moral dilemma?

[GreeneKing]

Some really useful advice here to dwell on. My only concern is that there is another issue underlying all this and that it may bite you too if you replace him.

[chris_b]

Everyone can be replaced and that includes in 9 to 5 jobs as well.

In bands great players get replaced and crap ones can stay forever.

[tauzero]

I've been sacked that way - not because I was a bad bassist or my replacement was a better one (personally, I think he was worse), but because my replacement was a mate of the lead guitarist and drummer and he wanted to join the band. I wasn't at all happy.

Still, all was eventually forgiven and I depped for them recently when their bassist who was a replacement for my replacement was unavailable for a gig. But I wouldn't like anything like that to happen again.

[Monkey Steve]

OK, time to pitch in again. A lot of differing opinions, and I thank you for all of them, but also a lot of misapprehensions about the band situation and the current position of the bass player. Again I have to be very careful what I say here because if i were to explain a lot of it, the game would be given away.

Let's just take it for granted that the incumbent is quite simply not good enough. There are some things I could tell you (but won't) that would have you all posting "well, he should have been sacked months ago/should never have been hired in the first place", but let's boil it down to this generic statement. there are a lot of their most popular songs that they have not been able to play live for the last year because the bass player is not good enough to play them, and they have spent a good few months writing the songs and letting him contribute and they are not happy with what he has come up with. He has been made aware of this, he has been told the standard that they expect him to reach, and he has repeatedly come up short while insisting that they are wrong and he is good enough.

Basically they have got Sid Vicious when they needed Stanley Clarke (a little extreme at both ends of that comparison - I'm certainly not Stanley Clarke either - but you get the idea).

There are no other underlying issues about their treatment of bass players or other musicians - it's not like they have a record for treating other bass players badly or under appreciating their contribution, it's simply that this particular bass player is not just a bad fit for the direction in which they are trying to move the music, and frankly is a very bad bass player to begin with. They did not want to write or record the bass lines, but they did not want to put out an album restricted by his contributions.

As I understand it, the band is pretty much in agreement that he has to go, although a final decision hasn't been signed off on, but they have discussed replacements (and I understand my name was mentioned) but the sticking point has been the live commitments and inability to take a break from touring to give them time to get someone up to speed from scratch. However, with a new album out in a few months time, which the bass player will not be able to play live, they have to do something. And telling him that he really, really has to practice hard is not going to get them there.

However, that's none of my business. And I'm not asking about what the band should be doing - IMHO they are doing the best thing for the band, albeit that it entails not treating the bass player very well...but there's a counter argument that he gets to play a few more shows and festivals over the next few months (for which he will get paid) that wouldn't happen if they sack him now for fear of being seen to take advantage of him.

What would you prefer? Getting sacked today, or doing a paid gig tonight that you'll love and getting sacked tomorrow? And I don't mean that in a passive/aggressive way - I can genuinely see the arguments both ways (or, as an ex-girlfriend put it to me once "if you've been thinking about breaking up with me for a while i don't understand why you kept sleeping with me" - sometimes "well, you seemed to like it too" isn't the best answer...I may not be helping in the cause to prove than I'm not a bad person here...)

Whether he is sacked today, tomorrow or stays forever is not my concern, and to be very clear, I am not taking any direct part in the band's decision, the sacking itself, and as far as I'm aware there are no plans to get me in behind his back for rehearsals when he's not there. I will not be banging on the rehearsal studio door demanding to know if he's been sacked yet now that I've learned the set.

However, my conscience still tells me that I'm being a little dismissive of my role in all this - clearly learning all their stuff so that they have an option to get a replacement in quickly when they do pull the trigger is going to have an influence on what they do next, and it could be my role that means he gets sacked ahead of the album coming out rather than at the end of the Summer festival schedule. But with my mate's hat on, I genuinely think that's the best option for the band, because he is damaging their reputation already and will damage it further if he remains in the band, regardless of whether it's me that does it (and I suggested this when I had no clue they would ask me). I am clinging on to the fact that he's going anyway because that is most definitely what is best for the band, and if it's not me it'll be someone else, so why not do it when it'll be great fun? After all, if they had just sacked him and were asking me if I could learn their set in a hurry we'd all be saying "what a great opportunity" not "how badly did they treat the last bass player?"

