Better Musicians=Worse Band??

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 18 Jul 2006 4:27 am

I wonder how many have experienced this phenomena??.. You have a fair musician or two quit or get fired, replace them with more talented individuals, but the enire package suffers..
Something is missing..
I have seen it time and time again ad nauseum... just would like some thoughts on this... bob

Larry Strawn · Post by **Larry Strawn** » 18 Jul 2006 6:00 am

Bob,,
Talent and ability certainly goes a long ways and means a lot, but sometimes the chemistry between the players as a whole means more to the overall sound and how the band performs on stage. Just my $0.02

Larry

edited for spelling[This message was edited by Larry Strawn on 18 July 2006 at 07:01 AM.]

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 18 Jul 2006 6:59 am

Yes, sometimes. As long as the players are clearly competent in the realm of music they are playing, then chemistry and being able to work well together count much more than pure chops, to my tastes. IMO, born out of personal experience and watching others go through this.

I suppose that someone who is strictly interested in virtuosity might disagree - I know people like that. But I'm usually more interested in the whole ensemble sound.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 18 Jul 2006 7:34 am

A band is a unit, a team, so to speak. You can take 5 of the best musicians in the world, and put them on stage. But if they don't get along, if they're not willing to work with each other, you won't have much good music.

Gary Atkinson · Post by **Gary Atkinson** » 18 Jul 2006 9:21 am

I've had this happen several times.I'd hire better muicians to improve the band,next thing I knew,they'd fire me.It's a dog eat dog world ain't it.

Stephen Gregory · Post by **Stephen Gregory** » 18 Jul 2006 12:03 pm

I don't buy it. Great players are more often than not what makes a great band, sports team whatever. You can always point out the exceptions but this is the rule. Also, great leadership from a great player is the key! I don't care to listen to 5 average or less players even if they do get along or, watch 9 average Baseball Players. I'd rather watch the Yankees! Sorry, chops, feel,knowlede,skill,RULE!

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 18 Jul 2006 1:03 pm

Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Billy Wilson · Post by **Billy Wilson** » 18 Jul 2006 1:03 pm

Or there is the opposite situation: When I get hired

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 18 Jul 2006 1:50 pm

Well Stephen.. I think we have to agree to disagree..Virtuosity does NOT a band make...

Where were the virtuosos in the Beatles?.. none there to speak of in the early years.. They were great writers and good singers, but it went WAY beyond that.. It was the sum of thier individual talent that made the whole... In the early days,Mcartney was a dreadful bass player.. Lennon was about average at best as a rythmn guitarist as was Ringo on drums..By the logic you state, the Beatles would have been much better with great studio players of the day playing rythhm, bass and drums, just letting John Paul and George sing the tunes they wrote.. I just can't buy it..Chemistry, mojo,joined at the hip, however you wish to verbalize it, means more than "hot" musicianship.. I have seen it too many times to agree with your statement... bob

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 18 Jul 2006 2:02 pm

There's a musical relationship that forms between members in a good band, which creates the ability to read one another on stage. They produce a sound that is uniform and "together", because everyone knows each other's strengths and weaknesses. When you introduce a new person into the fold, the sound has to change.
We have a 6-piece band that regularly hires subs, due to schedule conflicts within the group. From experience, I can truly say that the band is never quite as good when there's a replacement on stage - however "hot" the player. I believe wholeheartedly in the chemistry of a unit. There obviously must be, however, some talent to begin with. Otherwise, the chemistry will not get properly formed in the first place.

Stephen Gambrell · Post by **Stephen Gambrell** » 18 Jul 2006 2:41 pm

Actually, Bob, McCartney was an EXCELLENT bass player--now, George Harrison was a lousy lead player, by his own admission.
"Leaderless" bands tend to override themselves. Look at Cream. No leaders, just great players---and the egos burned the band up! I've played in bands where the attitude was "I don't need to be in this band. I've got people begging me to play with them!" Not fun. Give me a band full of real good players, who leave their egos at home.
What is "mojo," anyway?

Jim Peters · Post by **Jim Peters** » 18 Jul 2006 3:34 pm

A good(local level) band has to have most or all these elements:
1.One strong musician
2.At least one focal point
3.Reliable equipment
4.One organized member(who keeps the books)
5.strong vocal(s)
If any of the above (cept#1)are great musicians, fine, but not critical. This is my experience over the last 40 yrs. JP

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 18 Jul 2006 5:00 pm

I agree with Chris L.

Also, the success of a band depends on getting all players' "hierarchy of importance" on the same page. Ideally it's 1) the song; 2) the cohesive sound of the band, and; 3) the players' individual egos.

IMHO #'s 1 and 2 can be interchanged. But the ego of the individual player MUST be subservient to the sound of the song and the band.

A good marriage survives when both the husband and wife agree that the needs of the marriage are more important than either of their own individual needs.

A band is very much a marriage between a greater number of members, and that HAS to involve suppression of individual egos and lots of compromises. Hopefully, all members of the band agree on what is the best sound for everyone, and not just oneself.

