StompBoxBlues
Member
- Messages
- 20,465
I just thought this might be fun, to share experiences.
We have a lot of recurring threads about "starting a band", finding band members to play with, etc. And also I would say the second biggest band thread is bands disbanding, burnt out, or on the ropes.
But very little about bands after the initial forming of the band, and getting some songs down, enough for 2-3 sets, etc.
I can start it off a little with a few points that I have noticed over the years
All bands I've been in have been a mix of cover (mostly cover at least to begin with) AND originals, but I haven't ever been in a band that was originals only from the start...at least none that got off the ground, so my points are geared to that:
Differences in members approaches to songs
Mainly, some band members want to have the song precise, with fixed length for solos, etc. and every time they do the song it is exactly the same, while others want to have some things tight (intros, outtros, etc.) but be a little flexible on the length of solo. On a great night, with the crowd with you, repeat a verse, or the 2 verse solo extended to three, etc.
Some can use musical signature licks to tell the band "now we go back to the verse" or chorus or whatever. This might not show up at first, but as you add songs, it can become more difficult as there are more and more "how many rounds do we do on this one?" etc. The more intricate the parts, the more difficult to remember the arrangment and the worst of all is when a band rearranges a song so many times that each member is mainly remembering a different version. It can be a good idea to record the band (rough recording if nothing else) and have that be the "definitive" version, but still be able to extend solos, if wanted, etc. A band should be on their toes enough to be in sync on those kinds of things.
BUT if a band member seems to always forget say the ending in one song, it might be a clue that either they have a mental block (assuming they dont do this on all songs) or it is totally unatural for them, so maybe a thought to changing it to simplify. It has happened I've been in bands where they put a lot of work into an intro, but it is so short, and most of the listeners would never have missed it if it was easier/more standard, etc. Depends on the return on investment...but the point is the more complex a song, the more maintenance it will require.
Choosing new songs
If you have members that are pretty much into the same music this ought to be pretty easy in the beginning, when you make your songlist. Lots of agreement (and hints of future battles, because folks tend to be more open to songs they don't LOVE in the beginning, but later on not so much) and all and you make up about two or three sets of songs. Cool, but of those there may be a few the band (being honest with itself) isn't executing well enough, so need to be dropped or fixed.
Anyway, after the initial chosen songs, someone in the band will invariable really PUSH for a song the rest of the band doesn't like so much. Also, you'll get a band member wanting to do a song that is SO different from the others, that it's like they don't hear how the band sounds, or have any basis in reality (unless of course the band is creative enough to make a totally new arrangement, losing the string section, horn section, backup singers, etc. that are what make the song in the original work...while your band is a trio with only one person that sings) like you play death metal and the bassist says "I think we ought to do "Stand By Your Man"...
But I would say choosing songs is one of the deadly pitfalls in a band. It can actually break a band up. Some kind of system, as well as an understanding that 1) you can be WRONG in nixing a song outright. So unless it is the above, and not totally wrong...try it at least and do it with heart. I've had this happen, a song that is "meh" to me, we try it and I love it. 2) All band members have to get that others play their song choice, and try their best to make it work, so they need also to be open an genuinely try to make anothers choice they may not love work. A band will fall apart if one member always pitches and expects their songs to be tried, but never learns anyone elses.
Just need a system. I would really suggest to that (with exceptions) the person asking a song be considered for playing is responsible for sending around the version and song they mean. Otherwise you get people just naming songs, putting the burden of each member to find the song, etc. maybe the band is hearing different versions (or the wrong artist), etc.
Has to be songs they have really thought if it ought to work in the band, not just a song they like.
Maintaining songs
Not much to say here, except it gets to be more and more work after time. Just keeping track of the songs AND their status (We nail it, needs work on specific part, needs lots of work, we should drop it), also rotating them into the rehearsal from time to time. Meanwhile keeping track of requests to add new songs. For the person in charge of keeping track, it's at least a few hours a month.
Burning out on songs, even ones you do GREAT
Too much of a good thing. You don't want to practice songs to death, yet it is a fine line...you might need to work a while on a song to get it to "sit" well. Lots of songs, to me, that is where the real fun is, when you have it down enough that you don't have to think about "the parts" (as in "here comes that G part, goes into the bridge) but just can concentrate on dynamics, and feel..etc. But play it too many times and it gets OLD...stale.
Goes back to the above (maintenance), you may want to just set it aside, and only thereafter review/refresh when you are planning on playing it at a gig, just before the gig.
Dropping songs
This also can be a minefield. Some songs, one or two in the band may LOVE the song, and even may delude themselves that it "kinda works" and all, but the reality is some songs just don't work in some bands. At some point (and it should be before a member is ready to shoot themselves in the head rather than play "that damned thing" again) the band needs to take a vote (and watch out for hard feelings...you don't need to put the SONG down, but just say the band isn't, for some reason getting it) maybe or discuss, and some songs just plain need to be dropped.
It's an idea to say "if someone can come up with either what the problem is, or an arrangement idea that we can try, we could give it another chance, but not a lot more, otherwise we drop it".
This was long, and maybe not written the best, most organized, but the main idea is that a lot of things (and I didn't even touch on all members ought to be on the lookout, active, for gigs, etc. or promo kits, or posters, or...any of that) that need to be dealt with start after the band has gotten off the ground...got together, made headway on setlists, etc.
The stuff we don't really mention so much...the day to day maintenance, and progress stoppers in bands, after the "honeymoon phase" and before the "divorce papers".
