How should I handle un-serious band-mates?

I'm in a bit of a pinch here, regarding a band I'm trying to put together. I've got both a nice Bassist and a nice Guitarist lined up, both of whom claim to be ambitious as well, to the point where we have the same goals and everything... except motivation! Amongst the three of us, I'm the most serious member, and the only one who's doing an active effort to get the three of us to meet and jam. The most commitment I've seen from either of the other two was very little input, regarding which songs to learn first, and even that wasn't a lot, while I practice 'till my fingers get sore and try to find a time and date for us to meet and jam.

Now, don't get me wrong. They're both pretty good at their instruments, and they're nice to play with when it actually happens (which has happened once with the Bassist and three times or so with the Guitarist... in the last 2 months!). I just can't help but think they're not taking it seriously enough. I've sent both a message, asking them when they have the time to jam, but no response.

So I'm starting to wonder what I should do about this problem... Should I give them one last chance to get their **** together or should I kick them out of the band right away? I'd really hate to let those people keep me from reaching my goals, even if it means I have to kick them out. What would you guys recommend I do about this?

From recent experience, I can relate to how hard it is to get a band moving and off the ground. It led to me leaving the band abuptly because it was driving my crazy. Fortunately we have a second chance at this thing and we are seeing how we can make it work applying what we learned before.

What I'm hearing is that you are much more enthusiastic about playing your instrument and the band project than your bandmates. I wouldn't throw anybody out of the band yet.

Somehow I think you need to convey to your bandmates just what your goals are and what your vision is. It sounds like this is your project. If you want to manage it that way, then you need to get a definitive answer from them whether or not they are on board with your vision. This of course means to need to reflect on just what your vision and goals are. If they are not on board, and you feel that strongly about it, perhaps it's best to part ways at that point. This approach will make it difficult to find people.

On the other hand, you might consider managing this as a more collaborative effort. Rather than trying to find out when they can get together to jam, ask them what they want from the project and how it would work best for them. People respond better when their input is requested and valued. Find out where there passions are and see how you can fold that into your passions and your vision for the band. You are basically recruiting people...and you need to show them why YOU are the guy they should be working for and why YOUR project is the one they should be involved in.

You might also think about how realistic your timeline is. I may be wrong, but it seems like you may be rushing things because of your enthusiasm. You want this to happen NOW!!! I fully understand that, I do. It might be helpful for you to stretch out your timeline a bit to allow time for the people you've brought together to gel.

You read my "realizations" I posted in my band thread. Perhaps you can take away something from that too.

Hopefully something in there is useful :-).

Kasperow,

My opinions

If a person cannot play at least 30 songs they are not ready to be in a band yet. A person has to be serious about playing for a long time to be able to do that. Those people are ready to invest the time it takes to be a band. Yes a band, not a jam group. A lot of short lived bands come from jam groups.

People in jam groups have no responsibility to the group they are much harder to get together in one place at the same time. The point of jamming is having fun, but fun turns into work if no one knows the same songs. This goes back to already knowing how to play a few songs. If three guys get together to jam and all three know 5 to 7 of the same songs… You can at least jam for an hour or two.

Starting a band is like learning the open F chord.

Have patients be prepared to work for it, try different ways and give it break for a few days here and there. In the long run it will be worth it. There is no short run; you can’t make an F chord any faster than you can.

Reading your post, it sounds like you are in a jam group still and that’s good. That means you do not have to quit looking for other people to jam with. You might even find others with more interest like yourself.

No reason to drop your current jam mates, you learn more and more at each jam. Understand it for what it is and use it to grow.

End opinions

Haghj -

Good point...there is a different between rehearsing a band (songs) vs. jamming.

Personally, I can't stand aimless jamming. To me it's a waste of time and I lose the little interest I might have after 5 minutes. By then, everybody starts repeating themselves. Yes, when you don't have a good list of songs you can play together, it becomes problematic.

Kasperow - perhaps your bandmates are of a similar mindset?

Kick them out if there not on the same page.
Life is short,find new players.!

Originally Posted by: maggiorFrom recent experience, I can relate to how hard it is to get a band moving and off the ground. It led to me leaving the band abuptly because it was driving my crazy. Fortunately we have a second chance at this thing and we are seeing how we can make it work applying what we learned before.

