Should all band members play all the time?

[EddiePlaysBass]

One of our guitarists is on holiday but since he's gone for a month, we decided to rehearse without him anyway. We hardly rehearse as it is.

 

As it turns out, a handful of songs sound better with just one guitar, bass & drums; rather than both guitars going at it. This is mostly the case on one slow John Mayall song we do (Blues For The Lost Days).

 

I would very much enjoy playing the song with just one guitar player but I do not know how we would have to break it to the other guy if we would actually decide to do it like that. Likewise, if at any stage they would like to do some acoustic stuff and leave out the bass, I would not mind stepping to the side for a few minutes. I am sure our drummer feels the same way.

 

So my Q for today is: should all musicians in a band play on all songs? Does anyone have any experience with leaving out selected members on selected songs?

[Mark Schmieder]

Of course; we leave people out all the time. When appropriate, that person is instructed to pick up hand percussion or maybe an acoustic instrument that fits the song and which they show some talent for, but other times they are smart enough to leave the stage so they aren't a distraction for the audience.

 

 

[rumpelstiltskin.]

it helps if you play those songs around set breaks, too. it's a very natural time for someone to leave the stage.

[Richard W]

We've played entire shows without our drummer, and on more than a few songs, one of our guitarists just sings and doesn't play at all. It's all about what serves the song best.

[TimR]

This is where the skill of the arranger comes in. Changing the arrangements was my first mission when I joined the band I'm in now. It's how you go about it that is important. Don't tread on toes by suggesting that they don't play at all. Suggest that it would be better if they thought about whether what they are playing contributes to the arrangement of whether it is just doubling or even detracting from the song. I've now been through the whole set doing this with two guitarists and once they were on board (I tried it with some simple rolling Stones numbers to start with) there's been no looking back. They now think harder about what they should play rather than both trying playing exactly the same thing but getting it slightly wrong when the original only has one guitar, or no obvious second guitar part. It sounds like a different band.

 

All Right Now - No bass until chorus. I play cowbell in the verse. You can never have enough cowbell.

[butcherNburn]

It seems like the toughest part is dealing with the person's feelings/attitude/ego. Good ideas above, picking up hand percussion and having those parts as a bookend around breaks.

[Ross Brown]

I agree with what had been said. It must be handled as a band though... A few weeks ago I saw a very good band playing. The guy that was doing all of the singing turned to his very talented guitar player, drummer and bassist and said I'll do a few alone now and they left the stage. I guess they were his backing band (in his mind) yet they were much more talented than he. I noticed this wierdness but just figured that was the plan. Found out the next week that they dumped him and joined up with a duo of guys that were looking to form a full band. As a bass player I would step out if needed, but in the types of bands I sign up for this would not/should not come up very often... Two guitars can play if one or both know how to drop out to a minimal role. This is often a challange for all but the best, in my experience.

 

No need to leave the stage for a single song. Just stand or sit quietly and look like you are listening. Placed around the breaks is a very good idea. Then I would leave the stage.

 

Along this line, what does a vocalist do when they don;t play an instrument and someone else in the band is singing. Back ups? maybe... Go sit, not for just one song. Stand back and play a rubber tambourine? Yep (or a real one). Act like they are listening and enjoying the other vocalist? Absolutely. All of these things are pro stuff. It can be a difficult discussion.

 

 

[EddiePlaysBass]

For what it is worth, in the arrangement we do for this song, one guitar takes lead (the one who wasn't present) and the other plays a very nice chordal accompaniment that compliments the lead and the chords I outline (something I should delve deeper into, by the way).

 

We just found out that having just "lead" guitar sounds better so it is quite possible that we would end up cutting the part of the guitarist who WAS there yesterday. Or we will keep it as is, because it is a good enough arrangement to not tamper with it.

 

I would upload samples but I have a slow internet connection right now so no dice.

[Griffinator]

All Right Now - No bass until chorus. I play cowbell in the verse. You can never have enough cowbell.

 

Funny you should mention that one. I may suggest such a move to our bassist.

 

On that note, myself and the lead guy in our band basically re-voice the riffs in that song to add texture. Ex: He does the main riff in the open position (where it was written) while I re-voice it at the 5th fret, which extends the chord (we get the high F# in there). Similarly, he stays in open position on the chorus, while I play the original voicing up on the 10th-12th frets, utilizing an inverted power chord voicing, which adds depth.

