Band members in other bands

[mcnach]

On 22/06/2025 at 16:19, chris_b said:

 

Deps are not a negative scenario. Deps make gigging more flexible. Pick the right deps and you can have a lot of fun.

 

You don't give your band members much credit for their ability to learn sets for 2 bands.

 

You don't want band members to be in multiple bands, I get it, but your whole outlook on the subject is very negative.

 

 

Indeed.

 

With regards to deps... I was with an originals band for just over 10 years, we didn't use deps for that one. The chemistry among us was a big part of the band (which varied between 6-9 members). Sometimes we'd play with one or two members missing, which was not ideal but it still worked as long as the "core 5" were there. But for most other bands there would be someone who could step in if needed. Deps are very useful not just to book gigs when someone is not available, but as insurance against illness, for example. 

 

At the moment I only play with 2 bands, plus dep with others occasionally. The main band has a number of deps, for everything except main vocals (we're a 6 piece). They've become part of the band, they just don't play as much as the designated main player. 

 

[mcnach]

On 22/06/2025 at 21:47, Mickeyboro said:

I’ll just re-state my original question, as it’s three pages back…

 

Can a band thrive if most of its members have other, clearly more interesting/lucrative interests? If so, how do you manage/motivate them?

 

I don't fully get the question.

 

They're adults: they manage themselves.

 

They know what the expectations are, how often we're aiming to play, how much time they are likely to need and what sort of availability, etc etc. If that works for them, then they make it work. Motivation? They have to like playing with the band, that's all it takes really. There's one guy in particular playing with us, trumpet, who makes a lot more money with other gigs than with us, but still plays most of our gigs. He just likes to do it, so he makes it happen.

 

If somebody is a problem with their level of commitment or creating scheduling issues, then THEY are not motivated enough for that particular band. It's not down to me to change their mind.

 

 

[mcnach]

On 23/06/2025 at 07:07, Mickeyboro said:

I would ideally like one-band people, dedicated to the blues and backing us 100 per cent - no distractions. I only have room in my life for one band.

 

We had plenty of gigs, but personnel instability had caused a slowdown. We aim to do more gigs and be more lucrative.

 

People are willing to play for us, but they are already in bands. So while they rehearse, they don’t come prepared. This slows down progress, hence my frustration. Shuffling the pack constantly does so too, hence my wish to motivate.

 

 

Now, I totally get that. The hardest part for a band is to find the right members, I think. If they join you and don't go prepared to rehearsals, then they are not a good fit, that's all.

 

I endured a few bands when starting out, trying to make every situation work. Eventually I realised that learning when to quit a band was a very useful and powerful tool. I think it extends to choosing your bandmates: if somebody is unreliable, I will not have them around, full stop, and replace them with somebody else who is reliable. If I didn't, I'd probably be typing lots of posts in the Daily Annoyances thread 😄

 

[Mickeyboro]

57 minutes ago, mcnach said:

 

They're adults: they manage themselves.

 

If somebody is a problem with their level of commitment or creating scheduling issues, then THEY are not motivated enough for that particular band. It's not down to me to change their mind.

People like to play music and often dont know how to say no.  
 

I am using them to keep my show on the road, so seemingly have to accept there will be a lower level of commitment/effort. 
 

Thats how I’m feeling.