So the question is in the title. I find it funny that musicians have such an issue with replacing an active member of a band. While I understand there is a more personal interaction with fellow members, it is still an opportunity. So you have a working band that doesn't need disruption in service, and you have a member who is a constant problem. You have to replace that person no matter what. If you have personal connections with other members with said band, I can see that being an issue, but if you don't know anyone in the band, why would that stop anyone? I mean the music business is filled with a bunch of esoteric fickle people and a lot of musicians move between many different opportunities. But once a band is established, it seems harder to get someone to come to the table with some folks.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
A couple of reason why people can be hesitant (not saying it means not to make the change).
1) Understanding that the grass is not always greener. You are most likely exchanging issues when switching members, hopefully to something that is lower on your list of annoyances, but no guarantee that will be the case.
2) Bringing in a replacement member creates a sort of reset point, for lack of a better term. If any other members have been having issues/questions but haven't hit the walk away point yet - this is the time they may decide to do so since you're having to get back up to speed anyway. It's kind of a form of scope creep - your actions may have additional consequences you weren't aiming for.
1) Understanding that the grass is not always greener. You are most likely exchanging issues when switching members, hopefully to something that is lower on your list of annoyances, but no guarantee that will be the case.
2) Bringing in a replacement member creates a sort of reset point, for lack of a better term. If any other members have been having issues/questions but haven't hit the walk away point yet - this is the time they may decide to do so since you're having to get back up to speed anyway. It's kind of a form of scope creep - your actions may have additional consequences you weren't aiming for.
Yeah, I get what you are saying..
as a far #1, it really couldn't get much worse... not going into it, but very unprofessional behavior on stage
as far as #2, don't have to worry about that with this band as things have been discussed. And yeah, I recently did something similar with another project
a) I think part of it is the work it creates to orient a new member to the songs. It's boring to have to bring ANOTHER person up to speed.
My original jazz band -- the one where I was constantly posting drama about as I figured out how to manage it properly -- was like that. There was a member I wanted to fire, and everyone acknowledged it was my band and I could do it, but they said they didnt' want to rehearse a new guitar player. I let him go, and had to spend a lot of time orienting new players. And given how musicians are not beholden to any one band, I was always subbing and the work fell on me personally to orient new players.
I learned efficient ways of doing so, and emerged as the person in the end who could pick whoever I wanted for any gig, from a menu of multiple players. I rotate and use players at will.
You want to get to that point if you can. I am doing that now with singers. It's harder with rock bands and singers, though.
That's why i wish the Real Book was produced for rock bands so everyone knows rock standards and can read them on sight like we do in jazz. I'm getting there as in my rock group, they are all jazz players and play off charts -- if only the singer would stop changing the structure on us!!
b) Also, what is a deal breaker for you is just a little irritant to others. Had one guy who would insult my age, clothes, weight, rehearsal room, profession, height, tone of my bass, approach to organizing the band, and on and on and on -- whenever he could. Later he proudly confessed he was a narcissist. This to me was intolerable -- to everyone else? The guy was a jerk but it's hard to find good keyboard players so just put up with it. I eventually quit.
My original jazz band -- the one where I was constantly posting drama about as I figured out how to manage it properly -- was like that. There was a member I wanted to fire, and everyone acknowledged it was my band and I could do it, but they said they didnt' want to rehearse a new guitar player. I let him go, and had to spend a lot of time orienting new players. And given how musicians are not beholden to any one band, I was always subbing and the work fell on me personally to orient new players.
I learned efficient ways of doing so, and emerged as the person in the end who could pick whoever I wanted for any gig, from a menu of multiple players. I rotate and use players at will.
You want to get to that point if you can. I am doing that now with singers. It's harder with rock bands and singers, though.
That's why i wish the Real Book was produced for rock bands so everyone knows rock standards and can read them on sight like we do in jazz. I'm getting there as in my rock group, they are all jazz players and play off charts -- if only the singer would stop changing the structure on us!!
b) Also, what is a deal breaker for you is just a little irritant to others. Had one guy who would insult my age, clothes, weight, rehearsal room, profession, height, tone of my bass, approach to organizing the band, and on and on and on -- whenever he could. Later he proudly confessed he was a narcissist. This to me was intolerable -- to everyone else? The guy was a jerk but it's hard to find good keyboard players so just put up with it. I eventually quit.
Inertia. It's easier to tolerate the problem child than to stop and change direction.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Sure, why not? I mean, so many cover bands seem to play the same damned tunes anyway!
C'mon man. Sight read a rock gig? When was the last time you went to see a rock n roll band, @PauFerro ?
In the early days of Fools Life we would practice hard to get going then have to replace someone (remember all the Letter banter). Well it didn't matter if it was the drummer or guitar player, things changed. The songs changed, the on mic banter changed, the soul of the band changed, nothing was ever the same. New players bring new ways of playing. Not everyone is the same. We found that to be a real PITA. Of course all of you know that. But to some it isn't worth the hassle. To others who are always in a state of flux it doesn't matter, but to us we just got tired of it so we put up with more BS from a good player.
Why do companies often hesitate to replace key employees? It's not always as easy or beneficial as it looks on paper.
I think it also depends a great deal on who you're replacing and his contributions to the band. Is he an exceptional player or vocalist around whom you've built much of your material or simply a hired gun side man?
