#1
I'm just wondering, do bands need a leader, someone who has the deciding vote? Because our band just votes on everything and if it's a draw we just stay how it is. But this gets quite annoying after a while, so does there need to be someone who makes a lot of the decisions?
hello
#3
democracy is good.. bt with a good leader dictatorship is the best. (yes, bands need a leader)
#4
Yeah, our singer/bassist is the "leader" becaue he has the most experience instrumentally and gigging wise.

My things:
Bowes SLx7
Washburn WG587
Washburn X40Pro
Washburn X50
Washburn HM24
Washburn WR150
Laguna LE200s
Arietta Acoustic
First Act
Valveking 112
VHT Deliverance

#5
a band needs a leader. but for everyone to enjoy it there definately needs to be some democracy. i kinda got nominated as the leader for my "new" band. i'm taking as minimal position in it as possible though and letting everyone have their input as much as possible. if you have no musical outlet in your band you won't find it very fun.
#6
My band doesn't have a "leader" so to speak, but I am the songwriter. I present the songs on like an acoustic and then we work out the other parts from there. It's a kind of collaborative process of various suggestions from everyone. At least thats what it seems like from my perspective.

So, I would say no. But theres no specific answer for every band, no ones the same.
#7
if everybody gets together and says "ok lets to do this!" then thats all good.but a lot of bands need someone to say "we need to go over that YET AGAIN" (i know in my band i'm that guy, i don't like being that guy but someone neds to be honest enough to say "its getting better but it needs to be tighter")
#8
A band doesn't need a leader assuming that everybody has their heart in it. If your in a band that actually needs a leader you should probally get out.

look into musical collectives, its like a group that has no leader and different people take charge of different aspects or projects within the band.
(they tend to make more experimental music though)
#10
I'm the leader, cause I'm manager... I think that a manager should be appointed while "leader" they are also responsible for setting up gigs, making sure everythings good (bassist isn't drowning out the singer) etc. I think the manager should be the most responsible one.

^^^^^^^
Why does everyone say stuff like that? I recently turned into our drummer and noone has a problem with me. Are drummers usually hardass idiots or something?
Last edited by bob-thebuilder at Apr 17, 2008,
#11
A band always needs a 'leader' imo, its always good to have one specific person to give you a direction to go in. That being said they need to be a leader who works well with considering things other people say and not being someone who goes "ok, we're doing this now and no complaining".
#12
I think it is easier to have a leader, or at least a "chairman" who organises any suggestions or ideas.

Fully democratic bands are often slow in my experience. You need someone with the artistic vision to drive the band.
#13
I can tell you from personal experience that a band needs a leader to function. My first band was fully democratic and we never got any work done.

The leader needs to be a dedicated person who organizes gigs, practices and events. The leader should also have a definite vision for the bands future and musical direction. It would be best if the leader would also be the main songwriter.

That's pretty much how it is in my band. It might seem like a dictatorship though but trust me, it isn't. All the guys in the band are friends and when I present a song by playing it acoustic, although most of the times I already have a vision for the full song, we try to shape the acoustic performance into a full song collaboratively and this way we get different perspectives from everyone. Yet I get the final word for being the leader and main songwriter. It works out well and everybody is happy
#14
I think that bands should have a leader. I know that in my band we didn't get anything done until I assumed the role of the leader. Now I usually have a general outline of what we should be doing at a practice, things we need to work on and such. It's a much better system than having everybody in disagreement about where the band is going musically, what the band should be doing gig-wise, ect... ect...
Quote by sicformyage

me:you like acdc
them:yea i do
me:cool, whats your favorite song,other than back in black
them:i gotta go...


Quote by jordanzio
i love hilary duff and will eventually marry her... she does not know this currently...


#16
I think ideally you need to have a leader but also as much democracy as possible. In my band the singer has a good deal of control but never has an absolute final say in anything. If a lyric or bit of music gets changed against his will he can accept its probably for the best.
#17
Quote by whosamerica
unfortunately our drummer makes most of the decisions.


i want a revolution.

Sigged.

bands should be lead, by someone but said leader sjould do whats agreed on, if most of the band disagree with him.
Quote by Eliyahu
Mr.Cuddles killed The Metal!!!! FUCK YES!

Quote by TheReverend724
Mr Cuddles pretty much nailed it...

Quote by thanksgiving

"Oh Mr.Cuddles, you make my pants go boom boom. I are horny. Do not disappoint I"


Viscara (my band)
#18
Quote by mr. cool
A band doesn't need a leader assuming that everybody has their heart in it. If your in a band that actually needs a leader you should probally get out.


I'm sorry but basically all bands need leaders. It is very rare for a full democracy to work out in a band.

Secondly, it isn't a question of whether your heart is into it or not. Passion does not dictate leadership. Your heart should be in the band you're in regardless if you are the leader or not. Ideally, every musician should passionate about the music he is playing in the band.

Quote by bob-thebuilder

^^^^^^^
Why does everyone say stuff like that? I recently turned into our drummer and noone has a problem with me. Are drummers usually hardass idiots or something?


The problem is drummers usually have the least musical knowledge because of the nature of their instrument. Drums do not provide a melodic sense.

Generally, the leader of the band is the songwriter. He pushes the band in its musical direction. I believe it is good to have some democracy in the band though because it helps create diversity.
WARNING:This post contains explicit portrayals of violence; sex; violent sex; sexual violence; clowns and violent scenes of violent excess, which are definitely not suitable for all audiences.
#19
not a full democracy like if 3 members of the band dont like a song then its out but the leader should decide on major decisions with input from the band.
you just witnessed the heart-stopping, door-locking, history makin, pants-droppin, earth-shakin, body quakin, lip-quivering, body-tickilin, love-makin fang
#20
Yes. But sometimes the leader feels bad with power haha. Like me, when my band was asked "so who's youre leader?" they all pointed to me (bass player) and I pointed to the singer. I directed well for the time we were a band but I felt like I was nagging the people to make commitments and whatnot. So make sure the selected leader is 100% cool with it.
sincewhen??

Quote by Mannypedraza
Today, me and my gf went to the movies. During, i put my hand down her shorts.
I keep smelling my hand as of now....anything wrong with me?
teh pronz
#21
I'd say yes, not particularly for musical reasons but definately on the business side of things.
If you have all the bands business such as gig bookings going through one person, it keeps stuff simple and avoids double bookings and other confusion.
The problem arises with a democracy run band when the band has an even number of members and a vote is split 50/50, in this instance, I've always found it useful to have an extra person who's opinion everyone trusts, such as a roadie or an agent or a manager, to give the deciding vote, this saves on arguments later.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Apr 20, 2008,