Here's the challenge of the multi-instrumentalist/songwriter/singer person. I write the songs, I know how I want them to sound, hell, I know how I want the BAND to sound at all times and know where it's headed, how we're getting there, and what we're doing TO get there.

And the rest of the band wants more creative freedom. And I'm an egotistical control freak. I'll admit it. It's taken me years to come to grips with it, but that's why the band is Beau Hall and then blahblah instead of my old band name Blind Slim. It's all about me.

So, you other bandleader/singer/songwriters - (Artist08 comes to mind immediately) how do you handle this constant struggle to keep the rest of the band excited about your songs, but still retain the original creative direction of those songs?

I'm losing my mind.

beauhall said:

Well, you heard what happened to one of my originals when we did it. Every part is different now except for the one I'm playing. I think they're totally oblivious. When we record them (we have already begun) I will make sure that they are exactly like I want unless they're changed for the better.

I think the key is to find people that are going in the same direction you're going in, or that inspire you. This is probably why I still haven't found one person to work with long-term. I ALWAYS have input into what people are doing with me/ for me because it's VinaBlue music. Take me KC remix of Naked for example. He did some AWESOME beats for me, I loveded them, but I re-arranged some measures quite a bit because I felt the emphasis wasn't in the correct parts of the song. We have strong personalities I guess. When it comes to my shit, I have the last word.



That probably didn't help much. I would say give people some freedom to be creative, then edit or re-direct. I'm sure all the greats do it like that, like Prince, he has people in his band that bring a certain sound/energy to his music but you know he has the last word on what goes down.

gee sounds like shades of purple reign.

It happens to all bands. Once you get past the weekly dealing out even spits to the band each night and you start looking at a deal...usually, all hell breaks loose. It's natural for most players to want to contribute. I've seen original band members fight major drama over points, credits, playlists. I've seen players fired right after a deal has been signed.

Depends on their value and how bad you want to keep them. The successful ones like Stones, U2, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi have a formula and they work well - together. Then others like Mellencamp and well....like Prince just keep changin it up so that they can keep control.

Sometimes just bringing the deals, organizing the gigs and the whole runaround is enough to allow the leader control...but when $ and publishing come into the picture, it can get downright ugly.

Be rich, when you pay them, they sound like you want. I suppose.

7salles said:

This is what I do. I hire pros. I have a revolving lineup of players I use who have played with me and know the stuff.

man Beau, this is what I go through all the time. I write 99% of all of the songs my band plays, and as of late, I have decided to let the rest of the band come up with a third set on their own. They seem pretty excited about the opportunity, but for me it is rough. I am trying to make our band more of a "group" effort, but the other members are not good at getting clear song ideas across to the rest of us. It is hard at the lower levels of this business to get people on the same page. At some point, when the money starts to roll in, things will start to take the course they should. In your case, I would suggest that everybody in your band get on board with "your" vision and realize that "you" have the best direction for your band. It is important that you guys have a focal point. Since you have a CD, they should get with that horse and ride it as far as it will go. If everybody had their own CD it would be different. Rock your vision. Make sure you stay a few steps ahead of them at all times. This is the only way you can maintain creative control.

theSpark said:

Yeah but I dread having to teach my stuff to two or three sets of players. Whine whine whine.

talmuzic said:

That is such a very good point.

VinaBlue said:

Or even better, find people who ARE into my vision and want to be a part of it. Trying to force creative people into following a creative direction (other than their own) is about as easy as convincing cats to form a line.

Because, and here's the crux of it all, the best band contains very creative individuals. Living Colour, Stones, U2 - I'm being VERY general here, but my point is that I would love to be surrounded by creative, inventive people, instead of lemmings. But to your point Tal - if you came into the band - how long would you play these songs with my limited piano knowledge before you thought, "oh man, this could really be jazzed up" OR, worse yet, "I bet I could do as well as this fronting my own band!"

