Band Politics

The Volt

I'd like to open a debate here on songwriting policies.

I'm involved a band where I do the majority of songwriting, both musically and lyrically. Today I found myself arguing with the mead guitarist over something I wanted him to play over a chorus. I'd come up with a lead to play over it, he took and and changed it round. I explained that I was going to be particular about it, he argued that he didn't think the one I'd come up with was catchy enough. Given that I'd written the song and had looped it in my head a million times, I wasn't too keen to see it changed. It may sound trivial but I felt it was worth arguing over as it is the chorus after all, the bit that will stay in people's heads.

His arguement is that he didn't feel I was letting him put his influences into the song. I told him that I had never held him back before with the songs i'd written, infact, quite the contrary but I didn't like what he'd done to it.

If a guitarist doesn't come up with the foundations of a song, it's going to be very hard to pour influences in with the exception of a solo (which this song wont have) in my opinion.

My thoughts are that if we agree to work on something of mine, I should have some leeway when working on it. Call me totalitarian but when I have a particular sound in my head, I'm not going to be interested in variations. I'm sure other musicians on here have had similar rows with band members, I'd love to know peoples thoughts on whether or not things like these should be democratic.

If a particular band member has the idea all laid out, is it right of his/her fellow band members to try and change that? Or should they give him/her the benefit of the doubt?

Music-and-booze

I'm on your side mate, i write most of the stuff in my band and i pretty much take the stance that if i write the songs, the way i want them to be is the only way. Doesnt mean theres no input from other members, but something as important as a chorus hook shouldn't be messed with just for the sake of democracy... just my opinion

Royale with Cheese

I never wrote much when I was in a band, but when I did come up with something fairly complete I would have taken the totalitarian view. I wrote it, play it like it's written, or at least learn it like it's written before talking about changing bits.

That never really worked. The singer wrote most of our stuff, but we usually jammed things out until we had something we were happy with. If there was an argument over a guitar part like you're talking about, we'd more or less take a vote. If i'd written something that I was convinced was the best way of going about it, and 3 other guys are disagreeing with me then usually the 3 other guys are going to be right. The songs were usually brought to the table in a very rough state, and each of us would have our chance to shape them how we wanted.

While I know how frustrating it is when people don't play things like you have it written in your head, I think you end up making better music if everyone has their input (provided everybody is a decent musician that is). In the case of the main guitar riff over the chorus though I'd just see what he can come up with and then decide as a band what is best.

Also do your best not to let any disagreements get out of hand, it can cause serious unecessary tension.

Malice

This is a good idea for a thread. I'm pretty sure anyone who's played in a band for a reasonable length of time has had these kind of "discussions".

In my current band the songwriting is mainly split between myself and the bass player. I am lucky in that so far, whenever I've written the guts of a song and demoed it at band practice, it has nearly always been improved on. Any time we've debated over notes and timings we've usually just jammed for a few minutes until we either come to an agreement or we take a vote. As there are only 3 of us in the band there's no chance of a tie.

I would agree with most of what Royale with Cheese wrote. Don't let agreements get out of hand and don't let things fester. If tensions start to rise then move on to another song, take a smoke break or something. Try not to get too possessive of songs. While you might feel they are yours, the band belongs to everyone. I know I wouldn't stick around if I felt my contributions were being persistently ignored (unless of course there was a lot of money at stake, see Jason Newsted for example ).

The Volt

Like I said though, I'd never hold a guitarist back and I haven't before. I'm at a stage now where my songwriting skills have advanced a fair bit and that means I've begun to come up with guitar parts as well.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to be possessive of songs, music is supposed to mean something after all. But I agree that if it's causing too many arguements then maybe that song should be put to one side as we're meant to be enjoying ourselves.