[The Bear Jew]

Everyone should play everything all the time.

Because that's good music.

[Ross Brown]

Everyone should play everything all the time.

Because that's good music.

 

And play it loud....

[Richard W]

Everyone should play everything all the time.

Because that's good music.

 

And play it loud....

 

And if you're all playing the same song, that's just icing on the cake.

[Ross Brown]

Now you are asking too much....

[jeremy c]

You could start the set by having one guy on stage singing and playing guitar. Next song, the bass joins in, then the drummer, then the other guitar. (or some other order of arrival)

 

A little cheesy, but if you have a listening audience that is present at the start of the show, it could be effective.

 

If you are playing for dancing, everyone really should be on the stage at all times and if one player's part is in the way, then they should find a better, simpler one.

 

I play for parties a lot in this configuration:

guitar/bass/sax or flute for an hour during cocktails

guitar/bass/keyboard/drums/sax or flute for an hour during dinner

guitar/bass/keyboard/drums/sax or flute/and two vocalists for dancing.

Six hour gig. Everyone gets paid for the number of hours they work.

[EddiePlaysBass]

//snip// if one player's part is in the way, then they should find a better, simpler one.

 

For what it's worth, the "full band" instrumentation works. No one is in each other's way and it sounds dandy. But with one guitarist not present we had to resort to a "skeleton rendition" with just bass, drums and one guitar. Which as it turns out is how some songs should be played

 

This is a non issue and most likely we will never even approach either guitarist about not playing on this track. They complement each other well on all things we play, agree on who takes which solo and even work on what to play whilst the other guy is soloing. I'd rather not tamper with that magic :grin:

[TimR]

//snip// if one player's part is in the way, then they should find a better, simpler one.

 

For what it's worth, the "full band" instrumentation works. No one is in each other's way and it sounds dandy. But with one guitarist not present we had to resort to a "skeleton rendition" with just bass, drums and one guitar. Which as it turns out is how some songs should be played

 

This is a non issue and most likely we will never even approach either guitarist about not playing on this track. They complement each other well on all things we play, agree on who takes which solo and even work on what to play whilst the other guy is soloing. I'd rather not tamper with that magic :grin:

 

You're correct. We played a gig recently without the rhythm guitarist. I wouldn't say it sounded 'better' just fresh and different to our ears and I did think I preferred it until we had another practice and it really was just "different".

[TimR]

...

On that note, myself and the lead guy in our band basically re-voice the riffs in that song to add texture. Ex: He does the main riff in the open position (where it was written) while I re-voice it at the 5th fret,

...

 

This is basically the sort of thing I've tried to do with the whole set. It sounds so much better than two guys playing exactly the same thing but slightly out of time and slightly out of tune with each other.

 

My ears feel so much better now.

[jeremy c]

....It sounds so much better than two guys playing exactly the same thing but slightly out of time and slightly out of tune with each other.

 

My ears feel so much better now. ....

 

I did a gig with an eight piece band like that. Two keyboard players on opposite sides of the stage. I was stuck in the middle and it was horrible. Last week I got to the gig early and insisted that the two keyboard players set up next to each other. It worked like a dream. One guy played keyboard parts and the other guy played string parts.

[Chad Thorne]

So my Q for today is: should all musicians in a band play on all songs?

No. Well, not so much "no" as "HELL no." Mix it up.

 

Another solution, especially with two guitards, is to arrange the song so that one guitar is much less present. IMO bands where every member plays wide-ope, balls-to-the-wall on every beat of every song are rankest amateurs.

[jeremy c]

Everyone should play everything all the time.

Because that's good music.

 

And everyone should be louder than everyone else.

[Paul K]

As it turns out, a handful of songs sound better with just one guitar, bass & drums; rather than both guitars going at it.

 

This is true for most songs. There's nothing you can do about it, but I wish you the best anyway. Two guitars are only good if they are playing different parts; that takes thought and innovation and planning. If they could do that, they wouldn't be guitar players anymore.

 

I kid. But you know, whenever I lay out for a bit just to let it breathe I get the stink eye every damn time.

