Band-ocracy or Band-tatorship - which one's been best in your experience?

[Al Krow]

Been having a little chat with a fellow bass player who's thinking about forming a new band as to what the decision making style was in the two bands I'm in.

 

I've always felt that there's been something desirable about the "band-ocracy" model where everyone gets an equal say e.g. in terms of song choices, genres, investment in equipment and publicity (band showreels etc) and it's been the model we've applied successfully in the covers band I formed a decade back and where the current line-up pretty much all been together for 7 years now, with one recent joiner after my fellow co-founder stepped down last summer as he's planning to move out of London. But it's meant that the band plateaued a while back, not helped by Covid, and went forward at the pace of the talented hobbyists rather than those who were semi-pro and who could only nudge things forward despite wanting more.

 

I initially thought the new covers band I formed a year back would follow the same model but it's ended up with the two semi-pro members in the driving seat and pushing things forward, including letting go of one of our co-founders last autumn who was not prepared to work on material outside of rehearsals, so would come unprepared on new material and was becoming a brake on us moving forward. The new band has really taken off with 40+ paid-gigs already in the diary for 2023, albeit currently mostly pub rather than better paid functions gigs. It currently doesn't have the feel of a band-ocracy but maybe that will change once the two newer members are settled in and contributing more to the development of the band than just turning up and playing?

 

So I was wondering what leadership style/model your bands currently operate or have taken in the past, and which areas of band life all band members get an equal say in and what's decided by one person? How well have the different models worked in your experience?

Edited January 22, 2023 by Al Krow

[Barking Spiders]

If I were still playing in bands it'd 100% have to be the -ocracy model. I've been in several bands 'led' by 'it's my band' types who only wanted me to play simple root notes sh**.  I never stayed around long enough 

[Acebassmusic]

Is there such a thing as a "band-tater-ocracy"? 🤣 The better / more functional bands I've been in have been a combination of "everyone has a say" and "final decision is down to the band leader". However the band leader HAS to consider the input of the others and not just give it lip service.

 

I was recently in a covers band where the BL said everyone had a say in the set list etc. I put forward over 50 different tracks (all within the genres we were doing) and every one of them got knocked back due to "heard someone else cover it (several years ago)", "keys a bit high / low", "I don't like the personality of the original singer", "the original uses flutes and we don't have any (on a non key part of the song)", "nah......but why?......just nah!!" Guess what? We went back to playing his preferred song list that he kept saying he was tired of!!

 

[TimR]

Benevolent dictatorship.

 

Someone listens to everyone's ideas and makes decisions and leads. I want to be in a band with a leader who has vision and direction. I've been in too many democratic bands where actually you end up with a random bunch of songs and each member doesn't really like many of the songs. 

[JapanAxe]

I’m happy with either as long as everyone is clear at the outset what the setup is. I marginally prefer the dictator model as long as I don’t have to be the dictator - a motivated BL can really get things moving for a band.

 

Problems happen when most of the band think they’re in a democracy, but one member reckons they are entitled to the last word. Did I say ‘one member’? I meant the singer of course.

[tauzero]

Most of the bands I've been in have been democracies, though they do tend to have members who will tend to lead and others who will tend to follow. I think I've only been in two bands with self-appointed leaders. No problems with playing what I wanted to play but there was a degree of personal friction with one (who sacked me) and the most recent one I decided I'd had enough of supplying the PA (mutually agreed separation). I prefer the democratic model as long as there aren't any rogue members - with one band, the guitarist simply didn't learn any songs that he didn't particularly fancy doing, even though they'd been agreed. Plus there should be a limited ability to veto a song. I don't really want to play "All Right Now" but the others do, so I simply refuse to play during the verse.

[TheGreek]

Has everybody read Mick Karn's autobiography "Japan and Self existence" where he outlines how Japan worked. Nobody could veto any decision, however the singer, David Sylvian, would manipulate band members by having hissy fits till everybody gave in and "saw his side".  A dictatorship by any other name. 

