habits. Which weren't good at all haha.
#12
Quote by GrisKy
oh man, i was in your band, and worst of all, I WAS YOU!

my old singer wanted so badly to run the show, but he knew absolutely zero theory, didn't play an instrumen
t, and thought that "chorus" meant "the part where he was supposed to shout... always."

i eventually left that band, but before doing so, I tried this, and the results were positive:

explain to your singer (that's who you said had the problem, right?) that a band is really two bands... there's the band that an audience sees on stage. He's the leader of that band. He's the "frontman," it's what he does... he sings, and as such, he speaks for all of you...

...on stage.

but then there's the other band made up of the same members: that's the band that shows up for practice, that's writing and arranging songs. You're the leader of that band, because you're the biggest contributor thus far, and until your bandmates can replicate what you bring to the table, it's in everyones best interrest to (use kinder words in place of these when you're standing at the plate) STFU and do as they're told.


1. When a singer can sing, he is playing an instrument which is his voice. If you knew so much theory you would of known that.

2. A band like that don't last long and if it does last, it only contains 1-2 original members. TBH, I wouldn't call that a band but a solo project. There will always be bands that have a main contributer but unlike you it doesn't feed their ego. So, if you contribute the most songs in the band than you're the leader and you call the shots? What is this? China? Seriously, you need to wake up and understand how bands function. A band isn't about counting how much songs a person makes but about how the band functions as a group. Band members shouldn't feel like they have to follow anyone. Some people aren't as gifted in the songwriting department. The band should call shots not one dude.
Last edited by The Arsis at Oct 9, 2009,
#13
The Arsis
I'm guessing you haven't been doing the band thing for very long.
#15
Wow! 2 bands in 2 years. You must know everything about bands then, right?

In the course of my life I've been in 3 bands, and each lasted 3-4 years. Hmm, that's more than half your lifetime. Please excuse me for my stupidity, and thinking your post sounded a bit naive.

All bands work differently. One thing that has been the same in all the ones I've been in, is the primary writer of a song, has control of the band for that song. It is their(or my concept), the rest of the band is there to help that concept to be realized. If I'm told to change my part, I change it, and I don't think of the writer as a dictator. I expect, and get the same respect in return.

If you think that total democracy works all of the time in a band, I respectfully disagree. As for ego, you might give yours a check, or you may just be naturally pretentious.
#16
Quote by GrisKy
but then there's the other band made up of the same members: that's the band that shows up for practice, that's writing and arranging songs. You're the leader of that band, because you're the biggest contributor thus far, and until your bandmates can replicate what you bring to the table, it's in everyones best interrest to (use kinder words in place of these when you're standing at the plate) STFU and do as they're told.


"The dots are where i say they are, Donny. Melody and Tune, thats yo trade, you a tunesmith." - Sling Blade

I get a kick out band dissagreements. I understand them though, I guess. Whats fun for one is a pain in the ass for another, its a win-lose a lot of the time.
1981 Gibson Les Paul Custom (Black Beauty)
1980 Marshall JMP 2204
#17
Arsis: you're right, voice is an instrument, one that you have to have control over to play. I could sing in the shower the same way I could play chopsticks behind a piano all day long, but that doesn't mean I know what the f*** I'm doing. Suffice it to say, I know my old bandmates better than you know my old bandmates.

A part of me assumes that you have the typical teenager mindset regarding a skewed image of democracy, and that you have no idea whatsoever of how the real world works, but there's also the chance that perhaps I wasn't as clear in my original post as I had hoped to be. So, let me try to spell it out again:

The leadership role of all facets of band life should be delegated to the person best suited for the job. That doesn't mean the individual in this position is the "dictator" of the band, and I'm sure, like the rest of us, the OP would love to have other sources of reliable input. However, if he's not getting it, it's predominately his burden to shoulder. Would an NFL quarterback ever say, "know what? I'm tired of all these deep passes I have to throw. Let the waterboy play QB for awhile. He hasn't thrown ANY deep passes!" Of course not! In the same way, when my drummer, who holds an MBA, says the deal we're being offered is essentially a pair of paper handcuffs, I'll read it on my own (because that's how I am), but I'm going to trust his judgement. You see, that's exatly the point I'm trying to make: it's not a matter of who has authority over another in the band, it's a matter of having enough trust in your bandmates in areas where they excell to put them incharge. Leadership roles (in bands, not so much in third world countries) are given, not taken. From what I can tell from the OP, he already has this role, and his singer resents it, even though OP is productive. That tells me the ego problem rests with the singer, not OP.

...but egos are not neccessarily bad. It takes a bit of an ego to hop on stage ad do your thing, especially as a singer, which is why I say to give him leadership over that area. Give him a vested interrest in a facet of the band, and more likely than not, he'll succeed, and allow OP to succeed without draining more resources of the band, like time that the most productive member could be using to write.
#18


Nicely done!

In my original band, I was the leader. I didn't ask for it. I just was. I wrote the songs, mixed them, helped the artist with the artwork, ordered merch, did the web, booked shows, managed the money, blah, blah, blah. The other guys wanted to be in an original band, but were perfectly happy to just show up and play. And they were awesome. Are awesome.

That said, a smart leader takes this as one of the most important lessons in leading a band that they will ever, ever learn: Without your bandmates, you are just some other schmuck who plays by himself in his bedroom. Truth. You have to, have to, have to give them some ownership in the project.... to have some investment in it. I don't necessarily mean money, but a personal investment. That's what commits them and what keeps the band together for four years or whatever. They have a say. Their opinions are validated and accommodated for. They are liked and respected, and they have fun coming out. They sell CDs to their friends. They play on the CD. They help throw up posters. They are as much a part of the team as you. They feel that they are a critically important part of the team, and they WANT to be part of that team. Sure, you're the leader, but when you only have yourself to lead, it is really unclear whether you are the leader, the follower, or both. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because you're alone, and some other person who is able and willing to have their band members contribute and make a personal investment/commitment has a band. They win, and you lose.

That really seems to slant in favour of a democracy. With our band, it was quite democratic, but we were all willing to take one for the team in order to be a team player. There's more personal investment. People need a reason to keep doing something.

When a band is a dictatorship (the other extreme), people still need a reason to keep coming out, even though their opinions are neither valued nor wanted. Even when they have no creative input. I tell ya what keep$ them coming to practice$ and gig$ in that kind of situation..... Mo$t of us aren't in that po$ition where they can run a project that way.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.