I find it's very difficult to state 'I want something played this way' without coming across as an asshole but there is a degree of auteurship in songwriting and without trying to be stubborn I just don't like things being changed around even if somebody thinks it's catchier or gives it more of an edge, that's just opinion after all

Malice

Voltwad wrote:

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to be possessive of songs, music is supposed to mean something after all

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean that you're possessive of songs in order to keep them all to the same theme, style or genre? As in you have to have lyrics about dragons and lots of widdly guitar solos because you're in a Power Metal band?

Voltwad wrote:

I find it's very difficult to state 'I want something played this way' without coming across as an asshole but there is a degree of auteurship in songwriting and without trying to be stubborn I just don't like things being changed around even if somebody thinks it's catchier or gives it more of an edge, that's just opinion after all

It's all about tact. Rather than being blunt, try softening your approach. To take the example from your original post, play the chorus part your way, then his way and then discuss it. Point out the part that you prefer and see what the bass player and drummer think. If everyone prefers the other guy's version then you have a difficult decision to make .

Something to consider is whether you want to be in a band or just get together with some session musicians. In my band everyone contributes to the sound of the band regardless of where the song originates. I know that I can give the drummer a basic idea for a beat or I can play a guitar riff and he will come up with a beat far better than I could and with the bass player I know that he will approach guitar riff differently to the way I would if I was doind the bass as well.

red_ice

you have the say end of.

In my last band we often talked about the politics of what happens when and in what case etc and so on. I was fortunate enough that the singer understood that his songs were a bit poppy and my say would roughen it up a bit. He let me change stuff, infact the band agreed my changes suited, however he had the final say.. but the final say wasnt something that was said on the spot.

We would spend at least 6 months on a song before playing it live. In those 6 months we would have overdone melodies, and tried multiple patterns, which ever came together to suit the vibe/flow/direction of the song, was voted on, talked on and left with everyone feeling they have given a piece of input and weighed up all the possibilities. That way i couldnt say anything negative and i would be happy with the outcome - at the end of the day, thats what matters.. everyone is happy playing the music that they like.

Maybe your guitarist had something, however you didnt want to let it play for a while. You said that you have played that a million times in your head, he hasnt. It obviously hasnt stuck in his head, what hes playing is whats stuck in his head. Thats how he sees the song. Give it a go for a while, understand where hes coming from, then give it the chop, or even better yet, compromise the two melodies so that it works. Or... just tell him that thats how it is.

Its your song foundation, the music usually belongs to the band. Otherwise its your sound, not your bands.

Des Claypool

hey guys, good topic for discusion! i'd tend to be with malice on this one, altho if you have a song you really don't want anyone to change i'd be of the opinion that you shouldn't bring it into the band, keep it for another project or a solo thing. the best bands are a good representation of everyone in the band, and it shows that everyone has thier piece that they love, unless your band agree with you and think yeah we should leave it as it is then it should stay a personal song or a song for another project .. .well in my opinion :P

Duff_Man

i remember when i was in a band last year we were recording and i had done a solo that the singer wasnt to fond off and insisted i changed it....needless to say i told him where to go.....no offence now to the op but if i was that lead guitarist i wouldnt be too happy being told to play a riff someone elses way and not the way i had originally wanted to. maybe its just me but iv always thought bands work better when everyone has input on songs instead of one person writing all the songs and bringing them to a band...then again it does depend on the band i guess!

Malice

Voltwad I think you should record both versions of the song, post them up here and let us decide!

Duff_Man wrote:

i had done a solo that the singer wasnt to fond off and insisted i changed it....needless to say i told him where to go.....no offence now to the op but if i was that lead guitarist i wouldnt be too happy being told to play a riff someone elses way and not the way i had originally wanted to. maybe its just me but iv always thought bands work better when everyone has input on songs instead of one person writing all the songs and bringing them to a band...then again it does depend on the band i guess!

When the singer said he wasn't fond of your riff did he elaborate? If he just told you he didn't like it and left it at that then that's no help in coming up with an alternative or a compromise and I think that would annoy anyone.

