Do Bands Really Need a LEADER?
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 01. 2022
- Do Bands Really Need a LEADER? I'm finding out that many people who have been in bands feel one way, but those who play alone feel the opposite. What's your hot take on this one? Seemed to cause a lot of stir on my social media when I posted this concept. Thanks for watching.
P.S. I used Adam Duritz and Counting Crows as an example because he said something about leadership that has stuck with me for many decades now. I'll explain in the video.
-
Check out all my lesson vids at: www.the-art-of-guitar.com
Facebook: / fansoftheartofguitar
/ theartofguitar
Patreon: / theartofguitar
Thanks!!! - Hudba
In my opinion, bands really do need a leader - otherwise you won't go far. Leader though does not mean dictator, you can still discuss ideas openly and have everybody contribute, but you need 1 or 2 people to come up with ideas and plans for the future and provide direction - otherwise you might really end up with the lowest common denominator and won't go anywhere.
This👆👆
As long as you're having fun doing what your doing anything after that should be secondary... me personally I just miss being able to jam and have fun. Nothing was better than when I could learn something new from people better than me or just different minded. I always wanted to get big but if it doesn't happen I just never want to stop learning
Dude, YOU were the leader. It’s weird to think about but you went in with an objective and an idea of how things were supposed to go. You’re a teacher and a master of everything you play. You take everyone into consideration. That’s what a leader is.
I was the leader or one of the leaders in some projects. I put my all into them and they went pretty far. The one thing I'm truly the leader of now is this channel. I was very relieved when it began doing well, made me realize I wasn't a total incompetent dink. haha
So, is he the Master of Puppets, then? :v xD
The biggest problem I find is without a leader is usually a lack of discipline. You end up with players that waste everyone's time by being unprepared or daydream while playing and produce a sloppy performance. You also have breaks that are longer than the time spent playing. Instead of having short focused goals you have ambiguous goals that have no timetable. I just formed a power trio. This band 'I' will lead. I wrote 28 tunes over 3 years. Every tune was written to be a tune that if it was the only tune I ever got to show the world it would be this tune. I threw out endless tunes. If I felt if I had to pick my last tune or the new one as my only tune and could not decide than it was a keeper. I also threw out at least another 10 early tunes recently because over time I have created a style that is identifiably my own. No one once they have heard Deep Purples Smoke on the Water even once forgets it. My goal is 30 songs you can't forget. In short I'm prepared. All I expect from my band is playing with good tone, and good time keeping and with a sense of dynamics achieved by listening to the other players. Above all else is a good attitude. Simplicity or flash is optional. My advice is never join a team without a Captain!!!
Absolute truth. And theres no problem with that if it's honest and cool.
That's not a leader though. That's someone with an ego/control issues, because they are not doing the things that constitute true leadership (preparedness for example).
@@dragons_red Ego and control issues never stopped certain people from being president of the USA. No 'leader' is bigger! The point is if you don't see yourselves as having the best ideas you won't convince anyone they are.
You of course must constantly put in personal work to improve and create strategies to achieve goals and offer it to a group as something they can be part of or you won't get anyone interested. That part is indeed a nobrainer. Innovation is your key throughout. There are those that think big and got big results.They treated their goal like a war. You can lose many battles but you have not lost the war unless you quit or surrender. One thing I have noticed that the majority want others to make their decisions. It resolves them of responsibility. When I fail I know it was from my choices. I make it a policy that I will sort out a new plan and move on it's first steps asap. Often the same day. I'm human I want to take time out to lick my wounds. I just simply don't allow it. The bottom line in nearly every case you only have to hit the bullseye once. But if you waste time 'not' shooting arrows you hit nothing. Only you are in charge of you! If you don't make the decisions life and others will make them for you.
The problem is you will have terrible sloppy players who are best friends with the leader. Then you are stuck with them. A leader isn’t always a good thing. It might work against the good players trying to replace the bad ones. I had to quit a band bc the bass player was best friends with the leader and he didn’t practice at all for 4 years. He never took his bass home from our practice space! The only time he played was at band rehearsals. Try getting rid of him when his best friend is in charge. We had replacements lined up too.
