Poll: If given the choice, would you rather...

[cooterbrown]

What's *your* preference?

[cyberponch]

Shove broken beer bottles up my ass while watching tone-deaf fucktards slaughter Guns n Roses tunes.

Bands with friends with no talent? I'm not saying you gotta be Yngwie but give me something to work with here. Tried it, it turned out bleh....mainly because the guy had no talent and also no drive to get better. If they put some time and work into woodshedding, sure. Otherwise it is doomed to failure.

Bands with assholes with talent? I tried that too. Had a guitar player with an ego to match his "I am the second coming of EVH" attitude. No thanks. What is he doing now, years later? Uh, nothing. Asshole.

Playing with myself? OH HELLS YEA

I would rather take the average player with a nice personality.

I got lucky....right now I am in a band where the players are all talented but laidback without a lot of the drama bullshit that permeates most of my fellow local musicians bands. I definitely feel blessed, especially since I've been in ten billion bands with just about every musician-type you can think of, including the whore bassist.

If you want to find the perfectt band, you just gotta keep looking. Although I will say that your friends can sometimes work out, if you all start out playing your respective instruments at the same time.....look at AC/DC.

[RupertB]

I'd rather play solo than with "no talent" or "drama queen" folks.

That said, I'll take a moderately talented friend over a egomaniacal maestro. I'm not out to make some grand artistic statement & value my time too much to spend it dealing with egos, drama, & general assholery.

[ned911]

The key is are they willing to work at it and show up knowing the material or at least viable alternatives.

[BlueStrat]

I've done one and two, and both had the same results. In fact, with the last band I had a bass player who was a combo of one and two-limited talent but egotistial ass.

All three types aren't good because they will eventually destroy the band by creating resentment and bad feelings all around.

Which is why I'm largely doing a solo today. I do a duo as well, but even my duo partner is a combination of limited talent and prima donna, which is a never ending source of frustration. It's usually fun, but once in awhile he does something that makes me want to blow up in his face, like launch into the Popeye theme song or start "Stairway to Heaven" or "Jingle Bells" or some 8 bars of some classical piece as soon as a song is over, or when I do two songs in a row and then ask him what he wants to sing, he just looks at me and says, "I don't know," as if he didn't just have 8 to 10 minutes to think about it. Unprofessionalism just drives me crazy. So I, hating dead air, launch into another song, after which the guy will say snidely into the mic, "See. folks, it's all about him, isn't it?" or "So, are you going to let me sing one now, or am I just here to back you up?":mad: :mad:

[Tedster]

To paraphrase Ty Tabor, guitarist of King's X...

"If you have a choice between hiring two musicians, one guy who's a decent (note, Tabor does not say "untalented"...but rather, "decent") player and a really cool guy, and one guy who's an outstanding, phenomenal musician but difficult to get along with...ALWAYS hire the guy who's easy to get along with".

Good words to live by.

[johnnybassman]

Option #1 for me. But, I can only think of one time that happened. The person in question, a really good friend of mine, was having trouble with the material we played. It just wasn't his level of playing. He eventually quit that band, went into the woodshed for about a year, and came out a new player, able to play just about anything. It was fantastic.

I've been lucky that all of the bands that I have spent more then a few months with had really cool people coupled with talent, including my current band. That's hard to find, and it's one of the reasons it usually takes me a year or two to find a permanent project. During that time I'll be trying out for various bands and I'll have to put up with egos or some other bullshit.

[KeysBear]

After many years of playing I've increased my ability to put up with very talented total buttheads. Good people around me help me raise my talent by a notch or two. A limited friend just rides on my back. It depends on just how extreme the problems are. If they're really bad I'll play by (or with) myself. :cool:

[germanicus2112]

Originally posted by BlueStrat
I've done one and two, and both had the same results. In fact, with the last band I had a bass player who was a combo of one and two-limited talent but egotistial ass.

All three types aren't good because they will eventually destroy the band by creating resentment and bad feelings all around.

Which is why I'm largely doing a solo today. I do a duo as well, but even my duo partner is a combination of limited talent and prima donna, which is a never ending source of frustration. It's usually fun, but once in awhile he does something that makes me want to blow up in his face, like launch into the Popeye theme song or start "Stairway to Heaven" or "Jingle Bells" or some 8 bars of some classical piece as soon as a song is over, or when I do two songs in a row and then ask him what he wants to sing, he just looks at me and says, "I don't know," as if he didn't just have 8 to 10 minutes to think about it. Unprofessionalism just drives me crazy. So I, hating dead air, launch into another song, after which the guy will say snidely into the mic, "See. folks, it's all about him, isn't it?" or "So, are you going to let me sing one now, or am I just here to back you up?":mad: :mad:

Thats awkward, and that vibe cant be good with the crowd (ie bad for business). Id definitely has words with that fellow.