I mean, hell, if I had Vina, Tal and Artist08 in my band, awesome, I've got a bunch of people who dig my music and all are at least on the same Prince page as me... but how long before Artist08 wants to bring his material in, or Tal or Vina? What could I do to convince this theoretical band to stay on target with the Beau Vision? What could I say to you, Vina, that would keep you playing my three-fingered key lines? What could I do that would keep you happy and thrilled to be a part of the Beau show, but at the same time, maintained my songs in their original state?

It's the answer to 9 out of every 10 questions on the planet: MONEY.
[Edited 2/25/06 6:30am]

Then I don't know if I'm lucky or unlucky because my guys don't seem to care to write original stuff at all. The stuff we're recording is 97.7% mine. I had to tell the drummer (who's very good) to change the beat to NOT sound like the drum machine I recorded with.

They have certainly morphed my parts into something they like better. Example:

http://www.soundclick.com...ID=1594527 (funk anthem)

vs.

http://www.grooveclinic.n...emlive.mp3

Mind you: they added SOME stuff that I wanted them to.

Best thread around here in ages and Red, who the hell are you? I just ask because of the wisdom of your posts.

I've had this problem my whole life and either you pay jobbers or you appreciate what people bring to the party that is your vision and accept them as musicians. If you dig this person's skills and he's willing to move in with your vision, the common courtesy as a friend, is that you bend his way once in a while.

So, that's what I've come up with and sometimes it sucks because it's work to learn something I wouldn't have ever thought of but sometimes in actually teaches me a new perspective and I grow with it. This isn't saying that you can't record and create your own vision all you want but I need other people to make music with, it just feels more whole (natural) to me.

beauhall said:

I dont' know about the Stones, but Living Colour and U2 write their songs together, right? Maybe not. I'm not sure. Well, I'm pretty sure when they play live, the guys in Living Colour are free to do what they want....Maybe.

Anywho. Beau, if I signed on to be in your band I would follow your vision. I have respect for artists like that. If I had an idea I would bring it up, but if you didn't like it I wouldn't push it. This is YOUR band. The question is, how long would I want to devote time to your band, since I have my own thing I want to do.

When I played coffeeshops with my friend Butterfly, it was his songs and I would make up beats and backup harmonies. He let me do pretty much whatever I wanted to do. It was a great experience... but eventually I got frustrated because I wanted to do my own thing and focus on my music.

People who don't have as much creativity as you do, want to throw their here and there... I dunno. Especially since you already wrote all the music! It's your shit! Personally I would totally enjoy singing backup for your band. You know I dig singing harmonies with your music when I listen to it. Hopefully you would dig my ideas, but if not... oh fuck it, this isn't helping...

Sorry dude... good luck.

Interesting question.
I'm guessing it all depends on what kind of band you have.

When I played in Pop bands, it usually ended up that I had the bandleader position by consensus.
That way there was no question as to who would be resposible for the arrangements, setlists, etc.

Personally, I prefer more collaborative situations.
It's just more natural in a band that's playing instrumental material that requires a great deal of improvisation and ideas that occur spontaneously.

If it was a band situation where I wanted to reign as Lord and Master over everything, i'd have to agree with 7salles and theSpark. Bite the bullet and pay the players.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

Here's my take on it, having had enough experience in the whole thing.

If you can't pay people enough to play the songs EXACTLY how you want them to, forget it. I wouldn't stand for some broke dictator giving out to me. You have to trust the musicians you're using. Hopefully, the reason why you took them on is because they approached your material in a manner which was conducive; otherwise, you wouldn't take them on. It is a big dilemma dealing with a band situation where the finances are limited; this will lead to compromise sometimes and an environment where you're not totally happy with how the band sounds.

I feel that the only solution is to get some financial backing or earn enough money so that you can pay some kind of wage. It may be minimal, but it will go no end to convincing the players that you're serious about what you're doing, but also that you value their playing contributions.

If you're lucky, you'll find a YOUNG band that are into your stuff anyway and will play for nothing. If so, if they are also doing their own stuff, offer to play (for free) for them.

Good luck!