 

Personally I can't do dictatorships, my thinking is that a "group" contains many who each have equally valuable input. The last band I played in the saxophonist (who would turn up with keyboards even though there was a keyboard player) would tell everybody what to play, including the drummer. He would tell me what riffs to play even though what I was playing was clearly better than his idea.

 

I walked, as did the drummer shortly afterwards.

[peteb]

Like it or not, hardly any bands that do anything are proper democracies. Sometimes they may have democratic elements, where everybody gets a voice, but when comes down to it there is a leader (or maybe a couple of leaders) who get the final say. I'm afraid that music is undemocratic by nature... 

 

[musicbassman]

43 minutes ago, TimR said:

Benevolent dictatorship.

 

I'm with @TimR on this. Back in the day I was rather more idealistic and thought bands should be democratic, but with the benefit of rather too many years of playing I can see that this is how bands end up directionless and with confusing set lists that don't really appeal to the band's target audience, or anybody, come to that.

But I'm talking about cover bands here, where the usual aim is to get a regular stream of reasonably well paid gigs and hopefully enjoy playing as well.

However, for bands doing all original material maybe a more democratic approach makes sense ?  Discuss.......... 

[TimR]

27 minutes ago, TheGreek said:

would manipulate band members by having hissy fits till

 

That's psychopathic narcissism. You need a certain element of that to be a singer. 

[Al Krow]

5 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

That's psychopathic narcissism. You need a certain element of that to be a singer. 

Very untrue of either of our lead female vocalists, who are just lovely individuals, but a great phrase that I'm nicking! 

[Bassfinger]

Bandocracy is the best I've personally experienced, but we're all now old enough to behave like grown ups and leave our egos at home.  

[T Cee]

I'm with @TimR here.  Benevolent dictatorship to a point, usually boiling down to a couple of the band doing the thinking and planning.

 

I've been in band operating both systems, and to pick up @musicbassman there, I think the democratic model is more important on creative decisions around original music.  The logistics and promotion are still the same though, regardless of which flavour of band you play with.

 

On song choice though, I believe whoever has to sing the song should have a greater level of veto.

[chris_b]

I don't care who's in charge as long as the band can play, the songs work and there are a shed load of gigs.

[Franticsmurf]

It depends on the nature of those who make the decisions. 

 

In the past I've experienced band-ocracy where no one can really make their mind up or are willing to challenge (me included) and the end result is weak songs - usually safe songs with safe arrangements. I've also experienced the band-tater who has no regard for anyone's opinions and who thinks he knows best. Ironically, the end result with him was also a safe setlist albeit with different songs, and the rest of the band walked. Given the choice of those two in those circumstances, I'd go with 'ocracy' as at least I'd have a say.

 

My recent experience with two relatively new bands also spans both, but in the 'ocracy' band we are all pretty much on the same wavelength and the discussion rarely gets to the point of complete disagreement. We have a strong Blues based set and an agreed approach to frequency of gigs. We also have an open door policy with regard to new materiel and in most cases it is tried out in rehearsal before the final decision is made whether its a keeper. In the 'tater' band, the BL knows the band members and their abilities very well (it's a large, mixed ability level bunch with Ukes, banjo, brass, keys, guitars drums and bass which he started). When I first joined I questioned some of his song and arrangement choices but I soon realised the reasons and logic behind them and I have come to understand why he chooses the songs he does. It's very much a benevolent dictatorship and he does take into account the views of the rest of the band. 

 

To end with a yes/no answer - my perfect band would be a democracy. Everyone would be in the band because they know and share the aims and outcomes and also have the maturity and be realistic enough to talk through any problems. There would probably need to be a nominal band leader to sort out specifics (final decisions on gigs, fees, expenses etc). 

[Mykesbass]

Another +1 for @TimR's model. 

