Democracy

[Low End Bee]

From chatting with other people in bands and from past experience I think I'm in a minority in being in a more or less totally democratic band.

We always jointly write all our songs. None of them tell me what bassline to play or how to play it. No one has the final say on anything and we all get along very well socially.

We'd never met before we all answered an internet ad 3 and a half years ago. It helps that we're getting on a bit. I'm 45. The other 3 are 35, 48 and 49.

One of us is a delicate soul prone to the odd hissy fit but it's always over quickly and no offence is taken.

It's such a relief after being in 'other peoples' bands with huge egomaniacs in the past.

How does everybody else get on?

[alexclaber]

I think it gets a lot easier once you're all out of your twenties! So do you write all your songs from jams?

Alex

[Cat Burrito]

I think it depends on the people. I play guitar in one band where the singer is very dicatorial (we're late 30s to early 40s) but my other bands are more relaxed. Creative freedom is very important to me

[sturm]

i 'joined' a covers band for learning experience and i think im the youngest at 46, its been a fantastic 7 months, even though they're on a different planet to me ive had nothing but support and encouragement, they've even had me singing - something ive never been able to do in the past

Edited August 7, 2009 by sturm

[WILD FROG SHOT]

My band is very democratic.

We all seem to write songs (granted some more than others), then the others write their own bits.

No arguing, no hissy fits, no one gets told what to play. Everyone just seems to be on the same page.

We're all 24-28.

Edited August 7, 2009 by WILD FROG SHOT

[Low End Bee]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='562884' date='Aug 7 2009, 04:28 PM']I think it gets a lot easier once you're all out of your twenties! So do you write all your songs from jams?

Alex[/quote]

If any of us has written lyrics, riffs, chord sequences we bring 'em along. They all go into a song bank and we see what goes with what and polish and change as they go on. It seems to work really well. We often email each other snippets and bring our ideas for what to do with them to the next rehearsal.
Sometimes one of us will have a song 90% done and we'll run through it and stick bits in or chop them off as we see fit.
As long as we're not precious it works.

[Bassassin]

F*ck me now [i]that's[/i] a loaded question.

No, my band is not a democracy. If it was, I don't think we'd have any songs, gigs, recordings, we'd never get a rehearsal organised and the best we could hope for would be the very occasional night of curry, beer & Monty Python. Which would still be ok, however...

Me & singer Karen started the band as a writing/recording project about 10 years ago and basically put a band together to perform our songs. We've had two previous guitarists & 1 other drummer, but have had the same line-up now for about 6 years, and I'd very much like it to stay that way.

I'd be very open to writing collaboratively, but it never works that way, likewise drummer & guitarist have little interest in any of the day-to-day running of the band. For my part I recognise that they are infinitely more skilled at their particular instruments that I ever could be, so they get free rein to embellish the parts I write, and for the most part I feel it works very well on a musical level.

It's fair to say that neither of them (drummer particularly) are the world's best communicators so sometimes it can be quite difficult, but I think for the most part it suits everyone. There can be issues - having now worked with him for 8 years I do realise that if Drummer doesn't like a song, he simply won't learn it. Fair enough occasionally as we are fairly prolific, but when he's quietly taking exception to an entire new album of linked songs (OK, OK- it's a concept album. About the fall of the Aztec empire. Get over it.) and suggesting he might learn it faster if we rehearse less often (?) then we're into a whole new world of idiocy for me to work out how to deal with...

Jon.

[bubinga5]

This is really nice to hear..sounds like you all click musically...Unfortunately if been in bands where there is the 'head' writer, who wants the sound he has in his head...This is unhealthy IMO..He was a guitarist who used to tell me how to play the basslines..(yes one of those 'im a guitarist who can play bass, because i think bass is second to the guitar)..I gave him a TRB6 to play once, and totally baffled him..He he..

Im in a better place now with great musicians, who want to learn off of everyone else...

[Mickeyboro]

Can't resist sharing this - not my own work (credit to a certain Rusell 'Sacko' Saxton) but I found it all too true. Apologies for rude words, too.

THE 1-2-3 OF BANDS

A '1' is the person who generally runs the bands, is either very creative or up his own arse, writes the bulk of the stuff, makes most of the decisions and generally sorts stuff out. The dominant figure. A control freak more often than not. Usually the singer or guitarist. Classic 1s-Rory Gallagher, Dio, Blackmore.

A '2' is a similar personality but not quite as powerful a personality as the incumbent 1 and will therefore spend a lot of time, stress and energy trying to usurp him. It rarely works unless the one is so obnoxious the rest of the band hate him and defect to the 2.