Actually, Keith writes most of the music and Mick or Keith write most of the lyrics. Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts and Ron Wood play their parts that ADD to those songs, but it's Keith who brings the song to the band. So then, how does Ron know where to fit his part into the band? Because he and Keith have played together for decades now, and when they hired him, he was playing in other bands that had similar styles, so Keith can trust Ron to play against Keith's riffs, and Ron then is creatively satisfied to bring what he does into the band... but it's STILL Keith saying "here's the chords, here's the songs - they all sound like the Stones. No, we don't do Jazz, we don't do Heavy Metal, and we don't do Hip Hip".

So then, is it mandatory that Ronnie Wood better be happy with playing Stones' type music? Don't you think that he'd want to do some Jazz or whatever occasionally? How do Mick and Keith appease that desire, and not tell him to just shut the hell up? (although I'm pretty sure that's what they do).

I'm not exactly talking about specific MUSICAL parts as much as the overall creative direction. I've taken my band and declared that "we're going to play Prince Meets the Stones meets Stevie Ray". And so every single song is going to probably sound somewhat similar to those three artists. What do they have in common? They're not Heavy Metal or Jazz or Fusion, for starters.

They don't emphasize the musician as much as the music. It's not Rush. It's not music for musicians, it's music for dancing. Therefore, like Ron Wood, my guitarist might end up feeling a bit stifled because the music lacks a spotlight on wacky chords and extended solos and crap like that.

That's the dilemma. I will always have a singing guitarist in the band. And they'll always be very good players, so I'll have this challenge of trying to appease their desire to be recognized as incredible players, but the songs don't lend themselves to showcasing anybody too much.

I think. I dunno. Gotta go. The kids are biting.

Paychecks.

Ronnie doesn't care - plain and simple. He knows his place, gets payed very well AND...has another outlet that he pours his time into and is quite good at... Art (draw/paint etc.). Same with Charlie. He loves Jazz and plays with numerous ensembles, is also a successful commercial artist and loves guns (has qutie the collection). Both Ronnie and Charlie could care less what Keith and Mick do and are satisfied by the PAYCHECK.

beauhall said:

I doubt if you are more a egomaniac control freak than me. It's just a fact that sometimes we need other people and thats where trouble sneaks in. I hate working with musicians more than anything else so I just usually work alone, musicians are dipshits. Some are really lonely people that just want a friend, some are insecure people that want an ego boost, me, I just want to make music. If I ever work with musicians, they will be professionals who earn their living playing and know what is expected, I won't mess with any more amateurs, that's just asking for trouble.

But Mozfunky, until your music is making serious bank, how are you going to bring professional musicians into your band? And what will you do until that point? Play everything? Not gig at all? How do you plan to go from not gigging to playing with professional musicians?

Just questions.

I agree though that every musician has some kink in the armor - it's always one of these:

- they're awesome, friendly, but don't have an instrument
- or they don't have a car
- or always late ALWAYS
- or they have a car, a great rig, a day job, but they're a lousy musician
- they have a family and dont have the time

Occasionally you find a musician who's got their shit together, loves the music, loves to play, loves your music, and they're a great asset. It's rare but it happens.

I'm coming to terms with all this, it just chaps my ass every now and then and I have to vent. And in a week I'll be happy as a wood chipper.

I'm no pro, but it seems like the bands that hit it big ultimately are run like businesses. By that, I mean they have a boss. Or in Bruce Springsteen's case, The Boss.

Maybe one way to get that kind of organization is to tell the guys, "Look, this band is Beau Hall's band. I'm going to give you a contract and guarantee you a set payment from every gig. If we don't make as much as normal, that comes out of my share, not yours. Your share is set in stone. If we hit it big, you get a bonus. But in return for this guarantee, I set the direction and we play the songs I decide on. I always welcome input on everything but we all understand the final decision is mine."

There's some risk there in that if you get a series of low-paying gigs, the other guys might get paid but you won't. However, the trade-off is that you are the boss.

Based on my comprehensive knowledge of "Behind the Music", I think this is how most bands are organized.

