Band leaders

Larry

"Uncle Larry"
Here's some thoughts on this subject. I've played in bands where the people were more or less equal onstage, swapped singing duties, and bands where there are definite leaders. I actually prefer the leader thing, it seems like a more focused show. I notice that some leaders are very picky about their time, and others who, for lack of a better term, don't think in those terms and take what you give them. And some in between. But I like the challenge of giving the leader (especially if they're really good) exactly what they had in mind. It's deep down satisfying when they tell you they like what you are doing.

Johnathan "Sugarfoot" Moffett had a great story where Michael Jackson asked to see him privately after a show and eventually got around to the question of how did Jonathan know to do some little something he did when Michael made a certain move. I forget his exact words, but Jonathan was just in tune with Michael. It just needed it I think he said. I love seeing things like that. It really sews up the "front" of the show with the "back" of the show. When a drummer can see the big picture and really help out the guys in the front....that's the goal right? Make them look good. Plus others start to get the idea too, hopefully. Of course this hinges on having a really good front man for best results

But with the leader thing, as long as that leader has a definite picture of what they want, and are good, I like that. IMO, bands benefit from having a clear leader onstage, someone who is leading the proceedings.

The 6 piece band I was in... didn't have a clear leader onstage. The actual leader of the band stood front and center, sang just a few songs, and didn't have mic chops, even though he would introduce some songs. The one keyboard player was really good with the crowd, sang some songs, but the other keyboard player did the main singing duties. Plus the harp player sang a few, and the bass player sang a few and sometimes I would get one. So it was ambiguous but not all that terribly bad or anything.

Compare that to my trio who is a clear leader and I feel it works better, even though he isn't a great front man. But his playing is amazing so it sort of makes up for it. Someone who can really play...and has good mic chops? Got yourself a grand slam there.

From an entertainment POV...I think the audience prefers to see a strong leader. Just a guess, I have no hard proof of that.

Any thoughts, experiences, cheers, jeers?
 
Last edited:
Personally I don't like controlling or stubborn people one bit. I also dislike being micromanaged or patronized. Each member is an equal in my book.

But you're speaking in a live covers band context and in that area I can appreciate that there is a proven formula and method most people are familiar with, and and less things in general to disagree on. I would just let nature take its course and let the leaders lead, if they're not making good decisions then the band will sort them out. I happily submit to a good leader, a bad one I will protest and possibly leave the band (have done that before).
 
Don't forget the business aspects. Even if it is just dealing with an agent or club. That is also an important part of being the leader that sometimes gets overlooked. I'm not sure that each member is an equal in in that regard. Like in any business, there needs to be a boss. That boss may be a lot less or a lot more talented in music than the other people in the band. But I do agree that no one should ever be micro-managed, and the band leader may not be the stage leader (i.e front man), who has different responsibilities. Maybe I missed the point?
 
Usually they need a little wagon to carry their huge ego around in. Yea, I get it, guy... You wrote some songs and play a guitar. Frankly, you still remind me of those idiot parents with newborns who think that it's some amazing miracle that they had a baby.

In case you didn't get the drift, I'm intimating that "band leaders" in my experience tend to be a little full of themselves.
 
Anytime there is a group endeavor whether we like it or not someone will gravitate towards a leadership position - it is human nature. Is it always humane nature? No :) The right person does not always take the reins right away and often times a coup is necessary.

In my extremely limited experience playing with other musicians I have found that if someone is not leading the jam nothing gets played. Now leading a professional band is another story - a story I have not read yet...

MM
 
played in bands my whole life .... first gig at 12 .... I continue to make my living doing so ... it is all I know

played in bands with equal members and in situations with a leader

personally today I enjoy getting hired.... killing the gig... meeting people in the venue and exchanging cards for possible future hires .... grabbing my loot... and going home

give me a leader any day of the week

after all these years I want no part of the responsibility of being an equal member

hired gun till I'm done
 
For the last 18 years I have been with my current band. The two leaders guitar and front men have stayed the same. They are the business minds. Every break they are selling the band. In the past we have opened up for some pretty good acts due to the lead singers gift of gab. The guitar player is god awfull and the lead singer claps on 1&3. With that being said I never woked in a busier band in my life. They surround themselves with good players. The bass player a Berkelee Professor handles the music piece of the band. I always know if my tempo is moving he will turn arounf and smile and say "are you in a hurry to go home" The real guitarist and keyboard player are great players so it all works out. Now if we can get the bad guitarist to turn down and the lead singer to clap on 2&4 that would be nice.
 
Personally I don't like controlling or stubborn people one bit. I also dislike being micromanaged or patronized. Each member is an equal in my book.

Sounds like you have been subjected to terrible leaders. A good leader is one that will make you feel valued, will honor your input and opinions, and will guide the group rather than simply dictate their commands.

I don't work for stubborn or controlling people. Well, unless the pay is REALLY good, but even then I do my bit to curb their aggressiveness. I've subbed for groups where the other members have said to me, "Wow...I can't believe you said that to him!" or, "Man, you brushed that off like a champ." or stuff like that. It's simple--allow others to lead you, especially if you're a sub or hired gun, but never allow them to disrespect you or dictate you.

A good leader is an inspiration, both to watch from the audience AND the bandstand.
 
Usually they need a little wagon to carry their huge ego around in. Yea, I get it, guy... You wrote some songs and play a guitar. Frankly, you still remind me of those idiot parents with newborns who think that it's some amazing miracle that they had a baby.

In case you didn't get the drift, I'm intimating that "band leaders" in my experience tend to be a little full of themselves.

Dealing with front peoples egos goes with the territory. The way I look at it, if they're happy with my playing, and their ego isn't aimed at me, then they can act however they want. This assumes they are great at what they do and I enjoy playing with them. Sucky musicians aren't allowed to be like that lol. Off stage....I give a lot of leeway to excellent musicians. I believe their ego plays a big part into making them excellent.
 