Rampart

If your guitarist wants to change it... let him. unless you just get session musicians, he has a right to add. Also, influence can be heard in any part of a song, not just a solo! (imo solo inflences are ****e, always like GnR, in an indie band or wat not)

But yeah. He's an equal member. The lyrics and chords are the basis of the song, whch you wrote. After that is decoration.

Also, i wouldnt agree with Dufmans view, or maybe just the way hes worded it but.... you need compromise!!

ALOT of lead guitarists are stuck up assholes, im in no way claiming that about anyone here, but i know a few personally. You need to bend and flex for the song. I prefer listening to songs I havent written obviously, but when its 1/2 nd 1/2.. its great!! like something from a record i bought or someting :P

Dublin_Gunner

Its your song, fair enough. But dont immediately dismiss his idea's to add to your song. You'll only create animosity and a bad vibe.

You never know, he may come up with something you prefer. If its a case he tries a few things, but you still prefer yours, just say it to him.

Problem is, if you cause agro - who's to say he wont just play the bit he came up with when on stage??

Then you'll really be in big bother!

The Volt

I don't see how I'm holding back influences by insisting on one lead over the chorus, I mean there's plenty of other spots in the song that he could harmonize, play another lead over or whatever.

His reasons was that he felt his was catchier with more of an edge, I disagreed with the former and told him that I was going for something more mellow.The riff he plays isn't all that different from the one I wanted played, so its not like he came up with it, he just inverted the ryhthm which I'm really not fond of.

Dublin_Gunner

Voltwad wrote: »

I don't see how I'm holding back influences by insisting on one lead over the chorus, I mean there's plenty of other spots in the song that he could harmonize, play another lead over or whatever.

His reasons was that he felt his was catchier with more of an edge, I disagreed with the former and told him that I was going for something more mellow.The riff he plays isn't all that different from the one I wanted played, so its not like he came up with it, he just inverted the ryhthm which I'm really not fond of.

In that case stick to your guns and explain your reasoning. Its YOUR song after all.

Flesh Gorden

nothing worse then having people add very little but question everything

if both of you know he's not capable of adding anything to improve the song - it kind of speaks for itself



thats why I only do cover bands now - and record original songs on my own for a separate project I'm working on

have you ever had your songs professionally recorded? book time on your own but see if the studio can organize some good musicians



you'll have something complete instead of butting heads for no real reason

Unless you intended to be playing with the same people for the next X amount of years its worth considering



.

musicinyou

plain and simple, for a song to sound the best were everybody is happy, everyone in the band should honestly say which version is better, if most agree that your way is better then nice one, and same for the other guy, sounds like maybe he wants a bit of flash though, so put it to the band which sounds best, which ever wins the votes stays, leave it at that and move on. arguing will time waste, keep it together boys/girls

best of luck, im a lead guitarist but thats how we done things,

Duff_Man

malice_ wrote: »

Voltwad I think you should record both versions of the song, post them up here and let us decide!

When the singer said he wasn't fond of your riff did he elaborate? If he just told you he didn't like it and left it at that then that's no help in coming up with an alternative or a compromise and I think that would annoy anyone.

no he just said it didnt suite the track which im still adament it did! i think the fact there was no alternative annoyed me even more!lol

sinbadthesailor

Well I reckons ye should mellow out a bit, try record both versions and then as a band decide. But yeah, each to his own- it's prob different for each band. Songs I wrote for my old band sounded completley different when they were finished to how they started out on home recordings. Of course, they're all lovely girls..

Dublin_Gunner

Or indeed, get someone else in to have a listen to both versions, and let them decide which they think sounds best.

Then go with that.

Malice

Duff_Man wrote: »

no he just said it didnt suite the track which im still adament it did! i think the fact there was no alternative annoyed me even more!lol

Well in that case I would politely say that the solo stays unless he can elaborate on why it should be taken out or provide an alternative.

sinbadthesailor

Nigel: He can’t play the f****** guitar anymore

Derek: You know the part, you did it this morning

Nigel: No, he doesn’t know the f****** part- if he knew the f****** part he’d play it, wouldn’t he?…Are you walking out? Are you walking out?
Do you know what make this simpler, I hate to cut right through it here, why don’t you play this alone without some f******* angel hanging over your head?

