Optimal band setup/members/number/etc.

[Adamixoye]

Okay, I haven't been in a band for a very long time. When I was, we had 5 members...a drummer, myself on bass, two guitarists, and a singer/occasional third guitarist.

 

Maybe it was just the fact that we didn't play complicated enough stuff to require 2 guitars most of the time, much less three...or the fact that none of the guitarists were ever very punctual for practice, etc., but the band felt a bit crowded at the time. I always wanted to 'simplify, simplify.'

 

Moving on in my life to grad school, it is unlikely that I'll be able to dedicate serious time to another rock band anytime soon. But, hypothetically, I've thought about what I'd want in a band if I ever joined another one. And I can't make up my mind...

 

Speaking strictly of a guitar/bass/drums type of band, I can't decide between any of the following four setups...

 

(1) 3-piece (guitar, bass, drums), with someone, probably the guitarist but maybe the bassist, taking the vocals. Advantage of simplicity, but anytime a vocalist plays an instrument, I've noticed they can't be quite the showman. Also, only one guitar in a band limits you a little bit.

 

(2) 4-piece...like above but with a dedicated vocalist who doesn't play an instrument. The vocalist can then be a bit more of a showman. Still has the disadvantage of only one guitar.

 

(3) 4-piece, but with two guitars, and the vocalist is playing someone. Showmanship disadvantage.

 

(4) 5-piece with 2 guitars and a dedicated vocalist. Disadvantage of a crowded stage, also limiting showmanship.

 

Does anybody have any thoughts among these choices? Granted, this is a very specific type of band.

 

I could also ask the following three, more general questions:

 

(1) Should the vocalist play an instrument?

 

(2) One guitar or two?

 

(3) What other instruments (e.g., keyboard) do you absolutely need in your band for the music you play? Does this affect your answer to (1) or (2)?

 

Sorry for the lengthy options. Perhaps I'll get some good feedback, though.

[D_dup3]

Having played in situations involving anywhere between 1~11 people, I'd have to say that it really depends on what you need to get the music out the way you want it but my own suggestion would be that, all things being equal (sounds/ability/etc), a keyboardist might offer more variety than a second (& especially a third) guitarist.

If you feel you need specifically guitar sounds (as for example, back-up when soloing), teach the vocalist to play.

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by d:

Having played in situations involving anywhere between 1~11 people, I'd have to say that it really depends on what you need to get the music out the way you want it but my own suggestion would be that, all things being equal (sounds/ability/etc), a keyboardist might offer more variety than a second (& especially a third) guitarist.

If you feel you need specifically guitar sounds (as for example, back-up when soloing), teach the vocalist to play.

Yeah, I knew that there would be a response like this...that's cool. There is obviously no simple answer to the question if one involves any significant variety of musical styles...you could have a big argument over which horns are important in punk/ska, for instance, or how many toms that classic metal drummer actually needs...

 

The type of music I'm talking about, a keyboard doesn't typically fit. And having two guitars for solo/rhythym or other two-guitar parts is sometimes important.

 

But it sounds like you're going with "make the vocalist play for two guitar parts instead of adding another body"...interesting...thanks for the feedback...

[D_dup3]

Hmmm...well, you didn't say what sort of music this would be (unless that was there before you edited).

 

Why are keyboards precluded...?[Here, lemme sidetrack you ]

[Adamixoye]

Well...at some point in the post, I mentioned "Speaking strictly of a guitar/bass/drums type of band"...

 

I'm a big fan of...okay, I don't know what to call it. Grunge. Numetal. Hardcore. Alternative. Basic garage band stuff. That may sound trendy or "young" to some people (I'm 21), but it's what I like.

 

Some bands I like, which generally play harder music, will occasionally use piano/keyboards, and it sounds very good (Project 86, for instance, if anyone's heard of them). Generally, though, for the type of music I'm talking about, piano/keyboards would be additional instrumentation and not an integral part of the band.

[whitefang]

Well, you'd have a hard time convincing ME that Jimi Hendrix, who came to fame heading a trio, WASN'T much of a showman! But, that's HIM.

