#1
I'm currently writing a lot of material for my future band project, 4 instruments: I'm on lead guitar, a bass guitar, a rhythm guitar and drums.


The genre's instrumental melodic music. Now, the music is pretty dynamic, but basically, for the sake of music sounding good, rhythm guitar is pretty much very repetative.

I didn't start looking for members yet, but I will soon, and I just want to know are there people with strickly rhythm-attitudes?


Because, I quickly progress in music so I would always go towards playing in the spotlight, so I wouldn't know.


edit:

This is important for me, because, even though his parts are easy, I want him to feel important and comfortable in the band.
Last edited by Zeletros at Aug 13, 2011,
#2
I'd be more worried about finding a bassist comfortable with play repetitive material, assuming the bass has anything to do with the rhythm parts.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#3
If you are writing all of his stuff he is going to feel more like a session musician that a real member of the band. That being said, I know for certain that are guitarist with only rythm attitudes, seeing as I am one. Although now I think about it, that might be because I also sing during most of my rythm stuff

Hope I wasnt too confusing.
Thom
#4
As a rhythm guitar player in a band, there are times when yes, I do like to take the spotlight briefly for a short melodic part or little solo. However, I was very happy for the most part to establish a solid rhythm portion, headbanging, etc. onstage while my lead guitarist soloed. If he's auditioning for a rhythm guitar position, he should know what that entails (more rhythm, less solos). Give him one or two solo/lead parts every so often and he should be a happy camper
Gig Rig:

Schecter Hellraiser V-1
Crate BV120H
B-52 LS 4x12 cabinet
BBE Rackmount Sonic Max
Boss ME-50 Pedalboard
Digital Reference 2505 Wireless

I don't like BTBAM. Sue Me.

PLUR

My Solo Project
#5
Quote by Hail
I'd be more worried about finding a bassist comfortable with play repetitive material, assuming the bass has anything to do with the rhythm parts.



The bass track I write is quite diverse, but at least 1 instrument must keep the rhythm steady for the sake of good music.


Edit:


So I should on some songs give him solos? Should I make them more or less easier?
Last edited by Zeletros at Aug 13, 2011,
#6
Yes, there are. I enjoy playing rhythm guitar more than soloing.
Quote by JeanMi36
Back when I was a teen, I was making out with this girl, when I had the bright idea of putting my hand inside her panties.

She had her period.

I'm scarred for life
#7
You should let the guy write the solos that you would let him play.You know how in Metallica James writes most of the solos but he only plays solos in slower songs like nothing else matters and the first unforgiven solo.Let him play the simple solos in your slower songs unless they are all slow.
#8
Quote by MrBillion
You should let the guy write the solos that you would let him play.You know how in Metallica James writes most of the solos but he only plays solos in slower songs like nothing else matters and the first unforgiven solo.Let him play the simple solos in your slower songs unless they are all slow.


This is a excellent example. I'd also recommend just maybe writing some basic harmony leads for the guitars and maybe leaving some room for simple lead lines that can be added in later by the guitarist (or come up with something borderline generic and tell the rhythm guitarist to make it his own).

Of course there are a few rhythm guitarist who would rather hide behind a bass player and do have some strict rhythm attitudes like you asked about, so just talk to whoever takes the position and find out what he would like to do. Chances are he'll be pretty happy with taking parts that are written and collaborating a bit to make it a band effort (so try to be open minded to changes, even if the project is your baby). Pretty simple advice even though its easy to forget it when you're writing the majority of the material. Good luck to you.
#9
Strictly rhythm attitudes? Most definitely. Ever heard of a band called Meshuggah?

+1 to what MrBillion wrote, if he is a comfortable rhythm player that wants some lead parts he should write them so he knows he is capable of playing them.

#10
Well okay, I'll do some switch ups and give some slower stuff to him.


edit:


The problem is, this genre I'm writing in is not the easiest, so I don't really want to trust songwriting to anyone besides myself, of course if he would come up with a part that I'd say sounds better, I''ll let him play that.

I wouldn't like it if people would change my music and then tell me it sounds better when I would clearly hear that not.