[Guitar Centaur]

Originally posted by KeysBear
Good people around me help me raise my talent by a notch or two. :cool:

Same here.

I'm no virtuoso, but if I'm playing musing with people I like, it tends to "inspire" me.

Besides, most of my friends are way better than me. I'm not sure why they tolerate me!

:D

[gtrbass]

"Nobody wants an asshole on their tour bus..." - author unknown

[B Money]

i am actually in situation #1: Our band finally got tired of the putting up with the bullshit our (former) very talented bass player generated. We fired his drunk ass and asked a good friend of ours to join us playing bass. His not particularly talented, but he always shows up with a lot of enthusiams, does his homework, and actually cares about the band.
We are now more limited in the songs we can play, but that's a compromise I'm willing to make in order to keep the band going and keep the fun factor high.

[FlogRock]

Why am I the only one who voted 4? :o



1 and 2 are not an option for me. My band members need to have some basic competence, both as a musician and as a human being, otherwise I'd rather not be in a band.

Since I'm not a singer, option 3 is not very viable either, so... :o



:wave:

[Actionsquid]

Originally posted by Tedster
To paraphrase Ty Tabor, guitarist of King's X...

"If you have a choice between hiring two musicians, one guy who's a decent (note, Tabor does not say "untalented"...but rather, "decent") player and a really cool guy, and one guy who's an outstanding, phenomenal musician but difficult to get along with...ALWAYS hire the guy who's easy to get along with".

Good words to live by.

Yeah, exactly. I'm not sure about "untalented"... does that mean they're terrible, or just limited? If it just means "decent" and they're a cool person willing to practice and focus on the music, then I'll HAPPILY accept their limitations.

Sometimes I actually like the way a "limited" player sounds. Once apon a time, this girl who used to cut my hair wanted to learn to play drums so she could play in this casual Irish-rock band. So I taught her, as best as I could... she learned fast due to here background in dance, but her playing was pretty basic.

The thing was, her feel was really cool, despite her rough technique- she basically couldn't play a fill- and after she left that band she went on to play drums (at times) in my next two bands. She was a super nice, easygoing person- I never had an argument with her in years of sporadically being in a band with her.

She doesn't really play in bands anymore, but I'd still take her "fill-free" rudimentary beats and great attitude over some hotshot with a big shiny DW kit and bigger ego.

[Monsoon]

I'm currently in the option 1 situation. I've spent too much time with Option 4 over the years, and I really need to play with others at this time. I find it gives me focus and drive, and it's fun. Which also knocks out Option 3. Well, it's supposed to be about fun. My last band was more like Option 2, but the guy that was the problem wasn't a maestro, he was just good. Everyone in that band was good, which made it fun until the one guy's problems basically blew it up.

Option 1 is hard, though because I do want to be in a band I can be proud of, and the untalented friend kinda kills that. I've spent a lot of time testing the waters with other bands but I keep coming back to Option 1. I guess I just need to have at least one buddy in the band

So option 1 it is. But there are problems because of the limitations, and it's anyone's guess how long it'll last.

[vanlatte]

I'm having a hard time picking an option because the first two seem so polarized...I have found myself more often than not somewhere in between:

1a: In a band with a good friend who is fairly talented but nothing to write home about.

2a: In a band with a complete A-hole is not a virtuoso either.

So out of those two I would be more inclined to pick 1a.

Honestly, I can't pick any of the options listed. :(

[daddymack]

I would rather carry a weak player than deal with an @$$#0!& any day of the week...a week player can improve, the asshole will remain an asshole.:(

[vanlatte]

Originally posted by daddymack
I would rather carry a weak player than deal with an @$$#0!& any day of the week...a week player can improve, the asshole will remain an asshole.:(

There is a distinction between a weak player that is willing and able to improve, and the weak link that will always be a weak link.

Been there way too many times to count...

[daddymack]

Originally posted by vanlatte


There is a distinction between a weak player that is willing and able to improve, and the weak link that will always be a weak link.

Been there way too many times to count...

I would never allow anyone to remain in a perfroming band who couldn't cut it. You can cover a weak player for only so long. If they are not moving forward, then they are not dedicated, then turn them into the 'kwippee', quick. I have had successful bands with weak players, but they were all about learning to be better, and the positivity they had translated to good energy on stage, which helps performances.

