[NashvilleMike]

I have contacted a few potential players to put together a Dead band and will be meeting them after NY's. I have never been in a "real" band before and I wanted the benefit of everyones experiences. What is the best structure for a band? One leader calling the shots(dictator)? Socialism? Elected president? I know it may be premature to worry about this but it is probably something you all have dealt with. Thoughts?

[Rusty the Scoob]

Bands are like relationships. There are a lot of ways to make one function, and many, many more to make one not function.

Personally I'm a strong believer that any gigging band needs a leader. It doesn't have to be a formally defined role, just somebody that everyone looks to as a central point of contact and a final decisionmaker on most items. Usually this just happens organically, and is an unspoken understanding. But if anyone else in the band feels strongly about a song or venue choice, they should be heard. People tend to find their own roles within the structure as long as nobody's a hardcore ass\ole.

I've been in bands with people who believe in the idea of total band communisim, with no leader at all. These bands tend to never leave the practice room IMHO. You don't need a dictator but you do need someone to be a central driving force.

Being in a Dead band is actually a lot easier than being in a generic cover band, since everyone should be on the same page, pretty chilled out, and has something of a pre-defined role within the band if you go with the traditional Jerry/Bobby/Phil/Drummer/Keyboard structure. In generic bands it's tougher because you can have one guy who loves Van Halen, a girl singer who loves Top 40, a drummer who only likes Neal Peart, and you're stuck trying to find enough common ground to put together a sound and setlist that doesn't suck.

I could write a novel on band interrelationships, but even if you read it, you'd still have to learn for yourself. If you can avoid being the leader this time around it'd be to your benefit.... it's hard because whoever puts up the ad often becomes the leader by default.

[strumminsix]

I have contacted a few potential players to put together a Dead band and will be meeting them after NY's. I have never been in a "real" band before and I wanted the benefit of everyones experiences. What is the best structure for a band? One leader calling the shots(dictator)? Socialism? Elected president? I know it may be premature to worry about this but it is probably something you all have dealt with. Thoughts?

Congrats and good luck!

Every band needs a leader, period. Some will come in here and say otherwise but from my experience a band leader is essential and most seasoned players not only expect it but will refuse to join a band without one. My take on it is simple - only 1 person can drive a car at any given moment and that person is the leader. I try not to lead any stronger or harder than that. Also, I try to get the band on auto-pilot ASAP with known protocols, etc. That person should also be open to feedback.

Also, soundguys, bar owners, talent brokers, booking agents, the door guy with your cash, the manager with your check all expect to have a contact. Also your band members should know who to goto for pay, direction etc.

Last bit of info on that is when my guitar is on I am 1 of 5 not the band leader.

Next you will need to think about rehearsals - do you need a spot or somebody's house - who will pay if renting / how much will you give the host if at a house.

Then you need a PA - if unowned who will buy it, how will they get compensated, etc.

Finally you need a mission statement. Yes sounds corporate but it is a common goal of the band.

Good luck!

[tcsned]

Rusty makes a great point

Bands are like relationships. There are a lot of ways to make one function, and many, many more to make one not function.
. . .
I could write a novel on band interrelationships, but even if you read it, you'd still have to learn for yourself.

Being in a band is like being married to 4 or more people at once. Every marriage is different, every band's dynamics are different. Any moderately successful band needs someone to be in charge of various aspects from selecting what to play, making the music work, booking gigs, keeping each other from fighting and in a functional relationship. We don't have one person who does it all - we all have things we are good at and things we aren't. I am a good diplomat but horrible with business. Even laid back hippies tend to get emotional generally because everyone just wants the band to sound its best and to be successful. If you start from that premise you can work through most problems and politics. The irony is that harmonious relationships doesn't always equal success or great music. My band was at it's most successful when we were at our least functional and most discordant. Sometimes the pressure of a little success can kill a band. I remember watching a documentary on Wilco - I love the band but their "leader" seemed to let power get to his head and was acting like a Napoleon and it lead to a member leaving the band. You know what they say about absolute power . . .

[Tennessee Jedi]

Bands are like relationships. There are a lot of ways to make one function, and many, many more to make one not function.

Personally I'm a strong believer that any gigging band needs a leader. It doesn't have to be a formally defined role, just somebody that everyone looks to as a central point of contact and a final decisionmaker on most items. Usually this just happens organically, and is an unspoken understanding. But if anyone else in the band feels strongly about a song or venue choice, they should be heard. People tend to find their own roles within the structure as long as nobody's a hardcore ass\ole.

I've been in bands with people who believe in the idea of total band communisim, with no leader at all. These bands tend to never leave the practice room IMHO. You don't need a dictator but you do need someone to be a central driving force.