 

Cream was a trio, too. And in THAT case, Ginger Baker, their drummer, was more or less the showman. But, that shouldn't be your main concern.

 

I always have a problem with the notion that some kind of acrobatic, wildly dressed individual is that important to a band. Might be entertaining to a lot of folks, but I look at it this way; I'm Stevie Wonder, and I want to go to a rock concert. Just how important IS that flashy showman to me, anyway?

 

Other than that, I can't add more than what d told you. Depends on the music, and the sound you want. And don't be selfish. Let whoever do what they're best suited for. If you want to be the vocalist, but your drummer has the better voice, then MOVE ON OVER! I've seen bands break up before they really got started over that kind of shit.

 

Whitefang

[patrick_dont_fret]

The 'band' I was in for a little while was a 3 piece. Me on bass, a guitarist, and a congist (yeah, that's congo). We took turns yelling at the top of our lungs to get over the sound, but it was fun. I, not really being able to do both very well at the same time, didn't sing much, but the guitarist is great at stuff like that. I played at a party one time where I was on bass, and a guy on congos, and 5 or 6 guitarists (had to turn up my volume just a little bit for that one). We had one or two singers that played, and it was awesome. We were mainly just jamming with someone belting out words that seemed to fit (we were all drunk). I know this didn't answer your question very well, but you should know what you want, and if you don't, you'll just have to experiment. How many musicians do your favorite bands have? Questions like this you should ask yourself.

[Lee Flier]

Hmm. My band is a trio - guitar/bass/drums, bass player does most of the lead vocals, drummer sings a lot too, mostly harmony and some lead.

 

We keep saying we would like to be a 4 piece - add somebody else who plays either guitar or keyboards, and sings. But it would have to really be the right person because the vibe between the three of us is really great, and we definiteliy make a lot of noise for 3 people.

 

If you want to avoid interpersonal problems your best bet is probably a 3-piece - no ego wars between two guitarists, no egomaniacal front man, and fewer people who might clash to begin with. Not to mention less people to split up the pay at the end of the night so everyone makes more money!

 

Probably the next least likely to cause problems is a 4 piece guitar/bass/drums/keys situation. A 4 piece with 2 guitars can work but the 2 guitar players MUST mesh well with each other or it will just degenerate into a volume war, solo war, or just a mudfest of everybody stepping on each other's parts. Two guitarists who work well together are a thing of beauty, but if they don't, it's ugly!

 

IMO a dedicated "frontman" isn't worth the hassle, they are all a pain in the ass. Everyone in the band should play an instrument!

 

Well that's my 2 cents. Really I've been in all the above situations, been in as many a 6 piece bands, and it boils down to whatever works for your style of music.

[John Brown]

"IMO a dedicated "frontman" isn't worth the hassle, they are all a pain in the ass. Everyone in the band should play an instrument!"

 

Wasn't Keith Richards in the Rolling Stones? Didn't they have a "dedicated frontman" and end up being superstars?

 

Not that I disagree, I think that even if they are only strumming along to the music, everyone should play an instrument.

[bearded yeti]

Optimal setup for a band requires 5 members, IMO.

-guitarist

-keyboardist

-drummer

-singer

-naked guy carrying cement blocks

[Nollykin]

Hmm.

 

Alright - I'm gonna have to sound a little mean here.

 

I really dont like the whole attitude of "you're only a musician if you play guitar". Whitefang, Lee.. I love you guys, but I really am surprised you'd have such shortsighted views on singing. I'm a singer, first and foremost. I'm a lead singer. My opinion is that a lead singer SHOULDNT play another instrument, because the voice IS an instrument. A properly trained vocalist uses his / her voice in ways that noone else can do. Everyone can sing, it takes practice to truly vocalise. Even I'm not that good and I've been doing lessons for years.

 

The point is, I think that singing and playing guitar is like playing guitar and drums at the same time. You just cant do it well (okay - some people can... always exceptions). I believe to put the emotion, power, effort and enthusiasm - the ESSENCE of the singing into singing, you need to be free. You need to have your mind free of everything but your vocals. Playing guitar at the same time can be great, but just dsont knock a decent vocalist. The showponies shit me as much as they do you. They just sing. the true lead singers are vocalisers. they are brilliant.