* * *

The moral of the story is- Don’t let Jeanine come to the recording session

KevLeppard

As mega producer Mutt Lange (Pyromania, Hysteria, Back in Black, Foreigner 4, Waking up the Neighbours et al.) once said "Never get too attached with any idea you come up. Fall in love with after its completed, that way it will be worth it".

Just jam it out with the band a few times and see what idea works best.

mr_angry

These situations are inevitable in a good band, so for me, the best approach is to discuss in advance how you overcome differences of opinion. If you have agreed a process for resolving disputes in advance, then usually everyone is more accepting when you decide to pull rank on them.

As for the individual case here... I wouldn't dare take sides!

The Living Few

It's like this mate, if you wrote the song then it's your baby, if cartain band members aren't happy to play it, leave them out of the song entirely. I know this sounds a bit aggressive but after all, if they want to get their influences into a song, why are they not producing material of their own fo r the band? Why are they waiting til you write something and then try to b*st*ardise it with their own take on it. It's pretty simple, it's your way or the hightway when it comes to stuff like that. I'm in two bands and do most of the writing. If someone else has a suggestion i'll take it on board and see if it works, if not, revert back to the original. If he wants to do something, we can do a song that he's written. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

musicinyou

suppose to me everybodys diff!! its a very paddy casey thing to say its my song so il say how it goes, being a band should be the best thing ever, the writin isnt the issue, its the music here, one person cant be right over an average of four or five, if my anyone in my band had the attitude The Living Few had, i know were id be telling you to go, this guys writing the songs fair enough, but its coming from the band as an end product were everybody should be happy, not just one person! if thats the case become a singer songwriter like paddy casey, do it all yourself, people in two or 3 bands il never understand that,, oooooohhhh loook at meee im so great, i pick one band and dedicate everything to the one band, again i suppose everybodys different and i respect that.! all this is my opinion, i dont mean to offend with words, were musicians, were all on the same line

peace

The Living Few

Well it seems sir you completely missed my point. Someone has to do the writing, 2 many cooks spoil the broth, cliche for a reason perhaps? A song is a song, and the writer is entitled to have it the way he wrote it, and I did mention if other members have suggestion that are better that I am happy to take them on board but not to suit some influences they want to get out, if it works thats fine, but if it doesnt then it's gone, I scrap loads of my own ideas because they dont work. I covered that in the "why dont they write stuff and bring it to the table secion" or didn't you read that part? The simple fact of the matter is, if the musician in question is not happy with the way things are done then he should either start writing material or find a band that will allow him to do covers (which is the impression i get). A band is a band and should work as a band, I fully agree with that, but does that mean that any rubbish idea should be used because someone wanted to put it in to showcase their abilities.

That is all.

irishthump

The Living Few wrote: »

It's like this mate, if you wrote the song then it's your baby, if cartain band members aren't happy to play it, leave them out of the song entirely. I know this sounds a bit aggressive but after all, if they want to get their influences into a song, why are they not producing material of their own fo r the band? Why are they waiting til you write something and then try to b*st*ardise it with their own take on it. It's pretty simple, it's your way or the hightway when it comes to stuff like that. I'm in two bands and do most of the writing. If someone else has a suggestion i'll take it on board and see if it works, if not, revert back to the original. If he wants to do something, we can do a song that he's written. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Well how about this... if the song means THAT much to you and you can't bear the thought of anyone else changing it then why bring it to the table at all? It's not very fair to present some material to the rest of the band and say - "Here's an IDEA, which in the vast majority of cases is what it is, but you can't change it!"
Just bringing into a band situation is leaving it open for criticism, constructive or not.