@@Paul_Lenard_Ewing being president is an irrelevant comparison that’s just obnoxious to say. All you are doing is insulting people. I don’t care which side you are on I didn’t even read past that. There are plenty of places to talk about that I don’t think that’s why people watch these videos
Imagine you had the prime minister of Canada as president. The one who wore “face paint” and didn’t know it was offensive. Be grateful you don’t live there, where many are still under lockdowns 😂. Watching this guy in action has made me more grateful to live in the USA no matter who is President.
Yes, a band needs at least one leader to stir the band into one artistic direction and mind the promotion aspect because nobody else will do if they don't step up. Being in a aimless band without leaders sucks if you have ambition beyond jamming in your spare time between your 9 to 5 jobs.
Look at the Beatles, they had two "leaders" at once and they produced some of theeeeee best music IMO.
If you watch the Get Back documentary you can see them struggle to be disciplined because their manager Epstein just passed away and they all found it hard to decide on things with Paul trying to get the group together, Lennon showing up late or not at all and George even quitting cos he was fed up. Even the greats struggled with leadership and team work
I've played in many bands, both guitar and trumpet, for 60+ years. In my experience, the successful bands always have good leadership. Sometimes, that leadership is 'distributed' and different band members will take the lead in different things. In my current 7-piece band for example, I'm good at repertoire and arranging, our keyboard player is a good director, our sax player is really good at getting gigs, one of the singers is the equipment manager and another does the accounting. We all sort of fell into those roles based on our personal strengths. The real key is the leadership is there although it may not be apparent to a casual observer.
It's also worth noting that it doesn't have to be the same person taking in every aspect of the band. It's fine to have one member who's the leader on writing/arranging, a different member leading on booking/promotion, a third who leads on putting together setlists for gigs and tracklists for albums, and so on.
All the good bands have strong personalities, a lot of alpha type A personalities, throw in some ego too.
Finding the balance is what keeps them together, Chris Adler seemed like he was the leader in LOG from what I saw in the making of Sacrament.
Every local band: “NO. My way or the highway. Musicians are disposable to me.”
NO “experimental riffs” allowed 😡😡😡
I 've played in several working bands and I feel there are a couple of roles that are a must for every working band: Musical director - the member who calls shit for what it is, they get a pass to give direction to the band from a musical perspective (arrangements, mistakes, song endings, improvements) no feelings hurt. Second - Band Frontman - manages the audience, represents the band on stage and provides direction on the bands
"image". Logistics and PR - manages relationships with bar managers, coordinates things and if you don't have an agent.
I think having a leader is vital. Also, if you’re the leader, you have to be up to the task. One of my big regrets is that I wasn’t a strong enough personality when I started the band that I intended to make my career. I spent $3000 on PA and countless hours organizing sing lists, demos, and rehearsals. Then the drummer decided he wanted to do a different kind of music and got the keyboard player and other guitar player on board. Within a year, there were no songs on the set list that I even liked. I learned a lot from that experience, but I learned it too late to save that band. I’m now in three bands. I lead two and follow in one.
A band should have a spokesperson. Whatever instrument you play you are the leader of that position. Its great to all be envolved in the writing process and everything else that comes with it.
Wow, great vid and input. That is virtually word for word what I just experienced in joining a new band a few weeks ago! No leader, 'we all agree on everything'. But nobody can tell me what the group is working towards or who is actually doing anything. That makes you a jam band - which is fine, if that meets your personal goals. Phenomenal to see so many responses in just a day or two. By far the majority appear to agree that leadership is necessary. Its not about equality or who makes decisions, and its not about who is the 'boss'. Its about responsibility for executing and implementing the band's (collective, 'democratic') interests, desires, decisions, goals. If 'some' 'one' is not responsible, then no one is. Then everyone wonders where the next gig is coming from and why nothing has changed for the last x months. I see it as essentially three clusters of leadership roles. Songs and sets, gigs and agreements and spokesperson on behalf of band, and gear/tech/sound/FOH liason. Can be one person, two or three; or even joint on each. But each requires somebody. Now I've got to get everyone on board for this to work out...