Being in a Dead band is actually a lot easier than being in a generic cover band, since everyone should be on the same page, pretty chilled out, and has something of a pre-defined role within the band if you go with the traditional Jerry/Bobby/Phil/Drummer/Keyboard structure. In generic bands it's tougher because you can have one guy who loves Van Halen, a girl singer who loves Top 40, a drummer who only likes Neal Peart, and you're stuck trying to find enough common ground to put together a sound and setlist that doesn't suck.

I could write a novel on band interrelationships, but even if you read it, you'd still have to learn for yourself. If you can avoid being the leader this time around it'd be to your benefit.... it's hard because whoever puts up the ad often becomes the leader by default.

+1

[mttourpro]

Good responses above for sure. I'd only add what has already been mentioned a little, and that is that a band is like a "family-system" or any other system of people in relationships---think of work perhaps and how people have to have some degree of defined role/place there....

That said, it is almost always going to organically take the shape of people having various "roles" to some degree or another whether it's openly discussed or not.... If the roles are too rigidly adhered to or too loosely defined, you'll tend to get into situtaions that make the people involved either "fix" those roles to get somewhere in a livable zone or likely, the band won't stay together long in that form. So, it's a good idea to talk openly about all the topics SS mentioned and to have a somewhat clear understanding of who's gonna do what, etc.

Perhaps the GD tried not to do this or at least not to get too rigid about it, but, if you think about it, it kinda happened anyhow in various ways along the way....especially obvious in the last 14 years since JG died.

[Pete B.]

'Some thoughts...
fwiw, I've always been in bands where everyone played both lead and rhythm (and everyone wanted to solo at some point), and we use Dead tunes as a jumping off point for jams.
The other method is the "copy exactly" method, which requiers the members to decide who is Bobby, who is Jerry, etc...
At rehearsals, I like to let whoever is lead singing a song to "direct" the group for that song (and make sure whoevers voice best fits the song is the lead singer).
ime, There is always going to be somebody who is waaaayyyy more into the band than the rest. This person usually will go off the deep end (in a good way) with promoting the band (website), trying to book gigs, posters and handbills, and in my case, handing out lyric/chord sheets and CD's with recordings of the songs we are going to learn, so that people can rehearse their part on their own time, and come to rehearsal prepared to put it all together (if I have to show you the bridge to Touch Of Grey during rehearsal, you're fucking fired ).
Maybe one of the members has a "shoe-in" with gig access. I have been in a band like that and even if they are the least valuable musician, they may still be the band leader because they can regularly get good gigs.
One thing I would say is map out the songs so that at no time is everyone standing there looking at each other wondering who is supposed to be solo'ing (while nobody is soloing).
I'm sure I'll have some other tidbits to add. Good thread.

[Rusty the Scoob]

I just finished Scrib's book... the Dead's dynamic was complicated and fascinating. At the core seemed to be an extreme unwritten policy of conflict-avoidance to the point of cowardice... but also out of practicality to some degree as well. And towards the end I think they really were done communicating on a personal level to each other.

And of course they had the added dynamic of the entire crew to deal wth, plus the pressures of being a global corporation.

I get the feeling that Bobby and Phil are just now starting to learn how to get along with each other without Jerry as the center of their universe.

Anyway, that's a separate discussion than how to get along as a bar band! Really with any travelling band it's a much bigger challenge to keep a stable dynamic IMHO.

[Tennessee Jedi]

'Some thoughts... and in my case, handing out lyric/chord sheets and CD's with recordings of the songs we are going to learn, so that people can rehearse their part on their own time, and come to rehearsal prepared to put it all together (if I have to show you the bridge to Touch Of Grey during rehearsal, you're fucking fired ).

Ha ha !
Yeah man ... I've been to Deadstein and made more " practice/cheat sheets" booklets than I care to remember ...
Not kidding .... one bass guy said the dog ate his booklet ....... not kidding !

[Rusty the Scoob]

One thing I would say is map out the songs so that at no time is everyone standing there looking at each other wondering who is supposed to be solo'ing (while nobody is soloing).

Ugh, I hate that. That should never, ever happen, that's just musical communication 101. Or intro to "playing like you have a pair".

Especially in a Dead band where everybody's supposed to be doing something interesting 100% of the time, there should never be nothing happening.

[Chuckles]

My $.02...

I've played in three gigging groups over the last 20 years and the first had a clear leader, the second a constantly fighting pair of leaders and now a totally laid back democracy. The first (Running with the Big Dogs) had weekly gigs, but I had to play some stuff I really didn't like (The Cure???). But without a growing family in my 20's, I was thinking it was just cool to be playing out in Georgetown clubs every week and opening for bigger acts at the Bayou in DC.