 

I have a real respect for the ones who can sing with emotion and power AND play guitar as well. those guys and gals are true musicians.

 

But its all an ego war, depending on what your instrument of choice is. I'm a singer who wants to play guitar in order to write and record his own stuff. I do not (not) have any intention to play and sing at the same time live. That takes all the fun out of singing in my opinion... Unless its a screaming song.. in which case I want to be able to pick up a guitar and sing and play. Kinda like Trent Reznor for nine inch Nails. Half his songs he sings on his own, another quarter he plays guitar, the rest he plays bass or even keyboard... depending on what he wants for that song. one which requires emotional driven singing he'll simply sing. one that requires screaming and guitar, he'll pick it up.

 

I dunno... jsut an off topic egotistical rant.

 

Nolly

[DC]

Nolly, you sound like someone who can't play and sing at the same time.

 

I've had great luck with four piece bands for some reason. Either 2 guitars, bass & drums, or guitar, keys, bass, drums and even singer, guitar, bass, drums.

 

In my last so many bands I always sang half the lead stuff and hired a female vocalist to sing the other half. I think you need at least two lead singers in any band just to get through long nights and multi night gigs without frying your vocal chords. Also, there were a bunch of overseas gigs we did where they wouldn't even hire you without a girl in your line up.

 

To answer the original question, I'd go three piece. That style doesn't need much lead and with the usual volume going on, it's no big deal when a guitarist switches from rhythm to lead solo. I wouldn't mess with a front person/singer unless you find someone who's got an incredibly different style or something that would make your band worth a bunch more dosh.

[coyote]

To me, the foundation of any band should be a proper rhythm section:

drummer

bass

guitar

keys

 

There is very little clash in the sonic ground these instruments cover if the arranger has any musical sense at all. These players should all have the primary mission of backing whatever the lead instrument happens to be - whether it's voice, a sax, a trumpet, whatever. In addition, they all ought be competent at playing leads & solos as well.

 

Now let's talk additions to the rhythm section. First addition? Percussion! More than another geetarist, the addition of percussion really fleshes things out. Again, it fills previously unused sonic territory - addition without clutter.

 

Now we get down to economics. I've done gigs with a full rhythm section, 4 vocalists, and horns. A pain to move around (try getting all those musicians to the gig ontime! lol) and they all need to be *paid*. So while I have enormous respect for vocalists, economics and style often point to having perhaps one lead singer and the rhythm section does harmony (or background) singing. This works for rock or jazz but not for doowop, where the dance steps are as much a part of the show as the sweet harmonies....

 

Which brings us to **THE SHOW**!! I know many musicians scoff at it, but the show is incredibly important. Doesn't matter if your music is awesome if no one comes to hear you play! So your band had better be set up to deliver a show, in whatever context that may be. The days of someone like Robin Trower playing great stuff but just standing there are gone. Hendrix caught the public imagination as much for his wild antics as anything else - it just so happened that he was also a groundbreaking musician.

 

OK, I've rambled enough for one post.

[PBBPaul]

The most important part of band mate selection is not necessarily the instrumentation but the vibe between members. I've played in many different types of bands playing a lot of different styles. In one basic rock cover group, we had 2 guitars, bass and drums. The other guitarist and I were good friends, got along great, played off of each other well and had no ego problems. The drummer on the other hand was an asshole and the bass player had no direction so we all ended up going our separate ways. In a country group I was with, we had three guitars, bass, drums and a female vocalist. Because of the intricate arrangements we had to come up with in a short time, we elected the bass player (an experienced touring pro) to be our musical director. Between his tyranny and the singer's over-blown ego (not to mention the substance and emotional issues) the fun went away real fast. The three guitars were never the problem since we all knew our parts and gave each other plenty of space.