The Living Few

Why bring it to the table at all? Did you actually ask me that question? Are you serious? So your idea of a band is 4 or 5 lads sitting around in a room writing nothing, that's called a COVERS BAND. I think you're missing the point of being in a band altoghter man, writing songs is part of it, and if you bothered to read my post then you would know what I was saying so since you didn't I will say this. READ MY POST. I'm just saying that EVERY band that has ever existed has one person calling the shots, because more than one creative mind (writing that is) is too much, the result will be a ten penny mix of songs with different influences. I'm up for changing a song if it sounds better, if you read my post then you would know this. Please don't post any more half informed responses, it's not good for the artistic community. :cool:

musicinyou

Nicley put irish thump, you get what im saying,

its like this, you wrote the song, part one done, music has to fit next, hence my words saying keep at untill the whole band is happy, not one or two people, its pretty selfish to say its my song and thats how its gonna go, ye no, if everybody agrees its better one way than the other way perfect, but like i said if our singer came out and said, this is how its going down and thats final, me and the boys would chuck him out, we are all as one, not one as all, as a matter of fact i wrote the songs, and i was happy to let input in as long as we all agreed it was best for the song,,

Saint Alfonzo

Have experienced such a situation numerous times before myself and i would have to say that from my experience, democracy is not always necessarily the way to go in a band. im not sayin that it should always be a totalitarian view to arranging songs, but everyone in the band has to remember that the most imprtant thing is THE SONG.

It shouldnt matter if your guitarist thinks his bit that he wrote is just fantastic, the arrangement of the song should 100% always be based on the idea that you want the song to sound as good as possible.
Get rid of any egos or preconceptions musically, and try and tell your guitarist that you wrote this song, you have it in your head, you can hear it, i know how that feels, and that the SONG NEEDS TO SOUND THIS WAY.

Its not about the individual, or the group, its about the end product. Its about what you create as a group. Democracy can be very detrimental to a band. You need to find the balance. You all need to be slaves to the creation!

Anyway good luck.

musicinyou

what more than one creative mind writting is too much, like lennon and McCartney you mean, or page and plant. or ACDC, most of them do some writing, malcom the rythm guitar came up with all the tunes, you reckon they be any were as good as the are now had angus not put his creativity into the songs, and the singer putting his twist in, suppose it ended bad for them guys didn't ha ha honestly

The Living Few

Page and Plant = split up because of creative differences
McCartney and Lennon = split up because of creative differences

Checkmate

musicinyou

The Living Few wrote: »

Page and Plant = split up because of creative differences
McCartney and Lennon = split up because of creative differences

Checkmate

and continued on and did solo projects, page and plant also did that gig last year and done recordings as page and plant, had john bonham not have died they would and i feel, still be going today, mcCartney and lennon broke because of yoko ono, thats hardly creative differences, its 100% proven that they were getting back together had he not been shot!! but above all of this this, through confessions of page, plant, lennon, McCartney, all have confessed to drugs controled what they had become,


i see you have no mention for acdc, ohhhhhh thats right there still giggin, roll on the june Gigg

Checkmate i believe you were saying ha ,,,

sinbadthesailor

Yeeaaaah, the Lennon-McCartney example was a bad choice good sir. John Lennon regularly described almost every McCartney classic as "rubbish" in interviews. By the time the Beatles made their best albums a lot of the recording sessions were attended by only some of the group or in some cases just one. McCartney played everything on (for example) "I will" and "Why don't we do it in the road" and Lennon's "Julia" was solo too.

musicinyou

I have to disagree man, there were only a few tunes paul did on his own, but it wasnt the classics John was saying was rubbish, it was pretty much the rubbish ones that everybody felt the same about!!!

im gonna look more into it now ha ha as you raise the comment, if i am wrong il admit and stand corrected, however this wasnt the debate this guy was asking for advice on ye know,,, ha but im gonna check it out

Dublin_Gunner

There are plenty of other hugely successful bands that have writing input from just about all members, but definitely more than one;

U2, Def Leppard, Thin Lizzy, Guns N Roses, Aerosmith, Bee Gees, Kinks, The Who, The Stones, The Stone Roses, Bon Jovi etc etc

Not ONE of those bands relied on 1 single person to provide the creativity.