But I'd still prefer to write everything myself.


And every single solo I write sounds so good to me that I want to play them all(eventhough all my songs are 96% guitar solos)
Last edited by Zeletros at Aug 13, 2011,
#11
Then whats the problem in giving him four percent out of those 96 percent to write his own, it is probably impossible to change your music completely with so little, it is the best way to make him feel important.
#13
Quote by zincabopataurio
You could always let him (or any other band member) compose their own songs. Everyone's happy.



I'm a control freak, I want to write all the material
#15
Quote by UnbrokenGlass
Pay them. Seriously. You're not looking for bandmates, you want employees.



Well, I wouldn't know.


When I was in a band and NOT the leader of the band, I wanted just to play fun songs and avoid writing material.
#16
Quote by Zeletros
Well, I wouldn't know.


When I was in a band and NOT the leader of the band, I wanted just to play fun songs and avoid writing material.


That's you. So either find people without much ambition who want to go along with a self-described control freak or pay some session musicians to do what you want them to do.
#17
Quote by Zeletros

Because, I quickly progress in music so I would always go towards playing in the spotlight, so I wouldn't know.

This is important for me, because, even though his parts are easy, I want him to feel important and comfortable in the band.

So I should on some songs give him solos? Should I make them more or less easier?

The problem is, this genre I'm writing in is not the easiest, so I don't really want to trust songwriting to anyone besides myself, of course if he would come up with a part that I'd say sounds better, I''ll let him play that.

And every single solo I write sounds so good to me that I want to play them all(eventhough all my songs are 96% guitar solos)

I'm a control freak, I want to write all the material


Here's the problem in a nutshell:

Talented musicians aren't going to want to be your lackeys unless you're paying them. People aren't going to put time and effort and commitment into a band where they feel they have no voice - where it's what you say, period, where you have to approve every musical idea they might have.

People will only be invested if they feel that their musical wants and needs are being met by the band. And really it sounds like you want a backing band - and, what's worse, a fairly backing band for rather inaccessible music, because you basically want them to do what you tell them while you noodle around with your solos.

Now, honestly, I'm also going to go out on a limb and say something that will get your hackles up:

But I suspect you're not as good as you think you are.

Of *course* your solos sound good to you. They're your solos. But the simple truth is that either:

a) You're the most talented musician anyone on this board has ever met. (And some of us have met some really talented musicians!)

or far more likely:

b) You are a little too in love with the sound of your own playing, and don't have a good sense of what about it other people might be interested in listening to, when it comes to music.

Why do I think B is the answer? Simple. Because I don't particularly want to listen to Eric Johnson or Lars Haarvard Haugen solo for an hour, and yet that sounds like what you're asking people to do with your band. And I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you're not as good as either of those guys. (And, in any event - they PAY their bandmates).

Even people who are really, really talented and have been playing a high level for a long time have a hard time keeping their bandmates happy when they aren't particularly interested in listening to them (eg, why do you think The Police broke up - and Sting was making Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland rich!)

I would say that just about the only chance you have of creating a positive experience in the situation you're describing is to record multi-track demos of the songs you want, and then play them for people and be very clear about what you're asking. "I want to do this ... but live." And be prepared for disappointment.

It's natural for a young guitarist to have a bit of ego. But honestly, I think the odds are good that you've crossed the line from "a bit of ego" to "full on wanker."

A band is collaboration. If you're not interested in collaboration, you'll find very few people interested in playing with you, unless it's a job and you're paying them.

And collaboration isn't, "well, if I like what you came up with better, we can do that." Collaboration is, "we all compromise and work towards a common goal - and I let you make as many choices as I make."

The good news is that with modern technology, you probably already own 90% of the equipment you need to be as much of a control freak as you want to be, to get your music exactly the way you want it, without pissing anybody off.

Do that. And if people are clamoring to hear your music, then consider finding people who can put up with your control freak tendencies.
#18
"Do that. And if people are clamoring to hear your music, then consider finding people who can put up with your control freak tendencies."