 

My current group is the best I've played in. When I joined 12 years ago, we were a traditional Chicago style Blues band: Guitar, Bass, Drums and Harmonica/Vocal front man. The harp player's ego got ridiculous so we replaced him with another one who started out real friendly and humble. We later added a female vocalist/front-person and the sound was awesome. Unfortunately, her ego and the harp player's became like Godzilla vs the Smog Monster on stage. They would actually physically step in front of each other and sing/blow over each other. They had to go. We went back to a 4-piece with guitar, drums, bass and keys. The bass player, drummer and I are the core and we play off each other beautifully. Our current keyboard player uses a 1967 Hammond B3 and the live sound is incredible. We all know our places, give each other plenty of room and none of us is "the star". This arrangement with a lack of front-man personality has probably kept us from the big time but I look forward to every gig every weekend even if it's in the shittiest dive. Even if nobody else likes what we do, the magic and energy we get when we play is unbelievable.

 

My apologies for the long, self-serving-appearing post. The bottom line is: I've learned that the key is not the type of music (I personally can't stand listening to some of the songs we do) nor is it the instrumental make-up. It is the indefinable mesh between members both on and off the stage. Players who play for the song, not themselves.

 

BTW, unless you can afford roadies, make sure that the players you get aren't afraid to haul and set up/tear down equipment.

 

Best of luck to you,

 

Paul

[coyote]

Ummm... what if your goal is to play weddings, but the only players you can find 'chemistry' with are a tuba player and a didgeridoo? (Please forgive me this "ad absurdum" response lol) Professionals ought be able to look past personal differences enough to play a good gig. In fact, there have been many great musical partnerships whose foundation wasn't chemistry but personal friction!

 

Originally posted by PBBPaul:

[QB]The most important part of band mate selection is not necessarily the instrumentation but the vibe between members.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by John Brown:

Wasn't Keith Richards in the Rolling Stones? Didn't they have a "dedicated frontman" and end up being superstars?

Sure. Why do you think Keith became a drug addict? YOU try dealing with Mick Jagger on a regular basis!

 

I was being a little facetious there but in general it's kind of true - a frontman might make you more successful because of the showmanship aspect, but they also tend to be a huge pain in the butt, so it's a tradeoff!

[Lee Flier]

Nolly, I never said I don't respect the craft of singing - I totally do! It's mainly the personalities of most frontman types that I've had issues with, and I speak from experience. But like I said, I was being a little facetious anyway. A frontman can add a lot to a band, if you find the right one. Three out of my four favorite bands have had singers who don't normally play an instrument, so there ya go.

[PBBPaul]

Coyote you make a good point. It depends on your purpose for putting a band together. If you are looking to do weddings and/or want to be a tribute or faithful cover band then it makes the most sense to look for good pro-grade players with a wide variety of sounds and an instrumentation that is as close as possible to the sounds you want to achieve. I've done a fair amount of session and substitution work where I've played way outside my personal box. It's educational but I consider this to be "work".

 

On the other hand if you're looking to put together a group for personal expression or fun without strict faithfulness to any given sound, I still say look for the players you mesh with the best. That way you never know what you may come up with but it will likely be good. I have a friend, for instance, who has a pretty successful band and the instruments include a washtub bass, "drums" put together from miscellaneous garbage, a guitar home-made from an old sink and a an accoustic guitar (the only 'real' instrument).

 

I guess it depends if you want to use the band for income or release.

[RecreationalThinker]

I would suggest the following line-up as a versatile and economical way to go:

 

Drums

Bass

Guitar

Guitar/keys

 

Everyone doing some vocals would give variety and keep one person from getting voice-fatigued. This instrumental mix would work well for "heavy" music, and would be flexible enough for times when you needed an occasional keyboard part/synth sound effect.

 

Just my dos centavos...

 

Paul

[patrick_dont_fret]

You could go for the ultimate setup:

 

Guitar/vocals

Lead guitar/vocals

Bass/vocals

Keys/vocals

Drums

Percussion/vocals

 

The drums are a little too involved most of the time to sing, though.