RodeoSchro said:

That makes a lot of sense, like a small business, which is what it is. Sometimes you make no money! For the first few years anyway...

beauhall said:

Beau, it is tough to get everyone to be convinced of your vision regardless of how articulate you are with it or not (and for what it is worth, you are). Many musicians simply do not have the thought process go as deep as the musician who is the songwriter. Worse yet, they often think that they do (because we ALL have egos to some degree).

If you are lucky, you might have 1 or 2 members who are on board, but normally not everyone is going to eat, sleep, and breath your vision, regardless if you are amateur, semi-pro or some rich funkrock icon. On our level (local, but steady with some exposure), explaining you are doing the gruntwork- the booking, the PR, the flyers, the emails, the expenses, while they still get to bask in the same gig as you- that will be enough for some (those that play or sing great, but are not ambitious enough to venture out in front.

Unfortunately, bands rotate members, rather it be by design, like the NPG, or by life happening (you could eliminate U2 and Aerosmith, then try to name 5 bands with their original members that lasted more than 10 years....it gets difficult in a hurry). At any rate, I am rambling, but some members will change with any longevity of your career. To keep it to a minimum, I would say try to get them to appreciate how much work you are doing to sustain your band that is outside of the actual rehearsal or gig.

But remember, Siouxie and the Banshees told Robert Smith he had no business going out on his own, and that he would fail. The moral of the story- never underestimate the guitarist in your band with the eye liner and funny hair!

Beau, it is tough to get everyone to be convinced of your vision regardless of how articulate you are with it or not (and for what it is worth, you are). Many musicians simply do not have the thought process go as deep as the musician who is the songwriter. Worse yet, they often think that they do (because we ALL have egos to some degree).

If you are lucky, you might have 1 or 2 members who are on board, but normally not everyone is going to eat, sleep, and breath your vision, regardless if you are amateur, semi-pro or some rich funkrock icon. On our level (local, but steady with some exposure), explaining you are doing the gruntwork- the booking, the PR, the flyers, the emails, the expenses, while they still get to bask in the same gig as you- that will be enough for some (those that play or sing great, but are not ambitious enough to venture out in front.

Unfortunately, bands rotate members, rather it be by design, like the NPG, or by life happening (you could eliminate U2 and Aerosmith, then try to name 5 bands with their original members that lasted more than 10 years....it gets difficult in a hurry). At any rate, I am rambling, but some members will change with any longevity of your career. To keep it to a minimum, I would say try to get them to appreciate how much work you are doing to sustain your band that is outside of the actual rehearsal or gig.

But remember, Siouxie and the Banshees told Robert Smith he had no business going out on his own, and that he would fail. The moral of the story- never underestimate the guitarist in your band with the eye liner and funny hair!

keep on pushing until the baby comes out. id est or i.e., keep mixing the chemicals until it becomes stable or i.e., keep on with your vision whether it is u and a drummer or a full ensemble. Go full throttle. I always ask my band if they are full throttle. If they are doing everything in their power to get us further along.

You shouldn't be a musician if you gripe about such things, it is not easy and is not suppossed to be easy, Not to say I don't fully understand you, I do. I actually dislike most every musician I run into because they are so petty and competitive. That is why I won't work with musicians who are not proven professionals, with them you know that they are a.committed,b.skilled,c. professional d.able to take directions without getting there feelings hurt.
Musicians are corny, I never felt a bit like them so I work alone. All they do is complain and talk about other musicians, jealous and insecure.

mozfonky said:

Great advice; tell me when you're playing, I'd love to come see your band.

beauhall said:

I play all the time, I don't need a band, I play keyboard, you can do a lot of filling in on the piano.

beauhall said:

One question that comes to mind reading your post is: Is the band under your name a new band, or are you changing the band Blind Slim into Beau Hall? Do you know what I mean? That could account for the band's reaction to playing what you want, if it was once more of a "band" and now you are making a power grab vs. forming a new band under your name. I would think if the band was formed under your name it would be more of an expected thing that you are going to be calling the shots. But if you are turning the band from one thing into another then you gotta expect resistance. I can certainly relate to having trouble finding musicians willing and able to see one's vision, I just wonder if there is an additional reason you are having trouble.