Nice guy but terrible musician vs. D-bag amazing player

Nice Amateur or Rippin' Jerk

  • Nice

    Votes: 139 73.2%
  • Jerk

    Votes: 51 26.8%

  • Total voters
    190
A common thread I see in band crisis stories here is "so and so is such a nice guy but he sucks at keys/drums/guitar"... it's a tough position to be in for sure, but is it worse than an excellent player who's an awful person?

I'm a d-bag and a sucky player. Give me the directions so I can come to your house and audition. Or, even better, come to my house. We'll do this on Saturday afternoon. I'll be two hours late, give you wrong directions, and have three beers before. But don't worry, I'll offer you one, and it'll be a warmish Natty Light, in a can with a dirty top. And I'll have it in a dirty foam holder. Oh, don't touch your bass and the mic at the same time, because the grounding in my garage is messed-up. So, it's a date?

#everyCraiglistPersonEver
 
I'll take the nice guy 9/10, but that's because I do originals bands. I can write within the limits of someone's ability -- but I can't make a douche-bag show up for practice enough to sound well-rehearsed.
Yeah. Doing originals, I can write within someone else's ability and just make my own lines hard. With covers, we can always pick easy but fun songs.

A douchebag won't have the ability to cooperate and compromise enough to make a band run smoothly and so deciding anything will be like pulling teeth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eminor3rd
Nah. There are plenty of bands that are both decent and nice. I see nice mediocre bands get call backs way more often than bands who are good musicians but are total dicks to work with.

Ok.. Well im not talking about mediocre ( as you call them) Bands! im talking about a real good Band dealing with mediocre musicians!
But Ok..
I'll just agree to disagree.. :)
 
Depends on the project... For a hobby band, I'd take the nice guy, conditional on his work ethic and desire to improve. As people have said, he can get better...we all sucked at one point. It's much more pleasurable to have nice people around when you play for fun and to learn as a musician...

However, if it's a serious band with ambitions, you may want to go with the jerk who can get the job done. But, that's assuming his jerk character does not interfere with his playing (eg flashy drummer). The jerk can be a useful contributor even off stage, if they have a point (not all jerks have an ego problem) and can help push the band to the next level.

Not all jerks are bad. It seems that they are often the ones that push away from status quo. For example, James Brown seems to have been a jerk. He was notoriously hard to work for, somewhat evident in quite a band turnover rate. But he had a vision, and he wanted to execute it really well. He succeeded, and left behind a sizable legacy.

The problem is that many of the jerks I've worked with have been somewhat on the lazy side. They've either always been lazy or made it to a certain point and said, "That's it, I've made it" and just quit putting in the work but wanted all of the rewards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sartori and EdO.
When it comes to music, there are entry requirements (i.e. commitment, gear, availability, etc.) and minimal standards of competence if you're performing in public. That's just showing common courtesy towards your listeners.

If it comes down to playing with somebody who can't play vs somebody who can play, but is difficult to work with, you're asking the wrong question.

It's not about deciding between player-A and player-B. It's about whether to try to work with player-B or not to work with player-B. If the nice guy isn't up to the minimum requirements of the task, he's really not a viable option.

So in this situation, if my primary concern was the music, I'd probably pick none of the above, and start looking for a guitarist again.


But that's me. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sartori