Guess they failed miserably because of it though........

musicinyou

nice one man, your on the same page, can beleive i didnt say, those, im my defence it was early when i posted my first reply,, good stuff though,,

irishthump

The Living Few wrote: »

Why bring it to the table at all? Did you actually ask me that question? Are you serious? So your idea of a band is 4 or 5 lads sitting around in a room writing nothing, that's called a COVERS BAND. I think you're missing the point of being in a band altoghter man, writing songs is part of it, and if you bothered to read my post then you would know what I was saying so since you didn't I will say this. READ MY POST. I'm just saying that EVERY band that has ever existed has one person calling the shots, because more than one creative mind (writing that is) is too much, the result will be a ten penny mix of songs with different influences. I'm up for changing a song if it sounds better, if you read my post then you would know this. Please don't post any more half informed responses, it's not good for the artistic community. :cool:

With all due respect - Absolute horses*it....

First off, I read you post, it seems to me that YOU are the one who is really out of touch with his own post!

You talk about bringing your song to the table, but then don't allow any creative input into the material. What is your reason for not allowing any changes? It's because YOU don't think it improves how the song sounds.
What if you're wrong?
What the hell gives you the right to decide what sounds good and what
does'nt?

irishthump

sinbadthesailor wrote: »

Yeeaaaah, the Lennon-McCartney example was a bad choice good sir. John Lennon regularly described almost every McCartney classic as "rubbish" in interviews. By the time the Beatles made their best albums a lot of the recording sessions were attended by only some of the group or in some cases just one. McCartney played everything on (for example) "I will" and "Why don't we do it in the road" and Lennon's "Julia" was solo too.

That really does'nt prove anything. Everyboday knows that they were great individual songwriters, but knowone will deny they wrote the best Beatles material together.

(Ok, maybe not the best Beatles material, but anything they co-wrote was at least of equal stature to their solo stuff.)

musicinyou

your a geezer

irishthump

The Living Few wrote: »

Page and Plant = split up because of creative differences
McCartney and Lennon = split up because of creative differences

Checkmate

Yes, THEY SPLIT UP because of creative differences, they did'nt sit around whinging to the rest of the band that they did'nt like having their songs messed with.

That's my whole point - if you bring a song to a band and expect them to work on it, you had better be open to other people's ideas. Otherwise, go solo, that's the only way you will get a song to sound the way YOU want it.

musicinyou

irishthump wrote: »

Yes, THEY SPLIT UP because of creative differences, they did'nt sit around whinging to the rest of the band that they did'nt like having their songs messed with.

That's my whole point - if you bring a song to a band and expect them to work on it, you had better be open to other people's ideas. Otherwise, go solo, that's the only way you will get a song to sound the way YOU want it.

Agreed man, that was my whole point by my mention of paddy casey!!

best of luck guys,

irishthump

The Living Few wrote: »

It's like this mate, if you wrote the song then it's your baby, if cartain band members aren't happy to play it, leave them out of the song entirely.

Sorry, but that should be if certain members are'nt happy to play it, then take it away and keep it for yourself. If that does'nt suit you, then I'm afraid the only logical choice would be to find a band that shares your "musical vision", or to go solo.
And by the way, there are many "solo artistes" who preffered to not take heed of other musicians' advice because they knew what sounded good better than everyone else.
If you want to meet any of them most of them can be found at the job centre.

The Living Few

Well it's all a matter of opinion to me, I WILL be at the ACDC gig in June, I am a fan of The Beatles and Led Zepplin, U2 and Thin Lizzy. And as far as the job centre is concerned, I don't see any of your albums on the shelves. Oh and I guess I'll say hello to Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Rory Gallagher, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley and Robert Johnson while I'm down there too, I believe it WAS check mate. Phil Lynott was Thin Lizzy, Axel Rose was Guns and Roses, Angus Youngs is ACDC, Bono is U2, i could go on forever here, the fact of the matter is, everybody does things differently but no-one in either of my bands complain about the way things are done, so I guess we'll see how that works out.