I’ve just rewatched the Tom Petty documentary, Running Down A Dream....Mike Campbell refers to himself as ‘second chair’, Benmont says he’ll be there as long as Tom and Mike want to have a band. The Eagles had Henley and Frey. Springsteen is clearly a leader who lost his sidekick for a long period, but it did seem wrong in a recent documentary where the band were all waiting in a semicircle like school kids for him to appear...including his wife.
Queen were a band of equals who did rather well for themselves. But I must admit that the bands I've been in which did best didn't have a leader as such but had a member who naturally took a leading role.
Had different experiences. Usually, the de facto leader is the most committed one(s), and normally the ones with stronger personality. But if there is no shared vision, interest, and some human (ideally friendship) and musical spark between all members, the band will go nowhere.
Hey bro I’ve been following you for a while and love your content 🤘🏻 rock on
"Leader" can easily have a negative stigma, especially in an entertainment profession where ego and talent are at play. There are countless examples of high profile bands where multiple egos butt heads and some bands probably want to shy away from that and just say "we all have a say," but you need SOMEBODY who is willing to make choices and have a direction. It doesn't have to be someone bossy, driven, or narcissistic that sits around dictating what each member is supposed to do. A good leader in anything (not just music) collects input and allows for individual creativity and freedom while still guiding the entire direction of the group.
If you're doing anything besides jamming in the basement, you need at least one or more people to decide what your goal and direction are and what everyone can do to get there. And if you have multiple people clashing on what that idea is, it's good to figure that out early so you don't run into issues later. If everyone wants to go in the same direction and it's clear what that direction is, you're at least halfway there, but you still need someone guiding the ship to make the decisions to make sure it actually happens.
Family members tend to know each other very well. Which _can be_ a positive thing, as long as everyone is comfortable with their roles.
AC/DC's founding members, brothers Malcolm and Angus Young stayed together in the band until Malcom had to retire in 2014, due to health issues (he died in 2017).
That's why Stevie Young joined the band. In the early years, George Young (he too died in 2017) worked as a producer, together with Harry Vanda.
Van Halen's founding members, brothers Edward and Alex Van Halen stayed together as long as Eddies health allowed it (he died in 2020).
Their father, Jan Van Halen (1920-1986), plays clarinet on the song _Big Bad Bill (Is Sweet William Now),_ which can be found from Diver Down (1982). He had lost one of his fingers several years earlier.
Eddies son, Wolfgang Van Halen, played bass and sung backing vocals during the last couple of years. Alex's son, Malcolm Van Halen, hasn't play in either of those bands, as far as I know...
The leader is the guy who plays Freebird best.
A band needs a direction and some momentum. Sometimes that can be come from the group as a whole but more likely you'll need somebody to push it in that direction. If you're all just pulling at different threads or treading water then things get frustrating and stale very quickly.
I've been in bands where people get frustrated at being told what to do but when the control is opened up to the group, nothing ever got done because everybody had different priorities and/or work ethics. It was the death of the band.
Of course, the problem is, everyone wants to be the leader and everyone thinks they know best 😄
George Harrison: "You are being a dictator!"
Paul McCartney: "Of course I am. It's my song and I know exactly how I want it to sound"
Before we signed with management and booking, I knew the only way we would move forward in my last band was to lead. Everyone else had never been in a band that did anything professionally before, or had an experience in the industry. I had just finished working for some signed bands, and had been in some other established bands prior. I scheduled all the practices, did our booking, shopped for management, set up studio time for recording, and scheduled photo shoots, and did everything to present ourselves as a professional, not just some dudes in a garage. Within six months we had booking and management, we were getting booked to open when national tours came through, and we were being shopped to labels. After that I could just focus on being a member and writing.
Every band that wants to accomplish anything needs one or two people that say, "If this is what we want, this is what we have to do to get there." If everyone had the mindset of, "we can just write good music and we'll get discovered," you're never going to leave your garage. Music is a business and a grind. We used to stand outside venues every weekend if we weren't playing shows that night just to hand out flyers, stickers, and CDs as people walked out just to get our name out. If you don't market yourself it doesn't matter how good your music is. I've seen some of the most amazing bands never sign to a label because they cared more about partying and smoking pot than putting in the work to get to the next level. Likewise, I've seen some absolutely terrible bands sign to labels because they built a following through Myspace back in the day and everyone in Orange County knew their names so they'd sell out Chain Reaction every time they played.