Dealing with front peoples egos goes with the territory. The way I look at it, if they're happy with my playing, and their ego isn't aimed at me, then they can act however they want. This assumes they are great at what they do and I enjoy playing with them. Sucky musicians aren't allowed to be like that lol. Off stage....I give a lot of leeway to excellent musicians. I believe their ego plays a big part into making them excellent.

It's hard for me to understand. I'm just not that way, even when I'm leading something with a group, the first thing on my mind is respecting and helping my team. Thinking that I should be the focus of the group, or making decisions based on my own benefit when a whole team is supporting the effort is a really foreign concept to me.

Being in "support" positions is apparently the curse of my existence. Frankly, as you allude to, it's probably my lack of ego and humble default that makes me good for these positions while on the flip of that, the huge sense of self-importance I find with most "band leaders" is probably what motivates them to get up there and say; sing about stuff that would make me feel bashful for focusing on my own problems and issues so much.
 
To Larry's original post I think it can depend. On stage a good front man can be a benefit if he or she can pull it off. Some bands it seems two members may play off each other primarily which is ok too. But if there is too much from various members it looks unprofessional. In fact I declined to join a band recently after I saw them try to have an "all in" comedy routine. Personally I prefer to see a single person be the lead on stage.

To other points especially the business side, I agree 100% that the stage front person does not need to be the busines leader. It may be the same person in some cases but I always look at it as two seperate skill sets.

For me I would be willing to be the band leader regarding business but not on stage. Not because I can't or don't want to do it but I am the drummer and do backup vocals so it just does not flow well from that perspective in my mind.

Plus there may also be a third role, the music leader. Again that may be the same person but it does not have to be.
 
I have been the leader, I've been the hired gun, and I've been part of collaborations where there was no clearly-defined leader. Honestly, it doesn't matter much to me. As long as the music is good, I can deal with any situation. But I don't especially like being the one who has to do all the organizing. I chip in with my current band in trying to hustle gigs, but negotiating money and being a salesman aren't my favorite things. Unfortunately, I'm pretty good at those duties, so they often fall on me. But I don't enjoy it much.
 
I have found true democracy's do not work in the band context. Somebody needs to be the voice of reason and make the final decision. If all four members of my current band had an equal say we would get nothing done. We all have our own ideas and agendas that often times clash. If it was really a four way vote we would split the vote four different ways and nothing would get accomplished. What we have is a leader that we all trust. So we all have our ideas and he pretty much makes a decision and we all step in line.
 
When there is a task at hand (playing music for people)....most tasks are better performed when there is a "boss". Too many cooks spoil the broth. It doesn't bother me being in a band where it is a democracy, but discussing what is more effective onstage from an audience perspective... yea a boss or like Russ says, two people playing off each other, nothing wrong there either. A united front trumps an equal democracy onstage, but like I said, it's not like a democracy is bad or anything.

When it comes to music, I work better in a support capacity too Watso. It's more in line with my nature. However, if I had the money to pay musicians for rehearsal? I would love to lead a band, musically speaking, not fronting. I wouldn't feel comfortable being musical director unless I was paying my people well though.
 
I like the idea of a band leader as far as the business end goes. When I was playing, one of the guitar players did the booking, interviews, website, and collected the pay. Anything he needed help with was happily done by whoever was able to help. I was responsible for maintaining the mailing list and sending out ads for the shows to the mailing list, determining the set list for every show (including where there would and would not be talking, which songs to steamroll and not, basically the whole show was up to me), and packing the vehicle and driving.

As far as just being a band, it was a democracy for sure. Everyone wrote parts, and not just their own. I wrote guitar and lyrics as well as drum parts, and the string players wrote some drum parts as well as lyrics. Everything that needed it was put to a vote, and any ties would either be scrapped or saved to use in a better fitting spot.
 
I think in a band their should be one person who is good at organising and taking control. in my band, that person is me.
 
I've not given it a moment's thought.

In my current band I record practices and distribute, and do posters when needed. Our bassist and keys player do the hustling. Our guitarist provides the rent-a-crowds. Everyone is involved with song choice and the re-arrangements.

Our singer is the "filter" with final veto and occasionally looks glamorous :)
 
To Larry's original point, I think crowds respond more to the charisma of a band than it's actual musical ability (unless it's really sucky across the board). Take a solid rhythm section and a charismatic front person and the rest is less important. Audiences seem to like a focal point. If their attention is defocused across everyone on stage, there isn't a strong or lasting impression. Also, a good leader can switch up set lists and make the show work. A weak leader just lets it go off the rails or flounder.

And then there's the business end of things...
 
It may just be my personal experience, but I've been in democratic bands and I've been in autocratic bands, and the autocratic bands always seemed to get things DONE. When there's no one person that assumes the responsibility of contacting clubs, setting up gigs, finding demo facilities, etc., I find those things are a lot slower to get done, if they get done at all. (At least once, one of my bands left the venue without getting paid - everyone assumed another guy had collected the money! Embarrassing to say the least.) When there's a leader - someone who accepts most responsibility, and delegates some - things seem to happen much faster.

The personality of said leader is a different matter. I've been in bands where the leader is a self-obsessed cretin, and I've been in bands where the leader doesn't even KNOW he's a leader - that is, the selfless guy who takes on the bulk of the responsibility even though he, himself, considers the band democratic.

That latter type is rare, to be sure, but I think it spurs the rest of the band to pitch in. And isn't that the mark of a good leader?
 
When done well, being the leader isnt worth doing.

When done poorly, a leader isnt worth following.

ah...the difference between being a musician and a businessman...
 
Back
Top