For the sake of making things a bit easier, let's just call the two bassists "Bob and Joe". It'll hopefully be less confusing than referring to them as "the first bassist" ("Bob") and "the second bassist" ("Joe")or by their real names (because their first name is the exact same... go figure).

Originally Posted by: maggiorThis is an interesting situation. Normally you'll find yourself asking a guitar player to play bass because you just can't find a bass player!!

From my experience, drums and bass are the hardest slots to fill, so things are good there.

If the second bass player doesn't agree with taking on guitar duties, do everything you can to leave things on a positive note...because you may find yourself calling him to be your bass player if things with the current one don't work out. You just never know what the future holds.

Be up front and don't lie to anybody. They'll understand that a band doesn't need 2 bass players. You may have to explain why you perfer one bass player over the other - that could be tricky. I know of bands that will switch out personnel based on availability. You might need to be more established for that to work.

Maybe somebody with more experience can chime in...[/QUOTE]
Actually, the second bassist, from now on referred to as "Joe", is the one I'd prefer to have in the band. I've played with him a while ago, and despite claiming to only have played for a few months back then, he was a badass on Bass. I'd rather let "Bob" down, to be honest, since he seems to be on a completely different page than the drummer, "Joe" and myself. "Bob" has only expressed interest in playing covers of 90's/00's Grunge and Punk Rock, while the rest of us are interested in playing some good old-fashioned Arena Rock (although our main influences vary amongst us. "Joe" is more The Who, Kiss and Led Zep, while I'm more GNR, Aerosmith and Deep Purple. But our styles are very compatible).

Of course, it would be awesome to have a two-guitar lineup, but I'd rather have a band that plays well together than trying to force someone to play something else than their main instrument and having a bassist who's on the wrong page, if that makes any sense...

[QUOTE=haghj500]Start with who the drummer connects best with! Maturity is big also. This band thing takes a while before a group gets enough songs down well enough to start gigging. Some don’t get them down well enough to get invited back. A drummer and bass player need to enjoy each other’s company and agree on a lot of things. No one person is more important in a band, but you just can’t get that earthy make your feet want to move beat if those two are not in sync. That is my advice choosing either a bass or drummer.

Another angle for choosing a band mate, everyone makes a list of 50 or so songs they can play and/or want to learn to play. Compare lists, choose the person who shares the most amount of songs with the group. Simple, no one should walk away with hard feelings. Not what I suggest.

The only easy part about being in a band is after you play a song and the crowd whistles and claps. You get to enjoy it, That................... is easy.

So, somehow manage to get all 4 of us into a room and find out who the drummer would prefer? I definitely agree that maturity is important, so once again, "Joe" gets points while "Bob" doesn't. Yes, playing in a band is supposed to be fun and all, but just because people are mature, it doesn't mean they can't have fun, right?

I don't really like the idea of having people write their own lists. I think it'll be just as efficient, if not more efficient, to do a brainstorm while we're in the rehearsal-room. I know some people will disagree, but this is my opinion. I've found that brainstorming over this kind of stuff can inspire people to throw out suggestions (especially since everyone is bound to forget about some songs or bands they'd like to learn to play).