I don't know... I think leadership can turn into dictatorship. If I'm not mistaken, Pink Floyd had this issue, right?
I think the Beatles is a good example of a mix between having strong leadership and being equal partners. Obviously, John and Paul are the two leaders (main singers, main songwriters, etc.), but each one of them had a decent share in the limelight. Sure, they had plenty of quarrels, but I think that had more to do with their constant touring and recording (something which would affect _any_ band).
Also, good point about the frontman not always being the leader. Bands like Anthrax, Iron Maiden, and Van Halen come to mind. Hell, there were _two_ guys with the last name, 'Van Halen' (three if you include Eddie's son Wolfgang after Michael left), and neither of them were the frontmen.
The Beatles fell apart within a few years after Epstein passed away, the true captain of that ship.
I am always leader of my own projects...
However when I have joined others bands I always do my best to respect the other leader.
Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. It very much depends on how active the leader is to make decisions...
I've joined bands where I WANTED to be a "passive follower" but ended up needing to take control of the band because the actual leader wasn't doing anything, haha!
So, of course, I ended up quitting that because... It's not my band xD
🤘🏻I think personally, knowing how I interact with people, especially in a working environment I'd prefer to have a leader if I were in a band. I've always preferred to have some direction being provided by someone else, it kinda takes the pressure of of you a little bit.
At the same time I also like to be able to give my input and have that taken into consideration when any decisions etc are made.
Love the Katy Vernon shirt! listened to that album just a few days ago.
Joined a student bands once ; I was just supposed to give a hand and have fun in the music room with them. But at some point, they wanted to plan a live performance, and ended up carrying the whole group.
Each members wanted to do different stuff and could never agree, so I made everyone agree to compromises.
We needed more equipment stuff, so I provided my amp, an extra guitar, my computer, an extra microphone, microphone stand, and more stuff.
They were getting their tabs on different places, so they weren't always correct and at some point it didn't work when put together. Had to make my own tabs for everyone to share and learn. Adapted for the difference of levels, for two guitars, etc.
We didn't have drummer, so we needed a backtrack for rehearsals and live gig, along with other instruments (synths, choirs, etc), and I ended up doing them.
By the time of the live day, I had taken the lead because it was necessary, and it went good. But boy, was it exhausting. Did it for the second live too, with new songs, all over again.
We never went to the third, because I was tired of doing everything, keeping everyone in line, making sure the right amount of progress were made… It was exhausting and I didn't even wanted to do that. I resigned, and as soon as I did, everybody did. Then covid hit and it was the perfect excuse to split and stop.
So yeah, in my experience, a lead is required. One or two if they can agree, doesn't matter much, but if nobody is willing to be in chage, the band is very likely compromised.
You sir hit the nail on the head.
Agree 100%! Sure, there can be bad leadership, as you noted, but IMHO, there has to be someplace the buck stops, so to speak. I've been in a leadership role in most bands I've been in, but I'm currently in a band where I'm not and it's so wonderful to just be the guitar player at this point in my life and just trust the singer to lead.
Great topic Mike...I totally agree with what you said...this goes for all aspects of life as well...your job...your marraige. ...sometimes there are even more than one leader who just amplify things...
Just aimlessly wandering is all good for a while but soon fizzles out...the pot needs to be stirred...sometime times shit needs to fly...otherwise there is no growth...even solo artists need to fight and push ..other wise they will just stay where they are...☺..great leaders bring out the best of their group..and some...by the way..Mike your Awsome.😀
I wouldn't call it leadership, but, a band needs management. I used to manage the whole band practice, rehearsals and gigs. I would basically try to keep everyone there so we could basically do stuff other than just the drummer blasting away alone. The drummer managed the whole gig organization and where to play part and he was doing a great job. We always said we don't have a leader but me and him really had leader-like roles
The decal on your guitar goes really well with the rest of the guitar. But yeah, good leaders, good leadership.