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

Mike Winter · Post by **Mike Winter** » 18 Jul 2006 5:07 pm

Right on, Jim and Herb. I'll take "fit" any day over self-centered vituosity. In my mind a band is a team...like a family. I guess that's why I never liked being in a "So and So and The Whatevers" situation. I'd rather a band be a band of equals, with multiple lead singers, all getting along...with whatever is best for the band as the motive and end result.

------------------
Mike
------------------
Blue Moon Highway
(Country Music...and then some.)
www.bluemoonhighway.com

[This message was edited by Mike Winter on 18 July 2006 at 06:07 PM.]

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 18 Jul 2006 5:43 pm

Very well put Herb. My band has been together for six years and has won a few notable awards just because of what Herb stated above. The majority of bar players don't get it and are doomed to mediocroty.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 18 Jul 2006 6:22 pm

Also, great leadership from a great player is the key!

IMO, it doesn't matter where the leadership comes from. The issue is that an ensemble needs interpersonal musical chemistry, and this requires the members to play for the ensemble, not just for themselves. The greatest leader in the world will have trouble "herding cats".

I don't think it's a hard and fast law, but it seems to me that there is a positive association between increasing brilliance and increasing ego & impatience with peers. Real musical chemistry requires that ensemble members have respect for each other and are willing, to some extent, to sublimate some of their desire for glory and the spotlight for the good of the ensemble. I think the combined truth of these two ideas make great virtuoso ensembles the exception, not the rule. I think this is born out in reality - most great ensembles I hear are not bands full of virtuosos. In fact, it seems to me that competing virtuosity tends to create instability in bands. To me, virtuoso musicians sound best in ensembles with other (very good) musicians who give them the space they need to create. Of course, there are exceptions, but I think they're rare.

From the point of view of logic, invalid conclusion implies either 1) Incorrect premises, or 2) Invalid reasoning, or 3) Both. Invalid conclusion does not necessarily imply incorrect premises.

And I'd definitely rather watch the Red Sox than the Yankees any day - except to see the Sox trouce 'em.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 18 Jul 2006 7:38 pm

Thanks, I'm staying the hell out of this one ....

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 18 Jul 2006 7:42 pm

One man's doom might be another's salvation..

Then there's mass delusion..

EJL

Fred Shannon · Post by **Fred Shannon** » 18 Jul 2006 8:18 pm

Sometimes Good Musicians bring Great Big Egos with them, and that's hard to overcome at times.
Phred

------------------
"From Truth, Justice is Born"--Quanah Parker-1904

Marc Friedland · Post by **Marc Friedland** » 18 Jul 2006 11:52 pm

Bob,

Not that it has happened, but I think it would be possible for me to fall into this category.
There's (almost) always someone better.
I don't think it would be that difficult to find a player with "hotter chops" than me to take my place in a band, but I think the overall quality of the band MIGHT go down. Nothing at all against the monster picker, but I am a very good team player, and I bring out the best in myself and the other band members when I'm on stage performing.
I'm sure if I showed up at your local steeler's jam, there would be plenty of people there who would think "why does he gig so much, his playing doesn't seem so special to me" and I wouldn't blame them for feeling so. My expertise and versatility falls into other categories that are important to making a band sound good and enjoy playing together.

Marc

Stephen Gregory · Post by **Stephen Gregory** » 19 Jul 2006 6:19 pm

HUH????

Henry Nagle · Post by **Henry Nagle** » 19 Jul 2006 7:29 pm

There's nothing to "huh" about

"Band" players are at least as important as soloists.

It's great to see a really good player step out, but it's important that they know when to step back and find a part that complements the bands sound.

Sometimes really strong players take up too much room. Especially if they're new to a band.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 19 Jul 2006 8:00 pm

I'm with Stephen--McCartney was an excellent bass player from the beginning, IMHO. And I'm not sure I would agree Lennon was a weak rhythm player. That continuous fast-triplet rhythm part in "All My Loving" was as even and precise as if it had been done by a machine. And he did it live on the Ed Sullivan Show just as well. And it ain't easy to do! (not for me, anyway)

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 20 Jul 2006 3:45 am

NO ONE is a bigger Beatles fan than I and I LOVE Paul... However I don't know what you guys are listening to.. Early on, Paul was a guitarist that played bass because one of the 3 HAD to.

I listen closely to bass always.. Some of the early recordings are just a thump thump kind of thing with no real pattern, some is out of tune, and often that Hofner just sounds bad period.

The Beatles are far and away my favorite band,always have been, but to say that Paul was a good bass player early is a real stretch.. Over the years, I will agree he became a fine bass player, but the bass playing on some of the early stuff was not good.. especially the live recordings,and before they started doing a lot of thier own material ... bob

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 20 Jul 2006 4:01 am

5 Non-virtuoso players,
playing together very tightly and sympatico,
can have the same impact as one burning player
backed by good players.

It is the heart and soul they put into the ensemble
that really makes it music. IMHO.

What this also means is that you have
more sources for notes of different styles
and feeling, rather than waiting for
'the monster' to run out of licks in his bag.