We have a lot of recurring threads about "starting a band", finding band members to play with, etc. And also I would say the second biggest band thread is bands disbanding, burnt out, or on the ropes.
But very little about bands after the initial forming of the band, and getting some songs down, enough for 2-3 sets, etc.
I can start it off a little with a few points that I have noticed over the years
All bands I've been in have been a mix of cover (mostly cover at least to begin with) AND originals, but I haven't ever been in a band that was originals only from the start...at least none that got off the ground, so my points are geared to that:
Differences in members approaches to songs
Mainly, some band members want to have the song precise, with fixed length for solos, etc. and every time they do the song it is exactly the same, while others want to have some things tight (intros, outtros, etc.) but be a little flexible on the length of solo. On a great night, with the crowd with you, repeat a verse, or the 2 verse solo extended to three, etc.
Some can use musical signature licks to tell the band "now we go back to the verse" or chorus or whatever. This might not show up at first, but as you add songs, it can become more difficult as there are more and more "how many rounds do we do on this one?" etc. The more intricate the parts, the more difficult to remember the arrangment and the worst of all is when a band rearranges a song so many times that each member is mainly remembering a different version. It can be a good idea to record the band (rough recording if nothing else) and have that be the "definitive" version, but still be able to extend solos, if wanted, etc. A band should be on their toes enough to be in sync on those kinds of things.
BUT if a band member seems to always forget say the ending in one song, it might be a clue that either they have a mental block (assuming they dont do this on all songs) or it is totally unatural for them, so maybe a thought to changing it to simplify. It has happened I've been in bands where they put a lot of work into an intro, but it is so short, and most of the listeners would never have missed it if it was easier/more standard, etc. Depends on the return on investment...but the point is the more complex a song, the more maintenance it will require.
Choosing new songs
If you have members that are pretty much into the same music this ought to be pretty easy in the beginning, when you make your songlist. Lots of agreement (and hints of future battles, because folks tend to be more open to songs they don't LOVE in the beginning, but later on not so much) and all and you make up about two or three sets of songs. Cool, but of those there may be a few the band (being honest with itself) isn't executing well enough, so need to be dropped or fixed.
Anyway, after the initial chosen songs, someone in the band will invariable really PUSH for a song the rest of the band doesn't like so much. Also, you'll get a band member wanting to do a song that is SO different from the others, that it's like they don't hear how the band sounds, or have any basis in reality (unless of course the band is creative enough to make a totally new arrangement, losing the string section, horn section, backup singers, etc. that are what make the song in the original work...while your band is a trio with only one person that sings) like you play death metal and the bassist says "I think we ought to do "Stand By Your Man"...
But I would say choosing songs is one of the deadly pitfalls in a band. It can actually break a band up. Some kind of system, as well as an understanding that 1) you can be WRONG in nixing a song outright. So unless it is the above, and not totally wrong...try it at least and do it with heart. I've had this happen, a song that is "meh" to me, we try it and I love it. 2) All band members have to get that others play their song choice, and try their best to make it work, so they need also to be open an genuinely try to make anothers choice they may not love work. A band will fall apart if one member always pitches and expects their songs to be tried, but never learns anyone elses.
Just need a system. I would really suggest to that (with exceptions) the person asking a song be considered for playing is responsible for sending around the version and song they mean. Otherwise you get people just naming songs, putting the burden of each member to find the song, etc. maybe the band is hearing different versions (or the wrong artist), etc.
Has to be songs they have really thought if it ought to work in the band, not just a song they like.
Maintaining songs
Not much to say here, except it gets to be more and more work after time. Just keeping track of the songs AND their status (We nail it, needs work on specific part, needs lots of work, we should drop it), also rotating them into the rehearsal from time to time. Meanwhile keeping track of requests to add new songs. For the person in charge of keeping track, it's at least a few hours a month.
Burning out on songs, even ones you do GREAT
Too much of a good thing. You don't want to practice songs to death, yet it is a fine line...you might need to work a while on a song to get it to "sit" well. Lots of songs, to me, that is where the real fun is, when you have it down enough that you don't have to think about "the parts" (as in "here comes that G part, goes into the bridge) but just can concentrate on dynamics, and feel..etc. But play it too many times and it gets OLD...stale.
Goes back to the above (maintenance), you may want to just set it aside, and only thereafter review/refresh when you are planning on playing it at a gig, just before the gig.
Dropping songs
This also can be a minefield. Some songs, one or two in the band may LOVE the song, and even may delude themselves that it "kinda works" and all, but the reality is some songs just don't work in some bands. At some point (and it should be before a member is ready to shoot themselves in the head rather than play "that damned thing" again) the band needs to take a vote (and watch out for hard feelings...you don't need to put the SONG down, but just say the band isn't, for some reason getting it) maybe or discuss, and some songs just plain need to be dropped.
It's an idea to say "if someone can come up with either what the problem is, or an arrangement idea that we can try, we could give it another chance, but not a lot more, otherwise we drop it".
This was long, and maybe not written the best, most organized, but the main idea is that a lot of things (and I didn't even touch on all members ought to be on the lookout, active, for gigs, etc. or promo kits, or posters, or...any of that) that need to be dealt with start after the band has gotten off the ground...got together, made headway on setlists, etc.
The stuff we don't really mention so much...the day to day maintenance, and progress stoppers in bands, after the "honeymoon phase" and before the "divorce papers".