A band needs someone with vision and drive with a supporting team to back them.
Thanks Mike! 🤘
Democracy is as one great American once said is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, to be a group of professional musicians works best when it's run the same as any other business, there needs to be a pecking order, someone ultimately needs to take responsibility for making the business decisions and everyone else in the team needs to know who this is.
I believe they do. At the very least, someone who makes the executive decisions. Democracy is great in a band, but nothing will ever get done if there isn’t someone to take the lead when it’s needed.
Great video yet again, always enjoy your opinion and your playing even more.
I want to think that the people that disagree with this statement confuse leadership with ownership and/or ego.
As a band you MUST be equal but as you said, there has to be at least one person that gets things done. Not every bandmember has the knowledge, connections or just the guts to take the band further.
Not like Ed Kowalski from Live did, he made himself think he was the boss, which led to the downfall of this awesome band.
I still listen to their songs and think to myself: "What would have become of Live if Ed didn't make this mistake, they would still be one of the leading rockbands I guess"
Thank for the great content this past year, keep going.
Yeah, the hierarchy is important. Some people will have different commitment levels and a de facto leader can guide and work with various band mates according to personal variables. I work with each member one on one but I initiate most of those conversations. We all get together less frequently than I'd like, but for adults with day jobs and family commitments, someone needs to keep the train moving or people get sidetracked.
Any band that intends on going somewhere or achieving success needs leadership to steer them in the right direction. The leadership structure may take many different forms, as history has shown, and it can also change over the course of the band’s career.
Do a video explaining band ownership structure if you really want to blow people’s minds. Yes, bands have owners just like businesses!! This is especially important to understand for groups who intend to make the big time. How do things really work?? Don’t let yourself get screwed over by crooked managers or shady band mates.
Thanks for the advice i recent gained some band mates but we havent all gotten together and played yet so But i think i know whose gonna end up being the leaders
I'm the leader in my band. One time the band said they wanted to be more active running things so I stepped back. Guess what? Nothing got done. Instead of rehearsal being where we tightened songs for gigs or learned new ones, they were jams n hangouts, which have their place, but it was just drinking and bbq and no songs were learned and we had very long breaks, and there wasn't even a set time to show up. Handed over social media and nothing got posted or promoted. I still kept in touch with promoters because those were my contacts, but they didn't get our fliers artwork done to advertise our gig at the bars. If you want to be a leader, lead by example. Show up on time and be ready with your parts and your gear. Practice at home, tighten it up at rehearsal. Participate with promoting, do positive things to elevate yourself and your band.
Yo Mike, finally drooled on the guitar
As soon as someone in the band tries to assert themselves as the "leader" conflict will begin to simmer and eventually destroy the band. Some people just don't know how to live without politicizing everything.
The Beatles had two leaders, but they all worked well together and also had George Martin to help guide them/break ties etc.
I guess what you need is direction, and if everyone is pulling in the same direction then the one leader is not that essential but otherwise I also think you need a band leader.
Don't forget Brian Epstein. When he died, The Beatles had to handle the business side of things themselves which added stress and when they couldn't find an agreement on who to bring in as the new manager (the whole Allen Klein debacle), they ultimately split.
One of the worst situations I’ve been in was with a singer/songwriter who wanted to be the bandleader but had little to no theory knowledge and was unable to communicate musical ideas to band mates, so between that & his GINORMOUS ego nobody respected him, which of course made him a horrible leader.
Hey! Recently I formed a Hard Rock band, and I'm the leader of the band but I've made 1 or 2 bad calls which kinda caused some set backs in the way, I'm trying to learn how to build up leadership because I'm the one who organizes the dates and places where we're gonna rehearse, the one who books the gigs, the one who has contacts, the one who finds new guitar players, the one who decides the new songs we're gonna play, etc. But because of sometimes my lack of irresponsibility in coordination like wise, there has been some issues in the band, I play the bass btw
Imho, everyone in the band needs to be on the same page if you want to gig and make $ Ex. Being prepared, not f**king around, being on time. If they don't have the same drive, cut them loose.