Does he handle bookings and promotions and have key contacts with clubs and agents?
What about logistics such as transportation of gear or a PA system?
It can be more complex than it seems sometimes.
I think it also depends a great deal on who you're replacing and his contributions to the band. Is he an exceptional player or vocalist around whom you've built much of your material or simply a hired gun side man?
Does he handle bookings and promotions and have key contacts with clubs and agents?
What about logistics such as transportation of gear or a PA system?
It can be more complex than it seems sometimes.
We're still messed up from the mythical 'The Rock Band' that got laid down in the sixties/seventies.
Jazz bands and orchestras don't care about changing members out and never did, because they understand line-ups are fluid and when there are twenty or thirty musicians they understand that no one part is greater than the whole. Blues bands in the sixties didn't care because they were working musicians, and if Clapton leaves your group then you get Peter Green or Mick Taylor in because they're just players and you have fifty gigs booked that need to be played somehow.
Once we moved into the realm of Cream and Zeppelin and the idea of the Rockstar came to fruit, then that all changed and suddenly the individual members couldn't be changed in case you lost that 'magic'. Might even have been earlier with The Beatles, but I feel like Zeppelin really solifidied it because of the mythology they surrounded the band with (great marketing!) and the fact that all four members were genuinely talented.
Also most people are nards and will avoid personal confrontation at all costs.
Jazz bands and orchestras don't care about changing members out and never did, because they understand line-ups are fluid and when there are twenty or thirty musicians they understand that no one part is greater than the whole. Blues bands in the sixties didn't care because they were working musicians, and if Clapton leaves your group then you get Peter Green or Mick Taylor in because they're just players and you have fifty gigs booked that need to be played somehow.
Once we moved into the realm of Cream and Zeppelin and the idea of the Rockstar came to fruit, then that all changed and suddenly the individual members couldn't be changed in case you lost that 'magic'. Might even have been earlier with The Beatles, but I feel like Zeppelin really solifidied it because of the mythology they surrounded the band with (great marketing!) and the fact that all four members were genuinely talented.
Also most people are nards and will avoid personal confrontation at all costs.
I was in a band that has wanted to replace a member for a loooooong time. I think their case is similar to what happens often. They are not hesitant, they just can't find anybody that cuts the mustard. They did not play that often and therefore did not make that much money. It was mostly covers and the material was very specialized (latin music) so not that many people were available, and the guys that could do it came with demands, mostly on the financial aspect, that the band just could not provide. They eventually, switched instruments within the band, and got a guy who was barely ok. But it worked well enough.
That said there were some guys that showed up in auditions that were cringe-worthy. And this is how I learned that there are musicians, and people who own musical instruments. Quite a learning experience.
That said there were some guys that showed up in auditions that were cringe-worthy. And this is how I learned that there are musicians, and people who own musical instruments. Quite a learning experience.
(Names will be left out for the sake of privacy) - I am a director for a very large IT company. I've had to manage difficult employees, which is not completely unlike the situation you describe. Meaning... you reach a point where you have to decide if it's best to try to fix what's broken, or replace the person. Both require effort, but simply accepting the idea that "they are a great ______ player so we will just put up with it" will only perpetuate a bad situation. It won't get better on its own, and a person who doesn't play well in the sandbox will kill morale in a team (or a band), like a cancer.
If it were me, I would try to talk to the person, even make them aware that things cannot continue as they are. Maybe they are completely unaware how their behavior negatively affects everyone else - maybe no one has ever told them. If they care enough, they will make the effort. If not, then let them go and realize it was not going to work anyway.
If it were me, I would try to talk to the person, even make them aware that things cannot continue as they are. Maybe they are completely unaware how their behavior negatively affects everyone else - maybe no one has ever told them. If they care enough, they will make the effort. If not, then let them go and realize it was not going to work anyway.
Sometimes I feel like I must be living in an alternate universe when I read posts like these. I am the guy who replaced the guy who was the problem. Everybody was very happy I joined, not because I was some kind of virtuoso player, but because I wasn't a jerk.
Edit: I should add how I got the job. The band auditioned something like 25 bassists. They had asked that players come to the audition prepared to play five songs out of the set list. I was the only one who did what they asked. Everyone else decided to just show up and jam.
Edit: I should add how I got the job. The band auditioned something like 25 bassists. They had asked that players come to the audition prepared to play five songs out of the set list. I was the only one who did what they asked. Everyone else decided to just show up and jam.
Just like a working relationship...
... sometimes, it's cheaper to keep'er... or, him...
... but 'him' doesn't rhyme with cheaper.
Sure, why not? I mean, so many cover bands seem to play the same damned tunes anyway!
'Sweet Emotion', anyone? I like (respect) the song (now)... it's actually a pretty good workout, but I bet every cover band in Columbus has it in their set list... at the very least, play a different overplayed Aerosmith song.
It's not just a problem "with musicians". Spend three seconds in the corporate world....you soon learn that opportunity costs, training time, and a legitimate fear of the unknown are all legitimate reasons why replacing someone can be difficult.
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
The trick is to get enough gigs so that you can have your choice of players. It's often hard to get really good players for a start-up project, so you go with the best you can find and then upgrade as needed.
The trick is to get enough gigs so that you can have your choice of players. It's often hard to get really good players for a start-up project, so you go with the best you can find and then upgrade as needed.