 

Or the simple setup:

 

Guitar/vocals

Bass/vocals

Keys/vocals/vacuum cleaner (live only)

Drums

 

The drums not too involved, but just doesn't like to sing. The vacuum cleaner is for the songs you cover that the keys don't like to play on.

 

Just a suggestion, though.

[Tedster]

Yeah, I'd love to have

 

Two drummers

Three backup singers

Two guitarists

Two keyboard guys

Bass

Horn section

 

A'la "Mad Dogs and Englishmen".

 

But I'd settle for

 

Guitar

Bass

Keys

Drums

[Jedi]

I love power trios. Something about three musicians making all that sound. The Experience, Band of Gypsy's, Nirvana, these are some of my favorite bands. However, I have to admit that I have favorite bands like U2, and Afghan Whigs, where the lead vocalists plays guitar a lot. I don't know, whatever works.

 

Right now, my band is a two-piece. Me and my drummer, I love it. Less egos, less scheduling problems, more mula, and I have total confidence in the people uhm well person I'm stepping on stage with(I've been playing with my drummer for about seven years and have known him for about 15 years).

 

We're still looking for that right person, but they really have to be that "right" person. We just ROCKED at our last gig, and are really confident in our set-up. So we're not desperate for a bass player anymore. We would love to have one, but until then we're gonna keep rockin' out as a two-piece.

 

What I would really love is a female KEYS player that could play bass lines on one board and backing textures on another. Also, a little background harmony on certain songs. Man, that would be great, Aww the dreams.

 

Oh yeah, Nolly,

 

I sing and play guitar and I've got all the ego and attitude of a solo frontman. I think my band lacks nothing from me playing guitar, infact I think all the coolest frontmen(save Jim Morrison) look coolest with a guitar around them. Just my bullshit.

 

Peace to all,

 

Jedi

[strat0124]

How bout a Theremin band.....man those bass theremins are the sheeeeit.

YOu guys could analyze concrete!!!

[Nollykin]

Originally posted by DC:

Nolly, you sound like someone who can't play and sing at the same time.

No, I cant play. But that isnt the point - the point is, for someone to put ALL of their effort into playing OR singing, they have to put it in. All of it. Doing two at once can work, but a dedicated singer will outsing a singer/guitarist anytime, if the singer/guitarist is playing anything other than simple rythm.

 

It just offended me that people can knock singers so easily simply because they feel music and have the ability to move around / talk to the crowd...

 

Nolly

[Nollykin]

Lee: Yeah. I see what you're saying. I dont agree with 'frontmen' who dont play. THAT is why I am learning to play. I can see how it would shit you to tears having a frontman with a HUGE ego, who really doesnt play, or contribute. Very true. My definition of a frontman would be someone who is active in the songwriting process, works wellw ith a team, not just antagonises. On that point, I thoroghly agree with you. I just thought you were all attacking singers in general, thats all.

 

dblackjedi: I never meant to say that singer / guitarists are no good. I was simply... erm... attacking them because they attacked singers. Basically though, they both work... but there are distinct advantages of a dedicated singer. They really can do well.

 

In the end, all. I guess its just a matter of personal opinion.... like ALL of the posts on this board Never meant to get y'all into a flame war. I was just trying to hose down the guitarist ego with a little singer ego. Fair enough, right?

 

Nolly

[DC]

No worries Nolly. I prefer bands where everyone plays and sings, but don't tell that to Jagger, Daltry, Plant or Bono among a zillion others.

 

[Jedi]

Hey Nolly,

 

Just fuckin' with you, bro. I'm a singer first, than I'm a guitarist. Or...hmm, maybe I'm a songwriter first, than a singer, than a ...Oh screw it. Life's relative .

 

Take care bro,

 

Jedi

[Mark Zeger]

Find a keyboard player who can double well on rhythm guitar (there are many...I'm one), and there is almost nothing that you can't do with a 4 piece of guitar/keys/bass/drums.

[Adamixoye]

Actually, forget all this. How about just having that fourth member be a DJ?

 

Just kidding...

[mark_dog]

bass

drums

keys/vocals

guitar (lead)

guitar (rythum)/vocals

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

me