Absolutely! In my band, I’m the leader and it’s been working for us pretty well. I have a strong vision of how I want us to sound and where I want us to go, and we’re slowly starting to get there. I always encourage the guys to help in any way, whether it’s with songwriting or the band, but in the end I’m usually the one doing most of the work alone. I’m not complaining though. It makes things easier when your band trusts you with the reigns. On the flip side, I’ve also had bands with no real leader/more of a democracy before and nothing got done. Those bands ended up disbanding pretty quickly.
what genre or genres is your band
You are right!
Somewhat unrelated, but I honestly don't think I'd ever be able to be in a band, because I would want to control the entire creative direction of the band. Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything but if I have an idea, I want to make it a reality. I wouldn't want to compromise at all, which may be a negative trait on my part, but I have clear visions in my head, and those visions can't be obstructed.
I'm very glad we live in an age where being a solo artist is as easy as ever, it's going to make it easier for my ideas to actually be able to be realized when that time comes.
Any successful organization needs leadership. Leadership does not equal dictatorship. Leadership maximizes creativity and when properly done elevates everyone in the organization. Without leadership, there is no organization.
Although there are definitely exceptions, a leader is best. You need to have one cogent style and direction. The other members need to agree to this and follow the leaders guide. Otherwise, the tendency is for each member to promote a different style and there is no distinctive unified sound. Then, members who try out can know just what is expected and decide it is either where they want to go or not. However, I have been in fairly successful bands where there was no defined leader, but found it much easier to show up for practice and just follow the leader.
My first thought was that there is definitely advantages to both bands with leaders and without them, then you said what I was thinking. It all depends on what you want out of it, if you want success and to play a lot of shows you need that leader providing some structure. If you don't then just jam along with your friends and have a good time, although I think in every friend group or group of people there will always be a natural hierarchy that doesn't need to be verbally defined but everyone knows it. I'd prefer to not have a leader but that's probably just my natural aversion towards authority figures speaking, then again I'm not in a band and I don't want any success or shows so uh.. yeah. I'm fine just sitting at home trying to not sound like shit with my guitar.
The leader is usually the person, who is writing the songs. How could anybody else in the band have a clear imagination of a song, which has developed in another ones head/brain? So if there were two leaders like Lennon/McCartney Jagger/Richards Hetfield/Ulrich Page/Plant etc., they usually write songs together.
That is why Styx, who had 3 strong songwriters, ended up with so much drama about the direction the band should take. They did do a lot of collaborations but it was clear each of them had a different vision of where they wanted the band to go.
Genesis were a weird case where from where I see it, there was no definite leader, both in the Peter Gabriel era and in the Phil Collins era. Another example of this kind is Depeche Mode, but their way of working is very unusual, compared to any band I've heard of.
Most bands I have been in didn't have an "official" leader, but given time the pendulum always seems to swing toward the most focused member, and he/she becomes the leader in the minds of the members. It's a role that should be earned within most groups.
HOWEVER, I have been hired into projects (such as tribute bands) where one person has a vision, the ability to book the group in appropriate venues, chooses the theme of the show, chooses the songs, their order, establishes expectations on stage clothing, the persona the group will project to the audience, etc. I rather like this arrangement as it frees the musicians to focus solely on their part of the show.
I have also been briefly in groups that have NO leadership and the end result always seems to be endless rehearsals with no real intent to present a marketable show.
This being said, I say "yes", every group should entrust at least one member to have the final say. My 2-cents worth
Yes, absolutely. Without a band leader to either decide direction, book gigs or set goals, it's a jam session. You don't need to have it run with an iron fist but someone needs to take charge and take that leading step.
I'm the guitarist in a band right now where it's the singer's project. He's not a leader, there's no practice structure or planning. You need someone to push the project forward.
I remember a band I was in for 3 years .. One of the members wanted to be the leader but what happened to that was he had way to much control . But in reality I was the leader & I did the social media I got us more gigs . & That one member still thought he was the big time leader.
& it was too much drama
& So the band split up .
Now I’m in a new band & it’s opposite. Everyone is cool with whatever. & Like what you said it goes ether way for different people..