I dunno, I keep coming back to the fact that I'm helping out a mate's band do what i think is the best thing for them, plus if it all works out then I get to play a few gigs with a band who's music i like.

maybe I'll just have to live with my conscience

[mikel]

If the band believe the bass player is not good enough then they need to get another. I presume from the OP that the guy in question is aware the band dont think he is up to the new stuff? If I were him I would be looking for a new band as soon as my lack of skill was pointed out. If the band are straight with him and ask If he will play the gigs till a new bassist is up to speed with the set then all should be good. If he walks, then a new bassist will have to get up to speed quickly. Either way they have a new bassist.

[stingrayPete1977]

Regardless of the ins and outs they need to sort it out, if they can't play the recent stuff live and they certainly can't play the new album tracks live but want to be a band that performs live they need to kick the bass player out before looking for another or possibly lose one guitarist live.

Edited February 7, 2017 by stingrayPete1977

[phil.c60]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif].........However, my conscience still tells me that I'm being a little dismissive of my role in all this - clearly learning all their stuff so that they have an option to get a replacement in quickly when they do pull the trigger is going to have an influence on what they do next, and it could be my role that means he gets sacked ahead of the album coming out rather than at the end of the Summer festival schedule. But with my mate's hat on, I genuinely think that's the best option for the band, because he is damaging their reputation already and will damage it further if he remains in the band, regardless of whether it's me that does it (and I suggested this when I had no clue they would ask me). I am clinging on to the fact that he's going anyway because that is most definitely what is best for the band, and if it's not me it'll be someone else, so why not do it when it'll be great fun? After all, if they had just sacked him and were asking me if I could learn their set in a hurry we'd all be saying "what a great opportunity" not "how badly did they treat the last bass player?" ........[/font][/color]
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Reading the whole post and then focusing on this part: if getting someone else up to speed before they let him go is the way that they are thinking, to avoid causing an awkward gap in their schedule, they're probably going to do that with someone else if it's not you, even if that's temporary - a medium term dep, if you will - so it appears that their course is already plotted. If you fancy it, knowing that you might simply be helping them out of a short term hole, do it. Their will be plenty of other guys who will if you don't so don't miss out. I don't think you're behaving badly at all.[/font][/color]

[Wooks79]

They do just need to pull themselves together and sack him if they don't want him.

They might have a hectic touring schedule, but that just means they need to either get you (or someone) to learn stuff, hire a pro dep to keep touring, or cancel some gigs.

They definitely need to stop stringing him along.

[Ghost_Bass]

Once again, the band has to talk to the guy. Tell him he's not going to continue with the band but if he's willing he can play the (paying) gigs until "X" date. It's the most honest way to do it. Doing so the bass player knows he's leaving the band and stopping to earn money from gigs at a specific date and can start looking for a new paying band in the meantime. The band is left with s set date for the new bassplayer to be ready for playing.
If the current bassplayer decides to leave in the moment he's confronted with the issue then the band needs to forget about recording for a few days and lock in the rehearsall room with the new bassplayer to get enough songs rehearsed for the live gigs. It's possible, even if they have to simplify some parts just for a while.

[Spike Vincent]

[quote name='Monkey Steve' timestamp='1486475666' post='3232101']


Basically they have got Sid Vicious when they needed Stanley Clarke (a little extreme at both ends of that comparison - I'm certainly not Stanley Clarke either - but you get the idea).




.

[/quote]

I suspect this isn't the point you're making here, but where would the Sex Pistols have been without Sid Vicious ?
And it was their guitarist who played bass on their album..

Don't get involved in their band issues, let them do what they have to do, and if they ask you to play then go for it.

[SteveK]

You're over-complicating and over-thinking this. Your mate says, "would you do it?" Assuming that you're interested, just tell him "yes" and tell him to get back to you when the band has made a decision. Potentially, the band are offering you the gig, it isn't your your problem how, why or when they sack this other guy.

Edited February 7, 2017 by SteveK

[bazzbass]

don't feel bad, music is a tough business.

If he can't play simple stuff, and can't write his own basslines then he is useless to them.

Doing it the way you suggested makes the most sense to me.

I replaced my best friend in a band in 1982. he is still my best friend, he was a talented guitarist, but not so good on bass and he didn't have the drive to succeed at it. He still came to all our gigs, and, more importantly, drank a LOT to help boost our pay hehe.