What I'm hearing is that you are much more enthusiastic about playing your instrument and the band project than your bandmates. I wouldn't throw anybody out of the band yet.

Somehow I think you need to convey to your bandmates just what your goals are and what your vision is. It sounds like this is your project. If you want to manage it that way, then you need to get a definitive answer from them whether or not they are on board with your vision. This of course means to need to reflect on just what your vision and goals are. If they are not on board, and you feel that strongly about it, perhaps it's best to part ways at that point. This approach will make it difficult to find people.

On the other hand, you might consider managing this as a more collaborative effort. Rather than trying to find out when they can get together to jam, ask them what they want from the project and how it would work best for them. People respond better when their input is requested and valued. Find out where there passions are and see how you can fold that into your passions and your vision for the band. You are basically recruiting people...and you need to show them why YOU are the guy they should be working for and why YOUR project is the one they should be involved in.

You might also think about how realistic your timeline is. I may be wrong, but it seems like you may be rushing things because of your enthusiasm. You want this to happen NOW!!! I fully understand that, I do. It might be helpful for you to stretch out your timeline a bit to allow time for the people you've brought together to gel.

You read my "realizations" I posted in my band thread. Perhaps you can take away something from that too.

Hopefully something in there is useful :-).[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't know if I'm the most enthusiastic one, when it comes to this band-project, but I'm the only one who's doing an active effort to get it to work out properly. I've tried asking them if they have any suggestions for songs to learn, but the only results that yielded was 1 song... And I got that song down pretty fast (one weekend was more than enough time to get that song sorted out). And even more jarring, every song I suggested was shot down immediately, either dismissed as "too difficult" or "horrible song". I think I understand now how you must have felt when your band couldn't decide on what songs to learn...

I don't know if I'd call this band "my project" or "our band", since I'm a bit split between the two. Both kinds of "projects" could be fun to be part of, as long as the number of covers is kept to a minimum (I'm not a big fan of cover-bands), and I don't really see much of a difference between the two. Sure, "my project" indicates that I'll have complete creative control and make all the decisions that need to be made, while "our band" indicates that decisions should be made amongst the band-members and that everyone should have equal say in all matters. I don't know how much experience the others have with writing their own stuff.

Originally Posted by: haghj500If a person cannot play at least 30 songs they are not ready to be in a band yet. A person has to be serious about playing for a long time to be able to do that. Those people are ready to invest the time it takes to be a band. Yes a band, not a jam group. A lot of short lived bands come from jam groups.

By that guideline, it seems I'm not "ready to be in a band yet". I can play
fragments of a couple of songs, and there's a few songs I can play from start to finish (although I improvise solos on some of those...). I've seen that 30-song-guideline other places as well, but one thing I don't understand, is why it applies to people who mainly want to play original stuff on-stage. I can understand it when it comes to cover-bands since they play, as the term implies, covers.
[QUOTE=maggior]there is a different between rehearsing a band (songs) vs. jamming.

Personally, I can't stand aimless jamming. To me it's a waste of time and I lose the little interest I might have after 5 minutes. By then, everybody starts repeating themselves. Yes, when you don't have a good list of songs you can play together, it becomes problematic.

Kasperow - perhaps your bandmates are of a similar mindset?

They both say they're up for playing together in a band, but as your comparison indicates, that requires a bunch of songs to rehearse as a band, and as I said earlier in this post, we can't seem to come up with a list of songs to learn as a band. All of my suggestions, which span a wide array of genres and styles (Blues, Classic Rock, 80's Metal and a bit of Heavy stuff, just to name a few of the central ones), are shot down before I even get the chance to play a recording of them so the Bassist can hear it before deciding.

Sometimes, I start to wonder if I should just write a bunch of songs myself and just run with a solo-career instead of trying to start a band. It seems to work just fine for a few of the guitarists I like listening to...

Hi Mr Kasperow,
Any successful band needs some relatively charismatic person with a clear (and not-too-vague) musical vision - then the other potential band-members need to buy into that vision in a positive and cooperative way. If they don't, it's never going to happen - and the person with the initial vision will just become more demoralized and frustrated. So I agree with Mr Axe - get rid of these time-wasters and try out for some other people! Being a solo player may be a solution for you but it won't be anywhere like as satisfying as being part of a proper band. Good luck with it all, Steve

Oh I hear you about song selection! Once people finally started throwing out suggestions, I was the guy shooting them down. I've since learned :-).

