Musician’s Notebook

Before you start working on your repertoire and recruiting band members, it’s important to make a decision on the governing model of your band from the get-go. It’s also important to bear in mind that the band’s governing model is different to the songwriting relationships in the band, and you need to know what route you’ll take before you choose band members so that the songwriting relationships don’t affect the leadership model.

It’s common fault for a band leader to think “I really click and can write songs well with member B. Maybe I should make him the deputy band leader, instead of member C.” But what the band leader failed to consider was that member C once ran his own business and has some marketing training. While member B is a valuable part of the band’s creative output, member C would fit that role better: the deputy leader takes over when the band leader is away, and helps out with roles in business and management, so it would probably be wiser to put member C in that role and assign B as a creative director.

I made this fault with Midnight.Haulkerton’s first incarnation. Actually, I made it a hell of a lot worse: the member I selected as deputy leader couldn’t write music and hadn’t the faintest clue of business practice. So there’s the other pitfall—choosing the member with whom you have a good friendship.

Now that I’ve reminded you to think in terms of the role and the member’s skills (when it comes time to select members for roles) we should consider the various models of band governance.

The Aristocracy—this is the model I came to use in Midnight.Haulkerton. The Aristocracy is where the band is lead by one person, who makes the major decisions and produces most of the creative output. There is still a voting system, but more weight is given to the band leader, so usually the only time when his decisions are vetoed is when every other member of the band is against it. Other members can still contribute to the songwriting process and get credit for their work, and keep copyright in that work, but the band is lead primarily by the leader. It’s usually the founder who becomes the leader, so it’s his baby anyway—and many musicians don’t have the presence of personality and knowledge of leadership to contend for the role.

This might sound a tad tyrannical to many small bands who use a Democracy or Anarchy model, but it’s the most effective way to get things done so long as the leader isn’t a complete moron. Bands progress more quickly this way, and usually members come onboard knowing that this is how the band is run—so long as the founder has made this decision from the get-go.

The Democracy—the Democracy is the second most common governing model used in bands. Everyone has a vote, and decisions are made in a fair way (though not without heated debate), with everyone chipping in and having equal weight. This can work, so long as you’re working with a bunch of people who are slow to anger, intellectual, rational, willing to compromise, to respect the system. They also need to respect that others may have skills and knowledge in some areas they don’t, and therefore be open to their suggestions and ideas over their own.

Unfortunately, most people don’t fit this description and a bulk of Democratic model bands fall apart. Usually it’s after the second practice, though a few notorious bands have sold one or two popular albums before their catastrophic explosion. When Midnight.Haulkerton was still called Orpheus in 2004 and 2005, we ran using this model and often came head to head on various issues. You don’t make fast progress, and never-ending cycles of arguments where nobody can agree is what tears the majority of starting bands apart. This is where having a leader to break those cycles is important.

The Anarchy—this model never works. Members attack each other with various weapons and everyone goes home unsatisfied with the day’s productivity. This occurs when there is no organized system, no voting mechanism, no clear leader, no regard for other’s opinions and each member is just out to push their own agenda and get what they want. I don’t recommend it at all. If you want to do this, by all means go ahead, but don’t expect to get much creative output out the door.

The Roles of a Working Band

In the next article of this series, we’ll go into more detail about the roles of a working band, which should apply no matter how you govern the band. You’ll need someone willing to head up marketing, finding venues, and getting a mailing list together; someone willing to be the creative director and ensure everyone has up-to-date lyrics and notation, someone willing to be the media spokesperson of the band, and so on. Without this system, one member ends up shouldering all the work while the rest sit on couches and fiddle with plectrums.

Once you know what governing model you’re going to use, you’re ready for the next step: the Band Agreement, a document of which the development relies on the context of hierarchy.

music, bands, leadership, aristocracy, democracy, anarchy, roles, musicians

The Establishing Your Band Series
Part One: What Direction Are You Going In?
Part Two: What’s This Band About?
Part Three: What You Need in Band Members
Part Four: Governing Models
Part Five: The Band Agreement
Part Six: Building Repertoire
Part Seven: Recruiting New Members
Part Eight: Learning & Arranging Repertoire

Subscribe to the Musician’s Notebook RSS feed to receive the next installment of Establishing Your Band.