Totally agree
Mike your right
Anyone into provoking thought on the subject may want to check out the movie 'Frank'. Not sure you want to take it as a lesson in band leadership, but either way I think it has potential to be liked or even adored. I actually kind of like the fictitious band of Hollywood actors
If a band wants playing music to be their job, yeah they need a leader.
I remember many many years ago I saw a bunch of local bands play during one Friday night. This one band walked on stage, their vocalist guitarist & bassist were ready to rock but their drummer was literally setting up his drum set for, gosh at least 4 minutes. I'm not exaggerating , he was tuning his drum set, adjusting things, while they were supposed to be playing.
I doubt they had a leader.
You are right. Have to have a leader
Yes, if you want achieve anything.
I really feel like the whip in my band besides a leader 🤣 (whip - an official of a political party appointed to maintain discipline among its members in Congress or Parliament, especially so as to ensure attendance and voting in debates). The pandemic has made it hard to meet up and jam together though, but normally I'm the one waking up early or planning a lot of the dates and shit. I don't even mind (and actually welcome) my friends writing songs either (whenever they do), but normally I just write most of the songs and show them the riffs while jamming.
I agree, leadership is needed, otherwise nothing happens
Power trios are great for tie breaking too.
It seems like you could have democratic leadership process as long as you have an equally motivated and odd number of band mates. It is the stalemates that bring everything to a grinding halt that single leaders do not have to contend with in addition to the time it takes to constantly assess team consensus. Thus, an even number of bandmates would require a manager for breaking progress killing stalemates.
Couldn't agree more, good bands have strong leaders
There can be a fine line between a leader and an egomaniac, sometimes you get both and it works (for a time, Axel in GnR).
Like any band, no matter how talented they are, you need a magic formula of the right mix of personalities to go from great to top tier.
Like all art/creative fields, there needs to be an artistic vision from a visionary. Art by committee rarely comes out very good.
Having said that, you can have several leaders who share the visions, each taking turns writing the songs. Beatles and Zeppelin are 2 such bands I can think of off the top of my head.
Reo Speedwagon's drummer started that band.
Nikki Sixx wrote every Mötley Crüe song.
Malcolm Young was the leader of AC/DC, not Angus or Bon. Scotty Moore was Elvis's first manager.
In a year's time, even though Brian Jones started The Rolling Stones, Mick and Keith took over leadership role after Brian's depression and drinking got out of control.
Peter Greene started Fleetwood Mac, but after a year he ran away with a cult forcing the other members to carry on without him.
Syd Barrett was the good-looking charasmatic genius that started Pink Floyd, except after a year he became paranoid schizophrenic, thus Roger Waters and David Gilmour had to keep it going.
Tommy Iommi fired Ozzy from Black Sabbath.
A leader, yes. But theres a fine line between leader and total control freak. As long as they don't cross that line, and keep the band as a whole on track and allows musical freedom, the band should be golden!
I think it really does depend on the band. There are some bands that are successful and unsuccessful on both sides. The problems I think start to come in when either there is no drive (no one in the band has a direction they want to go) or there are opposing drives (look at Paul and John from the Beatles). Personally, I think it should be less about joining a band with a leader and more about enjoying doing what you do. If you start to not like what your doing, then quit and try something else. But don't necessarily give up on something that could be enjoyable simply because the band is more democratic than leader focused. You never know, it could be the fit you were looking for and didn't even know it lol.
success is hard, harder if you don't have a vision for the future. yes things should be voted on, but you have to have a leader.
Yes.
Leaders are what attracts an audience and brings success. If nobody in the band is charismatic enough to be a leader there won’t be any direction to go in and likely the band won’t be very entertaining live.
leader in a band = the most enthusiastic member
LOL you should ask Judas Priest considering they are now a four person band
I guess it really depends on what you’re claiming to be leadership. I’ve played the role of band director before, but I definitely wasn’t the leader. I’ve also been in bands where someone else does the booking and they were definitely not the leader. To me the leader is the person who is overseeing the creative identity of the band. This is usually the person(s) who started this thing. At some point it was decided to start a band whether it was an all original band, cover band, or even a tribute band. Everything else just seems like another occupation within the band.
How good do you need to be to play in a band do shows. How long should you been playing for?
I’ve tried this before. Good Leader, bad Leader and no Leader. Even tried a good Leader going bad!
The leading role is not to be messer with😬
I once asked my brother who was just messing around with vocals to join my band. He grew from that to the leader of my band. After him it's me. But important is to keep stuff honest and straight. Good musicians will take that for granted others better go. You can't have the entire family from lets say a drummer on a guest list with exluding your own mom and dad for instance. Makes no sense and isn't fair. split the bill fair and your good. some might bitch and leave and be pissed over the lost money.But haven't we all been to that place of losing cash. A bad guitar teacher,quitting sports or fitness memberships that count but don't proceed in corona time. i've learned one thing big time. Beeing in a band should be more working and less talk about working. We've been through allot of talks,it works or it doesn't work. Keep it kinda garage in ways XD.
It might also be clarifying to point out that democracy is not the same as equal say, democracy is a nice word but it means mob-rules, which in and of itself means no leadership unless the leader has a majority of the band members in agreement and that looks like democracy. The member that is the musical director doesn't necessarily have prowess in bookings if the band is sans management. Without some form of two-way directional respect, a band is doomed without a leader. By two-way directional respect, I mean that the leader has respect, for the members because it's due respect and vice versa. This is an interesting topic. What a lack of leadership brings to the top is the lack of shared vision amongst the members. Some are addicted to the selfishness of gigging, others need to keep the lights on and some of us are impassioned by music. I can and have done all of these things but personally, I'd rather be an MD as I am far leaning to the latter of being musically and hopelessly impassioned, but we shouldn't keep our light under a basket. I dig this topic.
This is why I think it was best for both Matallica and Dave Mustaine that Dave left (to his own surprise). James and Lars already have strong voices of their own. Imagine having three leaders in a band. They would have fallen apart before writing Master of Puppets.
yep i ve seen this a lot. headless bands that fizzle away. 2 leaders work even better then one in my opinion.
Well,
There are bands like MGMT, The Helio Sequence, How to destroy angels, Matmos, etc.
Depends on what you are doing.
Other guitarist in my old band: "I don't like the idea of having a band leader. I think everyone should have a say."
*Proceeds to send everyone close to a set's worth of demos he's written, refuse to work on any new ideas with the band at practice ("waste of time" "send a demo"), plan out setlists to the point of having scripted stage banter on them, and then shoot down everyone else's ideas when they do send demos cause he can't play them without a bit of practice.
Equal roles.Just like in the songwriting process, where everybody’s contributing ideas.
(Out of topic)
Dude, Hi Fidelity was on TV a while ago, I realized you kinda look related to John Cusack. 😁
I joined a band that had no leader once, I stepped into the leadership role and it was ultimately the death of the band. I'm in a different band now that I love!
Oh, yes! Without someone with a drive and vision, it’s not going anywhere. A good leader makes the other members fired up and engaged. If you’re not the leader, pull your weight. I used to do everything myself, not anymore. Ps: don’t play in a band with your best friends, cause one of them probably needs to be fired down the road.
Ive always had one big question about this whole band thing
How do i find a band in the first place?
Get good, the rest will follow. Honest opinion, and I'm not saying you're not already good (I have no idea.)
But if you can play very well, you are almost bound to attract attention from other musicians. Then you are going to have to weed out those who can't hang with you, and eventually, you'll have chemistry with somebody who is into what you are. Maybe they know somebody who plays X (drums?) and you know a Y (bass?) player. Find space, jam. Start having fun. Play songs you like. Then you start trying to work out your own material. But I think a lot of this starts with developing confidence in your own skills, whatever instrument you play.
EVH, cobain, Peart in rush, grohl in FF…. Without naming all day, bands need a leader.
Nice Duesenberg.
Adam Duritz is a lyrical genius
Mastodon is probably my favorite band today and I think that they all are equally leaders in the band.
thats right ...im the leader on my one person band ... I sure tell those subordinates what to do so they dont forget their place. I rule with an iron fist. 🤘
Who was the leader in your teenage band Sanctus?
Mostly Al and myself.