I've never had a desire to write my own material, so I can't really relate in that regard. I would say that if that is truely what you want to do, you need to either find likeminded people, or start writing your own stuff and getting some "hired hands" to be your band. If you hire your band, you are now fully in charge and need to be able to provide direction to everybody.

A lot of bands started out as cover bands though...so even though that isn't your final goal, I think you have a good idea doing covers. Bands like Dream Theater and Primus do awesome covers of the music they grew up with...yet have very original material of their own.

The stance I plan to adopt assuming my band gets some momentum going again is to consider any and everything. I will also propse that everybody else assume the same stance in the interest of keeping things going. If you band members can do that or agree, then it's time to seriously consider parting ways.

Keep in mind that doing covers doesn't mean you have to recreate the songs as originally written. Yes did some covers in their early years. America by Simon and Garfunkel was on of them. Listen to both versions - they barely resemble eachother. Talk about making it your own!! Sting did the same thing with Police songs. When he went solo, he redid some Police songs in a way that they were barely recognizable. Megadeth did a cover of "These Boots" by Nancy Sinatra - radically different!

Hope you get this sorted out...I know the frustration. Just don't let it get you down or stop you.

Originally Posted by: haghj500Starting a band is like learning the open F chord.

Damn, I gotta go through that pain AGAIN!!!

:-).

Originally Posted by: Steve BarrowHi Mr Kasperow,
Any successful band needs some relatively charismatic person with a clear (and not-too-vague) musical vision - then the other potential band-members need to buy into that vision in a positive and cooperative way. If they don't, it's never going to happen - and the person with the initial vision will just become more demoralized and frustrated. So I agree with Mr Axe - get rid of these time-wasters and try out for some other people! Being a solo player may be a solution for you but it won't be anywhere like as satisfying as being part of a proper band. Good luck with it all, Steve[/QUOTE]
For me, any chance to get out there and play some original music will be satisfying. It may be a lot more work if I go with the solo-project, but it'll be easier to pick out the songs I want to learn to play live. Although, according to the Danish guitarist Søren Andersen, having a solo-project means I'll be my own boss 24/7... It sounds like a lot, but then, most of my spare-time is spent on practicing or producing right now, so it can't be that bad, right?

Of course, for the solo-project option, I would need to hire someone to play the songs I choose, and they will most likely not play for free... So there are some pros and cons to both options, it would seem...

[QUOTE=maggior]Keep in mind that doing covers doesn't mean you have to recreate the songs as originally written. Yes did some covers in their early years. America by Simon and Garfunkel was on of them. Listen to both versions - they barely resemble eachother. Talk about making it your own!! Sting did the same thing with Police songs. When he went solo, he redid some Police songs in a way that they were barely recognizable. Megadeth did a cover of "These Boots" by Nancy Sinatra - radically different!

Hope you get this sorted out...I know the frustration. Just don't let it get you down or stop you.

I've never really noticed any cases where covers sound that different from the originals. I know Pretty Maids' cover of Thin Lizzy's "Please Don't Leave Me" sounds a bit different from the original. They basically took the original song and turned it into Heavy Rock, and it works because of how they play it, at least live, not just because their fans like the song (although that definitely helps).

So, it seems I'm underestimating the value of learning a few dozen songs even if I know I'll never be satisfied with only playing covers. Then I can always re-arrange the songs to match whatever lineup I end up with, and sound differently from the original version. I imagine that could take a lot of time, depending on which songs I choose to learn...

Originally Posted by: Kasperow
So, it seems I'm underestimating the value of learning a few dozen songs even if I know I'll never be satisfied with only playing covers. Then I can always re-arrange the songs to match whatever lineup I end up with, and sound differently from the original version. I imagine that could take a lot of time, depending on which songs I choose to learn...

Could be. It's a way of being creative and continuing to hone your skills. Also, while doing your cover band thing, you can be writing your own material at the same time - it may even give you some ideas. Also keep in mind that nobody said you can't be in more than one band at a time!

Pretty much any time you are playing music with other people is time well spent. Whether it be covers or original material, you are gaining experience.

In my first round of adult rock band, I hadn't played ANY of the songs before and felt pressured to learn the quickly. I could learn 80% of the song quickly, but the last 20% was killing me - usually solos! It wasn't totally intentional, but what happened was the last 20% became my own. I took the essence of the song and worked from there. That was one of the most enjoyable parts for me. When we were done, our versions sounded significantly different from the originals, but they were close...close enough that the audience appreciated it yet included enough of "me" to make it interesting.