I also played with a 'keyboard oriented' band that was mainly egotistical hotshots...they basically felt that playing the right note at the right time was more important than being entertaining
...after about two or three months of gigging, they stagnated, couldn't get rebooked in more than a quarter of the places they had played...why? Because as technically amazing as the performance was, it was dry, lifeless and boring. They disdained me because, for one thing, I never played the same song the exactly same way, and as the guitarist, I was able to jump around, move, etc...but it was not enough, and as the gig schedule dragged, I became less inclined to deal with the crap, plus the jealousy, since most of the bookers wanted to deal with me. I finally walked when they announced we were down to one gig every two months...always the same place.

[cyberponch]

Originally posted by BlueStrat
I've done one and two, and both had the same results. In fact, with the last band I had a bass player who was a combo of one and two-limited talent but egotistial ass.

All three types aren't good because they will eventually destroy the band by creating resentment and bad feelings all around.

Which is why I'm largely doing a solo today. I do a duo as well, but even my duo partner is a combination of limited talent and prima donna, which is a never ending source of frustration. It's usually fun, but once in awhile he does something that makes me want to blow up in his face, like launch into the Popeye theme song or start "Stairway to Heaven" or "Jingle Bells" or some 8 bars of some classical piece as soon as a song is over, or when I do two songs in a row and then ask him what he wants to sing, he just looks at me and says, "I don't know," as if he didn't just have 8 to 10 minutes to think about it. Unprofessionalism just drives me crazy. So I, hating dead air, launch into another song, after which the guy will say snidely into the mic, "See. folks, it's all about him, isn't it?" or "So, are you going to let me sing one now, or am I just here to back you up?":mad: :mad:

It's all about him folks......man I wish I would have been in the audience, I would have screamed, Yeah, did you listen to the motherfucker play guitar? STUF NOOB!!!!

Wow I would have strangled him with my low E string.

I hate dead air too....it will suck the soul out of an otherwise excellent performance.

Singers *shakes head in exasperation*

[bendafender]

Ask yourself why you're in a band to begin with. For me it's to have fun. Making a little money is OK too.

If playing music with friends is fun, then that's my answer.

I am in a band that plays musical theater shows. There are 4 of us and we have become a recurring band for present and future shows. I have suggested that we branch out a bit. I would like to work up a set for some outdoor festivals. The drummer and the keyboardist are up for it, but our woodwind player is reluctant. I play bass, guitar and violin and can do vocals. For most shows I play bass. But we work so well together in the pit setting that I don't want to look for another member at this time. I've done more than my share of bands where one member was a jerk, but a good musician. I never enjoyed working in those situations.

With this present group it's such a pleasure to work together and play music together that I'd rather keep this group together than anything else. For me if it's not fun, it's not worth it.

[Cooley]

We may not be the best but we have a good time hanging out and thats really all that matter s in a band

Friends are the best people to have to be stuffed in an RV together and go to califronia from gerogia:thu:

[Flannery]

Egotistical assholes are the reason bands break up. I will always take an average player who is a decent guy, over the amazing player with a huge ego...it's just way less headaches.

[Henway_piano]

I guess the big question would be... Does he or she know they've got no talent, or do they think they're gods' gift to the musical statement ?

Like me for instance, I have been in the presence of musical greatness. So much so, that I wonder that if the GREATS were to take a sh*t, would the sound of it also exceed the sum of my musical talents? Damned curse of mediocrity....

OMG.... I just figured it out!!! I'm the the guy in MY band with no talent, but helps the guitar player carry his amps, and grabs the guys a drink when I'm standing at the bar.

I'm Guilty as charged sirs....:cool:

[Eye_Of_The_Liger]

I was in a band with a "weak link" until earlier this year. The other guys had known him since high school, maybe even farther back. It sucked, he was "off" a lot of the time (especially in the studio), occasionally came up with pretty stupid ideas, and he was pretty annoying at times. I quit, just before they kicked him out and got a new, 10 times better drummer. Talk about timing...

Most definitely wouldn't wanna be in a band with an arrogant, opinionated asshole. I have a non-musician friend who's like that, and that's bad enough. :rolleyes:

Don't wanna play by myself, just 'cause I like being in a band much better.

So I guess it's Rosy Palm and her 5 hot sisters for me. :)

All that said, I'm currently in a 3 piece with a couple really cool guys who happen to be pretty good players as well. Life is good in that dept. :cool: