band members are plotting to remove one of us... suggestions sought

[Uncle Rodney]

It's something we encounter in bands, however as I've grown older and been on both sides of this situation, I maintain, "be nice". Here's the current situation, I will use alias' so not to reveal anything personal.

 

Band member A thinks band member B isn't good enough, insisting B has to go. Interestingly A has "found" a replacement in C showing us videos of their performance selling C to us. The current band plan is to auditon C without telling B about it.

 

This leaves me feeling bad because B now becomes treated differently in online chats, as if he has an infectious disease. The band plans to try out C in the new year, so that's 6 weeks B is frozen out.

 

I've already said - so we get C onboard, a few weeks later he announces his "other band is getting busy so needs to leave" - Obviously B has now gone with no replacement. The band stalls. C will leave if he thinks the band isn't good enough anyway.

 

Personally I don't think A is that good. I had a quiet moment with B before this situation arose and B has said A isn't that good.

 

Any ideas? I need to be nice to everyone, bands should be enjoyable, it's the bitching that makes it all sour. I suspect B has "a lot on his plate" and doesn't need anymore 💩- so I'm wondering if to phone him for a quiet update, he could then tell the band "sorry guys, I have a lot of 💩on my plate and need to drop out" it's better the exit is done by B rather than be "fired".

Edited 2 hours ago by Uncle Rodney

[Hellzero]

Why don't you fire the trouble maker instead, so A, as he isn't as good as he thinks he is, which is way too frequent...

[martthebass]

With friends like this who needs enemies mate.  Personally I'd call it a day as these situations have a tendency to implode or at a minimum leave a sour taste in the mouth going forward.  

[Steve Browning]

Indeed. It could be your turn next. 

 

I would guess that most of us have experienced both sides of this particular coin. If A isn't that good then the band is unlikely to improve overall. 

 

I'd consider your own situation carefully. 

[fretmeister]

Options:

 

1: Fire A for the same reasons he has about other people. Replace him.

 

2: Leave the toxic environment completely, but throw that grenade on the way out - "I am leaving the band. I cannot believe A is secretly plotting to bin B and even set up an audition for C. That's is appalling. A band should be like a marriage - if it's not working you end it. Not try out a side piece first"

 

3: Seduce A's partner. (Seems to be a rule).

[Boodang]

If the band has stalled, start a new band with 'B'? 

[Lozz196]

It all sounds much like our current and previous governments.........

[Happy Jack]

Never been in this precise situation but I've been close enough (several times) that you could see it from here.

 

In all of my experience, removal/replacement of any band member is only acceptable is everyone is on board right from the start.

 

If everyone in your anonymous band agrees that 'B' has to go, then he has to go. If it's just 'A' who's pushing for it, then all the non-B members need to go to the pub and have a chat with Frank and Ernest.

[cetera]

Been there. Trust noone....

Do what's right for you, because you can be sure that the rest of them won't care if it were you who was up for the chop.

[SumOne]

Someone who plays what is right for the band as a team-player (i.e. perhaps some 'easy' subtle rhythm chords are better than a 'difficult' ear-splitting guitar solo), plays within their limits, spends the time learning the songs and being at rehearsals and is reliable for gigs (and helpful for setup etc) and is a decent person to be around are what are probably more important than technical ability.   

 

....at least that is the case for the weekend warrior type stuff I do. I've been in bands that have been tempted by a technically better guitarist, but it turns out that their big guitar solos aren't really enjoyed by many and often don't serve the song as well as something more low-key, and things like them not haivng a car and always needing lifts is a bit of a faff, and that they only turn up to occasional rehearsals is not great for the band as a whole. In the end we'd be better of with the less technically gifted player.

 

 

 

 

[chris_b]

Never mind the politics. Is the band any good? Are you working? Are the gigs good? Is C a better player than B? Are the rest of the band good players?

 

Keep B or C (whoever is the better player), replace A (he's a troublemaker), end up with a better band and go from strength to strength.

[BlueMoon]

1 hour ago, cetera said:

Do what's right for you, because you can be sure that the rest of them won't care if it were you who was up for the chop.

Wise advice. I’ve been in a similar situation, played nice, and it has not always been reciprocated. As I gained more experience (and got older) my “being nice” hat is based on “if it suits my interests”. Sounds nasty but sometimes it’s a jungle out there.

[fretmeister]

It does sound a lot like A and C have intentions to control the entire thing together. If C is already in a band that is working why would he want 2 jobs that will clash.

The more I read it, the more I think that A&C won't be waiting long before binning the OP as well and replacing with another pre-arranged mate.

 

This sort of shite is why I'm not in a band at the moment. 

[Dan Dare]

Sounds as if a full and frank discussion between all parties, rather than one to one chats between A & C, A & B, B & C, etc, is needed. Get everything out in the open with everyone present (not online, but physically present, where nobody can hide). If it crashes and burns, so be it. Doesn't sound a particularly healthy situation at the moment, so no great loss.