The second (The Dirt Farmers) was amazing and incredibly fulfilling musically, but only played three gigs (very good ones though) and broke up after a little more than a year. First, the leaders fired the harp player/singer for not helping with the load in/out. Then, we had a few promising auditions for new vocalists... got a chick singing with us who was a perfectionist... added a singer with whom I currently play... yadda yadda yadda. Nobody could agree on a direction, and the two "leaders" literally came to blows a couple of times. The rehearsals alone were worth the 45 minute drive (if not for the music - which was awesome - then for the ringside seats), but the band ultimately caved when personalities clashed over idiotic details like how to end Dead Flowers (sting or ring? ), and whether or not we were ready to roll out new tunes (and, hence book more gigs) because of those idiotic details.

The current band (The Road) plays a song list I like (with adventures to be had musically), and is a great bunch of guys who are completely in agreement and mutual understanding that the band is great - but a second priority over our families (we are all 40-ish Dads). The gigs have been sporadic, but fun and more often than not rewarding because they are for a cause. And the music is getting there, slowly but surely. No head cases to speak of. We're all relatively competent and I've never been happier. I think it shows in the music we play.

Imho, there's no substitute for everyone being on the same page. As long as everyone has common expectations, then you can't really go wrong with someone assuming a leadership role. In our case, it varies from week to week, gig to gig, song to song. If you want to put an ad out and become the leader, that's the expectation you are setting. Just make sure the ground rules are set before moving forward; it sucks to put in a ton of time only to see it fall apart because someone was put off by something you should have anticipated being a problem.

[NashvilleMike]

Thanks for all the good feedback everyone.

Just make sure the ground rules are set before moving forward; it sucks to put in a ton of time only to see it fall apart because someone was put off by something you should have anticipated being a problem.

That is why I was asking now.

If you can avoid being the leader this time around it'd be to your benefit.... it's hard because whoever puts up the ad often becomes the leader by default.

..damn

Being in a Dead band is actually a lot easier than being in a generic cover band, since everyone should be on the same page, pretty chilled out, and has something of a pre-defined role within the band

THAT is what I am hoping for.

[tcsned]

some great stuff here - it's funny in my other life I am an instructional designer who builds online courses. A lot of what I do is building corporate leadership development courses - stuff like effective communication and conflict resolution etc. I wish I had known some of this stuff back when I was more of a full-time musician. Understanding the difference between healthy conflict and unhealthy conflict would have been a huge help Conflict, even heated conflict, is not necessarily a destructive thing as long as it's about making the music better and the conflict has some resolution. It's a sign that people really care and want to make the music as good as possible. If it's personal or becomes apparent that the conflict will not resolve then it is unhealthy - like two lead guitarists that want all of the solos and neither willing to share the spotlight. Though, playing Dead music and looking at instrumental passages as "solos" is IMHO not the way to look at - they are conversations where everyone has a valuable voice.

Here is a lame example:
Healthy:
"I don't like it when you play the minor third over that C7 passage - I really think we should be playing C mixolydian, not a blues scale"
"Man, I really like the way that minor third builds tension and dissonance"
"When you play that E-flat, it really throws me off my game. I find that instead of feeling in the groove I am waiting for that to happen."
"I would really like to find a way to keep it in there. How about I give you a cue when I am going to flat the third so you know it's coming?"
"that sounds reasonable, let's give it a try."

Unhealthy:
"I don't like it when you play the minor third over that C7 passage - I really think we should be playing C mixolydian, not a blues scale"
"Man, I really like the way that minor third builds tension and dissonance"
"Dude, if you play that E-flat again I am going to knock you on the head with my guitar!"
"F*** You! - I'll play what I want, you're not the boss of me."

[NashvilleMike]

This also reminds me of the Tibetian book of the dead- Paging Dr. Leary - ego loss leads to happiness.

[Pete B.]

... but the band ultimately caved when personalities clashed over idiotic details like how to end Dead Flowers...

This is where "the Lead Singer of a song is the Director of that song" thing comes into play. (I guess I should say that I have almost always been in bands with multiple singers.) Anyway, This actually came up on Run for The Roses one time... The Keyboard player was the lead singer, and wanted to do it with a deep-pocket groove (ala some of Jer's slower versions), and the guitar player wanted to do it at a notably faster tempo.
I just said, "hey, we agreed that the lead singer of any given song would direct the song" and that was it.

Which brings me to another theory of [band] development which has worked well (stolen from the Corporate world)...

Forming > Storming > Norming > Performing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forming,_s ... performing