[Lozz196]

In my experience with bands there’s always been someone not so much in charge but with a clear vision & focus about what the band should do & where it should go. I don’t have any problems with that, it’s if they have an unmanageable ego as well, those types I won’t work with anymore.

[yorks5stringer]

The band I was  'asked 'to leave from just before Christmas after 6 years was a dictatorship with non of the benevolence.

 

I found myself getting very frustrated by the sheer lack of ambition which the band leader displayed, from choice of material ( she would not listen to anything sent to her electronically like a YT link, she had to hear it on the radio) to booking gigs ( which she alone insisted on doing) to band clothing ( we had to all wear black of which she wore the shabbist and most washed out black t shirts) to how we sounded. My penultimate gig with them was a festival, she cancelled the rehearsal beforehand to go on holiday and at the gig used half our small 300 watt rehearsal PA as the main rig for a large room in a pub. One speaker was on a pole for the audience, the other she used for her foldback for her vox and Telecaster! Lead guitar, banjo and bass were all our own backlines and the sound was a mess. I noticed the headliners  had their 1K each side cabs already in position!

 

Oh, and that's not to mention the studio time we spent  in the spring( 4 days) and the money we paid to record new material which mysteriously never got the vox laid down on and the CD's we were going to sell at gigs.

 

Ironically a new venue opened near me and I went in ( as I knew she never would) and did a full PR job for the band and got us a booking 3 weeks ahead. 2 weeks later I got sacked...!

 

The 'crime' I got accused of was suggesting 'if we do what we always do, we get what we always get' and shouldn't we be more adventurous...? That was interpreted as gross treason by the bandleader and I was served my immediate notice!

 

[Waddo Soqable]

The things I've done that I thought were the best fun, best music, and the most "like wot a proper band should be" have been democratic, but with the proviso that everyone pulls their weight. Obviously there's going to be different levels of input but provided all members bring something to the table that works, then all good. 

 

The couple of things I've been involved with that were dictatorships, were failures, in one case the "fuhrer" was a serial bull5hitter, not interested in any other ideas, and frankly don't think he really wanted the band to go forward anyway, I walked after a few gigs when there were no more in the pipeline, and clearly very little future prospect. 

The other one was kind of a mate really, he had some good ideas but couldn't keep on one course, we'd record some stuff, then next week he'd totally remixed it,( without any input from me) and it was changed out of all recognition, a completely different direction.. not even that it was bad, but it was impossible, again to take it forward, I get the impression he'd rather just noodle around at home endlessly remixing a few pieces than get out there and do it. Unfortunately that wasted quite a few months of my time too, hey ho.... 

[Mickeyboro]

I have got 90 per cent of my bands gigs, came up with the name and supply the PA. Yet I bend over backwards to give everyone an equal say.

 

I thought I was okay with that, but have just joined a second band where all I do is turn up, play and obey what the BL says… 

 

BTW Keith (post two above), they never deserved you!

[fretmeister]

If it’s a dictatorship then as an employee I want paying.

[Al Krow]

12 hours ago, fretmeister said:

If it’s a dictatorship then as an employee I want paying.

But if bandmates are just "passengers", shouldn't they be paid less to cover their fare for coming along for the ride? 😁 

 

More seriously, if they are, should they expect as much of a say in the direction of the band, choice of new song material etc? 

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Al Krow

[SteveXFR]

Last band I was in was an authoritan dictatorship and he ruled with an iron fist. It sucked so I quit then the drummer quit then they gave up.

Current band is more like a hippy commune. It's friendly and relaxed. It is all for fun though, none of us expect to make money. 

[Frank Blank]

I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns, to act as a sort of executive officer for the week...

Edited January 20, 2023 by Frank Blank

[SteveXFR]

4 minutes ago, Frank Blank said:

I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns, to act as a sort of executive officer for the week...

 

Monty Python. The constitutional peasants. 

Now where is my speed boat prize?