[Griffinator]

As it turns out, a handful of songs sound better with just one guitar, bass & drums; rather than both guitars going at it.

 

This is true for most songs. There's nothing you can do about it, but I wish you the best anyway. Two guitars are only good if they are playing different parts; that takes thought and innovation and planning. If they could do that, they wouldn't be guitar players anymore.

 

Why I oughtta...

 

I kid. But you know, whenever I lay out for a bit just to let it breathe I get the stink eye every damn time.

 

Tell 'em to quit using their stinky eye and start using their stinky ear!

 

Oh, and you're a stink eye.

[Wally Malone]

With the Fleetwood Mac tribute band I play with the drummer and I sit out for two songs. I'm fine with that.

 

Wally

[Cthulhu Fhtagn]

In the jurrasic rock project, if the keys (before he left to persue employment in his primary trade elsewhere) didn't know or didn't have a part in a song, he would sit at the band table, walk the floor, do an in-process sound check, but that wasn't often.

 

Back to a four-piece, everyone is on the stage all the time.

 

In the jazz project, the singer will sometimes wander over to he husband and two small girls during the instrumentals. I have strong opinions about anyone under the age of 10 attending musical performance, and the parents who bring them, but then, my children are grown.

[Mark Schmieder]

I love children at gigs -- they are usually the most appreciative in the audience, and often ask questions that help them to decide what they want to do with music themselves.

 

At our gigs, invariably it is the child who comes up to place the tip in the tip jar. It's always adorable to watch.

[Cthulhu Fhtagn]

I love children at gigs -- they are usually the most appreciative in the audience, and often ask questions that help them to decide what they want to do with music themselves.

 

... and crawl around the stage, and get into the cables, and try and talk to their mother while she's in mid song, and wander about the venue, and ask questions really loudly, and engage in those "modern parenting" discussion where a full grown adult actually attempts to reason with a four year old ...

 

Yeah, me? Not so much.

[Mark Schmieder]

You said ten years old, not four years old. Big difference, especially if unaccompanied by an adult and allowed to wander onto a stage.

[Cthulhu Fhtagn]

I said "under 10". I believe four qualifies as under 10. At least it did last I checked. It's a paid gig - find a sitter. And I've had more crap destroyed by well-meaning, precocious 10 year olds than unpiloted 4 year olds.

 

And per my example above, the parent was obviously allowing the child to wander because "it's so cute - she wants to sing with Mommy". I hate "new age parenting". And yes, the father did try to rationalize with a four year old. And yes, the PA - along with those heavy-jazz JBLs on those rickety On-Stage poles, the powered Yami board and Gem Sound amp, the Shure 58 Beta and the Shure 52, and all those cabels, and the 3/4 double upright, belong to me - bought and paid for. Did I mention "paid gig"?

[_Sweet Willie_]

The children topic here is interesting. Isn't this all an "it depends" kind of thing?

 

If they're the musicians' kids and they hamper the performance, then they shouldn't be there.

 

If they're audience members' kids and they're not being supervised, then those parents should be asked to leave by the venue, or at least asked to monitor their kids better so they don't interfere w/ the performers or their gear, creating unsafe situations.

 

Whether the gig is paid or not matters more if they're the performers' kids and the performer needs to be professional.

 

The nature of the gig matters. Wedding reception? Expect kids. Bar gig? Don't expect kids. Corporate event? Depends on the culture of the hosting organization. Etc.

 

This seems to be less about the attendance of children and more about how their supervision or lack thereof interacts with the performance. (Kids are often wonderful for getting people to start dancing.)

 

A story in a separate post at a later time when I have more time...

 

Peace.

--SW

[J. Dan]

I mostly play bar gigs, so on the rare occasion that my kids get to see Daddy play, I and they love it. It helps make up for all those weekends when Daddy's got to go play in the band. My kids are 6 and almost 3, btw. And although they only get to see us a few times a year, if a song comes on the radio that my band plays, my daughter knows it! They don't get on stage or mess with anything they shouldn't. Gigs we do that have kids present (usually festivals or private parties) are a joy. The kids are usually the biggest fans, and the first ones dancing. They DO require supervision however. There IS the rare occasion when an inattentive or negligent parent allows their child to interfere with the stage. Such a circumstance warrants an announcement to parents regarding the supervision of the children for their own safety.