You can always spot a 2 in any band because they make solo albums. 1s have no need.

'3's are the rank and file men, rhythm guitarists, bassists and drummers in the main but not always. The guys who just either go with the flow or plain don’t care and are just happy to be in a band and making money while the 1s and 2s give themselves hypertension and coronaries due to stress.

1s have no friends in the band UNLESS the band is a three piece (never larger) and the line-up consists of a 1 and two 3s or a one and a two in which case he has a mate in the three. If the band consists of 4 or more the 1 and 2 hate one another and the threes stick together in a little club with the roadies.

The history of every rock band in the universe can be charted like so;

1 forms the band and recruits three members beside himself. For a while everything is rosy and for a short honeymoon period the band is going great, hes written lots of songs and gets the band to learn them. They seem happy with the direction and may play a few gigs. Unbeknown to him however, he has recruited a 2, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Sooner or later, depending on the instrument played the 2 will reveal himself by the innocent phrase 'I want to try this song I’ve just written'. It will be awful or will be utterly unlike the stuff that 1 writes but the 2 will insist. This is where the fatal turn of events happens. If the 1 refuses then he has made a deadly enemy. If he acquiesces he has opened the gates to the barbarian hordes who will rip up his cosy little world, stamp on it, sh*t on it, piss on it and then stamp on it some more.

1 is now f***ed. Every rehearsal will degenerate into a slanging match with number 2 until 1 either tells 2 to get f***ed off or 2 leaves which takes YEARS to happen during which 1 and 2 will age three times the rate they should. Nothing will get done. The trouble with 2s is that because they are also creative and dynamic personalities they are often pivotal members of the band and really the 1 cant be as successful without them unless possessed of true genius. 1 will then recruit a replacement who MUST be a three. Must must must must be. Trouble is 3s often have little to contribute and sooner or later 1 dries up and the band goes arse upwards.

Really 1s need to employ people rather than be in bands with others because there is always a 2 waiting unseen like a fag end in a half empty can of lager. Threes don’t have to be weaker personalities - often they are the most intelligent and always the most well adjusted people in the band. They know a good thing when they see it and see the fate of those who challenge Caesar.

The sole example of a band with several 1s that lasted anytime is Queen. If you look at the writing credits for Queen stuff its always one man wrote a song, few are collaborations if any. As four intelligent and astute men they realised they had something good and agreed no doubt to record each others stuff and play only the hits live. A pure business arrangement that benefited all.

Though it may be significant the bassist has nothing to do with the current activities of May and Taylor....

[velvetkevorkian]

That's uncomfortably accurate...

[ironside1966]

I like to work with musicians who have a creative input in what I do and the music as a whole, I don’t want some guitarist to show mw how to play bass, but I like the exchange of ideas eg,
1. more notes ,
2. less notes,
3. if I do this then you try that,
4. maybe we should try accenting these beats,
5. why not try a half time feel?

I also think you need someone to quality control and IMHO if you are a musician says my instrument is sacred so must stay of my my patch, then you may be missing and could be a better band /player.
It gets easy as you get older and people have less of a ego and more experience what works so less need to be said.

[M4L666]

My band is pretty good, our drummer is fairly passive and gets "suggestions" of what to play by me, but the writing is done equally by me and the guitarist. Our new guitarist is female, and hence obscenely productive, so it looks like we'll then have a 3-way creative mix. Looking good, I'm the death metal guy, the male guitarist is the power metal guy, and the new guitarist likes the more poppy side of things. We'll keep it ridiculous

[Low End Bee]

Can I just say I was talking complete load of old wallop.

One of us has turned out to like democracy about as much as Qadaffi does. Just before a big gig too. It's going to be fun playing that one!

3 piece and recruiting from September............

[neepheid]

Things are pretty good in our band. I'm under no illusions - it's the singer and guitarist's band and they are the primary creative drive behind the songs - I am just working on making myself as indispensable as possible by being polite, punctual, predictable, useful, handling IT (jazzing up the old MySpace, setting up band calendar online etc.), coming up with my own bass lines and just generally being a nice person. As individuals we all get along pretty good - of course you gravitate towards some people over others, and I'm pleased to have built up a good rapport with our drummer - surely a big help to any bassist.

[geoffbyrne]

I've been playing in bands off & on since 1959, so.......