This I'll do. But this is not about ego. I just don't want people contributing to this musical project, if they could somehow edit the part and making it sound better, then by all means it will stay that way.
#19
So again, you want people to play what you give them. Those are called session musicians. Session musicians get paid.
#20
Quote by UnbrokenGlass
So again, you want people to play what you give them. Those are called session musicians. Session musicians get paid.


Yep with this reasoning I'd go find some. I personally charge $100+ a gig, so get savin boy!
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#21
Seriously. I have a few friends that do that kind of work, and the number of people going "well I can't pay but my music is really good!" is just bordering on offensive.
#22
Quote by Zeletros

This I'll do. But this is not about ego. I just don't want people contributing to this musical project, if they could somehow edit the part and making it sound better, then by all means it will stay that way.


The ego issue is because you believe you are the ultimate arbiter of what sounds "better."

You conceding that it's "somehow" possible that they could make things that you think are improvements doesn't do anything to convince me that ego isn't run amok here.
#23
Well, it's my music, if I find people who just like to play music, then it's all good for me. I don't like changing my own music for the sake of others.
#24
Quote by Zeletros
Well, it's my music, if I find people who just like to play music, then it's all good for me. I don't like changing my own music for the sake of others.


Well, I get that.

I think most musicians would produce better musicians if they didn't have that attitude, but I can't say your approach is a rare one.

When I'm talking about ego, by the way, I mean it more in the Buddhist sense - "my ideas are of unique value to the world because they are my ideas" - judging the value of something by it's origin rather than it's quality. I don't mean it in the "I'm so great bow before me" kind of way, although it sounds like you're skating that line.

To be blunt, for the vast majority of musicians, moderating that instinct - having the quality of the idea, rather than the origin of the idea, be the guiding factor - would result in better music. It's hard to do, however - "ego" is the part of our psyche that makes us conflate the two.

Ultimately, though, what it comes down to is that you want people to play your music, and that's not what a band is. If that's your approach, then chances are anybody you invite to be in a "band" with you is going to end up thinking you're the world's biggest jacka**, they won't be committed to the music, and things will end badly for all involved - you'll be unhappy with them and they'll be unhappy with you.
#25
Quote by HotspurJr
Well, I get that.

I think most musicians would produce better musicians if they didn't have that attitude, but I can't say your approach is a rare one.

When I'm talking about ego, by the way, I mean it more in the Buddhist sense - "my ideas are of unique value to the world because they are my ideas" - judging the value of something by it's origin rather than it's quality. I don't mean it in the "I'm so great bow before me" kind of way, although it sounds like you're skating that line.

To be blunt, for the vast majority of musicians, moderating that instinct - having the quality of the idea, rather than the origin of the idea, be the guiding factor - would result in better music. It's hard to do, however - "ego" is the part of our psyche that makes us conflate the two.

Ultimately, though, what it comes down to is that you want people to play your music, and that's not what a band is. If that's your approach, then chances are anybody you invite to be in a "band" with you is going to end up thinking you're the world's biggest jacka**, they won't be committed to the music, and things will end badly for all involved - you'll be unhappy with them and they'll be unhappy with you.



I don't know how it is where you are, but where I come from, it's quite common for 1-2 people to write the music, the rest play it as it is, or try to do better.
#26
Quote by Zeletros
I don't know how it is where you are, but where I come from, it's quite common for 1-2 people to write the music, the rest play it as it is, or try to do better.


*shakes head sadly*.

I'm not saying you shouldn't write the music.

I'm saying that if you present the music to the band and say "my way or the highway - and you can only change a note if I agree it's better" then people are going to pick "the highway." Either they'll quit because they feel stifled or you'll fire them because they're not committed.

Joining a band with someone is saying, essentially, "I think your musical input has value. I'm willing to respect that value - within reason - even if it conflicts with my musical input."

You want to say, "Whenever I disagree with you, you're wrong." I suspect I'm a fair bit more experienced than you are, so I'm telling you: that doesn't work very well.

If you want committed bandmates, they have to feel that they're getting something out of it. 99% of the time, that's either money or creative satisfaction.

But by all means, try it your way. Let us know how it works out.
Last edited by HotspurJr at Aug 15, 2011,