Originally Posted by: maggiorCould be. It's a way of being creative and continuing to hone your skills. Also, while doing your cover band thing, you can be writing your own material at the same time - it may even give you some ideas. Also keep in mind that nobody said you can't be in more than one band at a time!

Good point. Then again, the before-mentioned Søren Andersen is in 3 bands that I know of (his solo-project, Glenn Hughes and "Electric Guitars"), and nobody's stopping him from doing all that. So I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to do as you suggest, and start with a few covers and take it from there. I might just find a few songs that I'll actually enjoy playing for others and add my own personal touches to them :)

Good thread guys-interesting. What does in a "band" really mean? Synonyms include "gang" and "group". I've had a couple of short-lived "band" experiences but quite a few "gang/group" projects. Maybe Kasp would benefit from a gang/group mindset and consider it a learning experience and a precursor to a more united effort - a "band"?

I kinda lean toward Hagh's take in post #3. I think of a "band" as a group that has a catalog (30-40 songs) they can play well enough to qualify as entertainment (?). Personally, I enjoy a good jam (groups & gangs) but not endless 12 bar blues ... jamming on "covers" but taking whatever liberties you want to get through the song. Usually produces plenty of oops and smiling cringes but it's all for fun (usually just an excuse to drink beer :)... and is considerably less stressful than preparing songs for public consumption.

Keep at it Kasp - play with any/every - gang/group you can ... practice diligently... and eventually the personnel for a "band" will emerge.

Good point - I wasn't even thinking of popular artists that are invoved with multiple bands and maybe even solo projects.

Originally Posted by haghj500
If a person cannot play at least 30 songs they are not ready to be in a band yet. A person has to be serious about playing for a long time to be able to do that. Those people are ready to invest the time it takes to be a band. Yes a band, not a jam group. A lot of short lived bands come from jam groups.

“By that guideline, it seems I'm not "ready to be in a band yet". I can play
fragments of a couple of songs, and there's a few songs I can play from start to finish (although I improvise solos on some of those...). I've seen that 30-song-guideline other places as well, but one thing I don't understand, is why it applies to people who mainly want to play original stuff on-stage. I can understand it when it comes to cover-bands since they play, as the term implies, covers.”



To me, you’re right you’re not ready. You are a perfect fit for a jam group. A band can be offered a 2 or 3 hour gig and they have the material ready to fill that much time. How many hours of writing new material and practice are you away from being able to do that? You are still learning how to learn new songs, how can you be ready?

No I didn’t write that to piss you off, I would say the same thing if I was sitting across the table from you drinking a beer trying to be a friend. You have been putting in the time to learn to play, you deserve to take pride in what you have learned, but you’ve got more to learn. Two years from now, think back to this and see how much more you have learned. Think about how much you have learned in the last 6 months.

A lot of people like what they are use to and avoid new things. There are a few people who seek out the unknown and listen to new music when they go out. But again most people when they go out want to hear music they already know and can dance to. That’s why most cover bands play covers and start adding in their stuff one or two songs per set and if that goes well, they will work in more. To test this pick a street corner near you and play original music, watch how many people stop to listen. Then play a cover song people walking by already know and watch how many stop to listen.

That will answer your question about original music and why it applies to people who want to play original music.

Kasperow, since the first time I ever reply to one of your threads I have always said what I said trying to help, I’m doing the same thing now.

Originally Posted by: haghj500To me, you’re right you’re not ready. You are a perfect fit for a jam group. A band can be offered a 2 or 3 hour gig and they have the material ready to fill that much time. How many hours of writing new material and practice are you away from being able to do that? You are still learning how to learn new songs, how can you be ready?

No I didn’t write that to piss you off, I would say the same thing if I was sitting across the table from you drinking a beer trying to be a friend. You have been putting in the time to learn to play, you deserve to take pride in what you have learned, but you’ve got more to learn. Two years from now, think back to this and see how much more you have learned. Think about how much you have learned in the last 6 months.

I know you're not trying to piss me off. From reading your posts on threads in general, not just my own, you just don't strike me as that kind of person.