[mcnach]

I think I'd feel a bit bad for the guy, but it has nothing to do with me so if the band asks me to join and I'm interested, I'd learn the songs ahead of time. Why not? As others said: someone else is going to get the spot, so why not me?

However, the way the band is handling is not great. I can see how they want to minimise their down time, but they're really just expanding their 'suffering' time. If they have decided they bass player has to do, the sooner the better, be done with it, get a new person in and make sure you're ready for the new gigs with the new material. If you have to cancel a handful of gigs, well, tough. But I think that's how I'd approach it. I'd talk to the guy and just be frank about it, and ask him whether he'd be willing to play a few more gigs while the search for a new guy goes on. He may well say no, and you have to cancel some gigs. So be it. But he may say yes and then everything is easy. The way they're going about it now is stressful and inefficient and they should 'man up' a bit.

It would have nothing to do with me, as the decision to fire the other guy is theirs entirely, so from that point of view I would not let it bother me (even if I do feel a bit sad for the guy, I'm just human). But I'd really want the band to make the situation clear and talk to the guy first. I would hate to do sneaky rehearsals with them. The bass player is likely to find out and I would not want to be in the middle of an ugly moment like that.

It does say a bit about the temperament of the guys of the band. It's not great, but I wouldn't make a big deal out of it... although I would not forget it and always keep it in the back of my mind. I don't see it so much as a sign of them being deceitful in nature but just a bit... maybe immature and lazy. We've all seen that behaviour before, even been guilty of it at some point, where by trying to postpone a bad experience we just make life harder for an unnecessarily long period. If it's got to be done... do it, and then deal with the consequences. It's not life or death we're talking about here.

[Fozza]

Pete Best, anyone? Chad Channing? Bands move on.

I think the band have to realise that the music business is just that - a business. If they're going to stand a chance of realising their ambitions then sometimes hard decisions have to be made. The current bassist has had a year to get up to speed and improve as a player and has failed to do this and from what the OP says he seems blind to his faults and so is unlikely to further improve even under threat of a sacking.

The band need to stop arsing about and take control of the situation.

The only people who should feel sh*tty about this situation is the band themselves. They seem to have hired someone on the basis of being somebody's mate rather than playing ability. That's fine if you just want to have a laugh and play a few tunes down the Red Lion once a month but for a band doing albums and tours, it's daft.

If I was in the OP's position, I wouldn't like to rehearse with the band until the issue is fully resolved. It isn't his problem and he shouldn't be put in any awkward situations. If the OP can't learn the material in time because of a tight schedule then they may have to cancel a show or two or get a pro dep in. Hopefully, it will be a lesson learned.

I'd just sit it out and wait and see what happens and make no commitment until I'd been assured that the previous guy was out of the picture. I wouldn't feel bad about taking the guy's place either. He had the opportunity but didn't grasp it. Maybe you will.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Fozza

[MoonBassAlpha]

I'd definitely try to nail as much of the material that you can get hold of, so if the call comes, you will be up to speed in almost no time.
Knowing they've got someone in that is right on it will reinforce their decision to get rid. If they feel they've done the right thing, it makes your position even stronger.
If the call never comes, you'll have had fun learning some new lines, it all adds to your "vocabulary".
Get learning now! (if you haven't already started )

[Monkey Steve]

Thanks again everybody. I think that probably about wraps it up, and the conclusion is that I can find enough plausible deniability for my conscience that I can sleep at night, after nodding off to my homework playlist...

Just to be clear, I will not be involved in the sacking, and I do not have any say in what the band do or when they do it. So for all of the people posting that the band need to do X, Y or Z, I may or may not agree, but am certainly not in a position to influence that (at least not directly, only as a possible influence over timing) and more to the point that wasn't the question I was asking. However, knowing the exact position of the band (which I won't/can't share) I still think that the plan to get a replacement in learning the stuff in the background is the most sensible.

For the more nuanced posts about me steering clear until the band do X, Y or Z, I take your point and largely agree - stick to the line that I am an option for them as and when they need a new bass player, not the new bass player who is to be unveiled as and when it suits the band to sack the incumbent. Which is in effect how things stand already, and there are no commitments on either side.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Monkey Steve

[Conan]

Sounds like you have sorted things out in your head/conscience. Good luck!