FIN

The Living Few

Oh and this debate is brilliant. Fair play lads

irishthump

The Living Few wrote: »

Well it's all a matter of opinion to me, I WILL be at the ACDC gig in June, I am a fan of The Beatles and Led Zepplin, U2 and Thin Lizzy. And as far as the job centre is concerned, I don't see any of your albums on the shelves. Oh and I guess I'll say hello to Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Rory Gallagher, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley and Robert Johnson while I'm down there too, I believe it WAS check mate. Phil Lynott was Thin Lizzy, Axel Rose was Guns and Roses, Angus Youngs is ACDC, Bono is U2, i could go on forever here, the fact of the matter is, everybody does things differently but no-one in either of my bands complain about the way things are done, so I guess we'll see how that works out.

FIN

Songwriters of the calibre of Lennon/McCartney, Springsteen, Dylan are few and far between. These are artists who can come up with great music without the need for aditional input, and the proof is there for all to see/hear.

Which gets me back to the point I was trying to make - unfortunately many aspiring songwriters produce material which, to be honest, is not up to scratch. But they steadfastly refuse input from other musicians because they see it as compromising their musical vision. I'm afraid people like this are a dime-a-dozen on the Irish music scene, and are stuck in the situation where no one will work with them due to their "my way or the highway" attitude.

The Volt

irishthump wrote: »

Songwriters of the calibre of Lennon/McCartney, Springsteen, Dylan are few and far between. These are artists who can come up with great music without the need for aditional input, and the proof is there for all to see/hear.

Which gets me back to the point I was trying to make - unfortunately many aspiring songwriters produce material which, to be honest, is not up to scratch. But they steadfastly refuse input from other musicians because they see it as compromising their musical vision. I'm afraid people like this are a dime-a-dozen on the Irish music scene, and are stuck in the situation where no one will work with them due to their "my way or the highway" attitude.

If you read my original post you'll see that I stated that I've never held him back before, infact quite the contrary. There have been songs that he's made his own with some fabulous guitar work. This is one lead bit over a chorus that I'm insisting on, there's a whole 4 and a half minutes of the song for him to have an input on.
I agree with an earlier post about democracy being detrimental to a band.

Fair enough many songwriters produce material that needs to be worked on and I've definitely had some of that category before. He's been the first person I've asked about. However, you seem to be ignoring completely the probability that songwriters aren't always just being stubborn. I don't know whether or not you've ever written a song but from the vibe I'm getting off others, it's perfectly natural to feel violated a bit when somebody comes in and attempts to change it. Maybe you shouldn't criticize what you don't understand.

The Living Few

Voltwad wrote: »

If you read my original post you'll see that I stated that I've never held him back before, infact quite the contrary. There have been songs that he's made his own with some fabulous guitar work. This is one lead bit over a chorus that I'm insisting on, there's a whole 4 and a half minutes of the song for him to have an input on.
I agree with an earlier post about democracy being detrimental to a band.

Fair enough many songwriters produce material that needs to be worked on and I've definitely had some of that category before. He's been the first person I've asked about. However, you seem to be ignoring completely the probability that songwriters aren't always just being stubborn. I don't know whether or not you've ever written a song but from the vibe I'm getting off others, it's perfectly natural to feel violated a bit when somebody comes in and attempts to change it. Maybe you shouldn't criticize what you don't understand.

Exactly, I couldn't have put it better myself. Good on ye mate.

irishthump

Voltwad wrote: »

If you read my original post you'll see that I stated that I've never held him back before, infact quite the contrary. There have been songs that he's made his own with some fabulous guitar work. This is one lead bit over a chorus that I'm insisting on, there's a whole 4 and a half minutes of the song for him to have an input on.
I agree with an earlier post about democracy being detrimental to a band.