I think you're right. I may not be quite ready to play in a band just yet. After all, my repertoire of well-known "Crowd-Pleasers" is pretty damn slim right now. I'm pretty sure they can be counted on one hand... Then again, learning a lot of covers has never been my main focus, so it's not really that surprising... Maybe you're right. Maybe I should take two more years of practicing before attempting to start an actual band... Might be for the better, actually, since that'd give me time to improve my tonal clarity when playing those pesky Barre Chords and work on getting my speed up. Not necessarily up to EVH-level speed, but just fast enough to be able to play fast solos. I'd also have time to improve on a bunch of other techniques, so it might be best for everyone if I wait a few years before trying to start a band.

There's only one problem with the whole waiting-thing: I'm really bad at waiting... It doesn't help that my motivation and inspiration pretty much took a bullet to the head during today's practice... So now I'll have to rebuild that as well...

If you can find some guys at a level similar to yours, nothing wrong with forming a "band" and honing your skills together. That's what most high school or garage bands are. You work at it together until you are ready for the big time of playing in front of an audience.

Just don't expect people to pay for you to play for a while :-).

What's good about a band is you HAVE to focus on entire songs, not just fragments.

Nothing wrong with jamming with anyone who wants to, a real band can form. I strongly encourage it. I grabbed two years out of the air thinking by then what you can play should change profoundly from what you play now. Not that you should wait 2 years.

Think of yourself, sitting down to write an add asking a band to hire you. What skills do you poses that you can put in that add to sell your talents to them over others replying to the same add. When you can make a good add, you should be ready.

What happened during practice?

Originally Posted by: haghj500What happened during practice?

I know this sounds quite petty, but considering that it came from someone who's been supporting me ever since I first picked up a guitar, it really did more damage than it should. I turned on my Amp as usual, and tried some new settings (that is, I turned my Amp to the '57 Fender Deluxe Reverb amp-model instead of the British 80's Marshall-style amp-model) and played through a few of the songs I know, using my Distortion Pedal when I needed a bit more gain (or needed to bring the volume up for a certain part... or both), and I think that went pretty well. Then I went a bit back to basics and did some simple Barre Chord exercises, because to me, they're always a big problem... I found 4 chords in one key, and played them as Barre Chords with the root on the low E string. I kept that going for about a minute, before the bad stuff happened.

After playing those four chords over and over and putting some Rhythm into it, I suddenly, out of nowhere, got complaints that it sounded (and I quote) "F***ing horrible" and "way too dark and evil". Okay, so I picked some other chords and played those for some a while, and got even more comments in the same vein. Those Chords I was playing? They were in a Major key. That shouldn't sound "evil" or "aggressive" or "heavy" or anything like that. I kept going for some time, finding some other chords to play every time, but it didn't make a difference.

After about ten minutes of dealing with that kind of destructive criticism, I tried playing Smoke On The Water, just to see if the tone was the problem or if I was just very unfortunate when it came to picking out some Chords... Everything went well, right up until the solo, where I would normally do a pretty good job, by comparison. And I fumbled my way through something. Not a solo, just something. After fumbling my way through the rest of Smoke On The Water, I tried switching to the '80s British amp-model on my amp, and dialed in the tone I usually use and tried playing Smoke again (with a just as sloppy solo)... And the destructive criticism calmed down just a little bit, but still not enough to make me feel motivated in any way. After a few more minutes, I put the guitar back in a 3-guitar stand I found recently while clearing out the garage and I haven't even thought of touching one since... It's a shame, really, since I have a couple of really nice guitars. :( Now I'm just listening to some of the music I know usually makes me actually want to go pick up a guitar and practice, in hopes that the motivation and inspiration will come back to me soon... So far, 3 hours of mixed music I like hasn't helped much...

So what if I was playing with some different gear and tone-settings than I normally do? I normally don't really use my SG after getting new pickups for my LP, but it's still a very cool Rock-guitar that sounds really cool through the '57 Deluxe preset, even if I dial in some extra effects I don't use with my LP or ES. It really shouldn't be the SG-through-Fender-Deluxe combination (with a Phaser effect on top) that caused the destructive criticism...

I don’t have time to reply to this properly so I will say this.

There are Very Few things we can Control and others Can’t Take from us.

1 is our values
2 is our emotions.

Why are you giving this person the power to control your emotions? Is holding on to what was said severing you or are you severing those word?

Take care.