The most stable bands I've been in have *not* been democracies. They've been the vision of one person who's put it together & runs it as 'their baby'. Now, providing you're happy to to be the hired gun & pick up the money (& I am, mostly) this works just fine. Also, that kind of atmosphere makes it easier to say 'this is not working for me, I'll be moving on'.

I'm currently with a *very* democratic band and everyone can veto everyone else. This isn't terribly positive and at the end of the day we end up with a playlist by committee which is pretty bland, as no-one wants to stick their neck out and do anything a bit exciting.

The new female vocalist came in with a list of songs numbering about 12 which she *really* wanted to sing - the voting system has whittled this down to 1. Rather takes the enthusiasm away. I'm trying hard to extricate myself, but it will be seen as 'betrayal' and I don't want to leave bad vibes behind, but it looks like its inevitable.

G.

[thisnameistaken]

Neither of the two bands I'm in are democratic. The first is run by the singer, it's all about her, which is fine in a way because she's a talent but she's also too lazy for it to really go anywhere. The second is weird. It's basically run by me but the guitarist is supposed to be the one in charge. We got on really well though and share songwriting duties so I don't see it being a problem. All it means is things are more organised and happen faster than if he was doing it.

[mike257]

Amazingly, considering there's 6 of us, we come pretty close to managing it. There's three singers/writers in the band, one of whom was the driving force behind getting the band together in the first place, so he's the 'de facto' gaffer, but it rarely needs to come to one person to make the over-riding decision.

The three of them all contribute songs, but if we aren't collectively happy with a song, regardless of it's origin, then it doesn't go in. My songwriting is miles away from the sound of the band, but I contribute heavily with arrangements, and do the textbook bass player jobs of running the web stuff, bookings, van hire, graphics etc. We all have a say and a creative input with the music, and the promotional end of things.

Sometimes egos have to be massaged, and compromises have to be made, but we were all close friends who've played in various bands together before this one, so it all tends to work out in the end!

[Guest]

I joined my band about 3 years ago, and the others had been playing together on and off since they were 15 (mid 20's now), but it's awesome, I am good mates with all 3 of them, and the drummer is even my housemate, everyone gets on well 99.9% of the time. I have no time for being in bands with people I don't get a long with anymore.

[Merton]

My functions band is a democracy if the drummer or singer get their way... If they're at loggerheads then it's really quite interesting.

My originals band started out as a backing band for a singer who wrote everything himself but has morphed into a democracy over the years I've been in it.

[Bay Splayer]

my band are quite democratic when i allow them to be

[Kiwi]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='562884' date='Aug 7 2009, 03:28 PM']I think it gets a lot easier once you're all out of your twenties![/quote]
+1

FWIW, democracy doesn't work in a band unless everyone has the same useful level of experience. Benevolent dictatorships sometimes do, or alternatively set up a republic.

[Low End Bee]

I take it all back. We are now a 3 piece.



Make that a glorious 3 piece workers commune with a 5 year plan.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Low End Bee

[teej]

Red Jackson are fairly evenly balanced, democratic maybe - it's all a question of roles, suited to the strengths and talents of the band-members. I'm the guy on the end of the phone/email and deal with website and paper publicity, so I get a final say in this stuff, but after consultation. Frontman steers the musical direction, calls the set and the arrangements on the fly, but often asks and is open to suggestions: I certainly feel like I have plenty of input. Drummer deals with weather/transport issues, general tactical/strategic issues, sage advice and darkly humorous morale-boosting, as well as doing a bit of promotion now and then, but again takes our views into consideration.

A lot of stuff will be decided after we've all talked it over: set-list for this 30 minute showcase at a festival; cover art for the new album; where we're going to busk next Saturday. None of this usually delays us and we've never had anything like an argument.

We're very like-minded individuals and get on extremely well: there's a lot of laughter involved, which is just as well seeing as we could be together for something like 15 hours on a Saturday.

[Tait]

with my 4 piece its fairly equal except the rythm guitarist, but tbh thats cos he's easily outclassed as a guitarist by both myself and the lead guitarist, and he doesn't really know what he's doing. it probably doesnt help that he's 13 when the rest of us are 15 and 16, either. he never seems to come up with any suggestions or anything, and he'll just play what we ask him to. obviously if he wanted to play something different to how we said we'd let him, but he never does, so its just me and the lead guitarist telling him how to play his parts. and the drummer just sits and bashs stuff

Edited August 25, 2009 by Tait

[EssentialTension]

I like my bands either to have a talented musical director who is an enlightened despot or to be an anarchist cooperative where we all say yes or we don't do it.