Fair enough many songwriters produce material that needs to be worked on and I've definitely had some of that category before. He's been the first person I've asked about. However, you seem to be ignoring completely the probability that songwriters aren't always just being stubborn. I don't know whether or not you've ever written a song but from the vibe I'm getting off others, it's perfectly natural to feel violated a bit when somebody comes in and attempts to change it. Maybe you shouldn't criticize what you don't understand.

Of course it's perfectly natural to feel violated, but there has to a be a little give and take, you have to be open to criticism if you throw material out for the rest of the band to play. I just find that songwriters can be incredibly insular and over-protective about their work to the extent that they can't function in a group.

Dublin_Gunner

The Living Few wrote: »

Phil Lynott was Thin Lizzy, Axel Rose was Guns and Roses, Angus Youngs is ACDC, Bono is U2, i could go on forever here, the fact of the matter is, everybody does things differently but no-one in either of my bands complain about the way things are done, so I guess we'll see how that works out.

FIN

I assume you mean the 'face' of the band, not the song writing catalogue.....

C When you are in a situation where you are presenting something musically to everybody, is that nerve wracking? Do you get attached to the pieces before you present?

E I can't really get too attached to anything I offer up or the collaborative process would be too difficult. I really have to kind of see my song ideas as orphans. Just let them go, and see which ones survive. I can come up with something I think is brilliant, but if it doesn't get Bono, Adam or Larry excited, and unless they can add to it, then it is never going to go anywhere. Sometimes I have to let go of what I think are gems, grit my teeth when something I have spent ages on is torn apart and thrown in the dustbin in front of my eyes. But you know the best ones always survive, and if you are going to be too precious about your personal work, then don't be in a rock 'n' roll band.

http://www.u2.com/stream/article/display/id/4684

I could find similar info on the other bands who you labelled as merely being 1 main member, but I couldn't be arsed, and really dont think I need to. Your opinion of those bands is very close minded, and in fact, shows you must not have that great a knowledge about them.

Thin Lizzy - Lynott wrote a lot of them, but lots give writing credits to more than one member. Downey, Robertson, Gorham, and in the early years Bell wrote a lot of their stuff. Just look at the back of a CD for credits...

Guns N Roses - Izzy wrote as much as Axl, and Slash nearly as much. Duff gets credit on quite a few too. Many of their songs were simply credited to 'Guns N Roses'.

AC/DC - Bon Scott wrote a lot of their earlier material, before his death. Angus, Malcome & Brian write most of their material together.

sinbadthesailor

I know this is a tangent but (shockingly) John Lennon described classic beatles songs as rubbish- take your pick. I found it hard to believe and perhaps he just said it for a reaction but apart from the classics he wrote on his own (surprise surprise) he regularly rubbished Beatles classics. And no I'm not refering to "i wanna hold your hand" and all that tosh- I'm talking about stuff from Revolver onward!! Yes I know Paul only did a few solo songs here and there, I wasn't claiming he recorded loads of his compositions on his own.

BUT- on the other hand (and I'm in agreement with y'all here- I was just adding tot he debate) the solo Beatles output after they split was NOWHERE as good as the stuff they did together- yes some of it was great but in general no.

But hey, that's just an opinion- and like ars*h***s, we all have one. Going back to OP, I reckon he should perhaps try to be more diplomatic and get all the band in agreement- or else just hire session musicians if he literally just wants people to play exactly what he wants.

P.S. the best Beatles album was "the best of the Beatles"- Discuss
ha ha ha

musicinyou wrote: »

I have to disagree man, there were only a few tunes paul did on his own, but it wasnt the classics John was saying was rubbish, it was pretty much the rubbish ones that everybody felt the same about!!!

im gonna look more into it now ha ha as you raise the comment, if i am wrong il admit and stand corrected, however this wasnt the debate this guy was asking for advice on ye know,,, ha but im gonna check it out