Problems with band member

[bostjan]

Once I was in a cover band as a fill-in guy. the entire band overhauled a bunch of personnel and I ended up playing with them pretty much as a permanent member (we're talking 5-6 years, gigging not every week, but almost every week). For at least 5 years, it was the same five guys getting along fairly well and having a good time and also making decent money.

Then, ... well, IDK if someone got bored or what, but one of the guys in the band started insisting that we pick up a keyboard player. Then, suddenly, there were 5 of us who had been playing pretty tight with each other for 5 years and one odd man out trying to find a sonic opening to stab in a keyboard chord or whatever. We had tons of songs that originally had keyboard in them, too, but, for example "Highway Star" had a keyboard solo and a guitar solo, so we had switched it to two different guitar solos so that the guitarist who mostly played rhythm could have a minute to grab a spotlight, and, well, now that was out the window. Then, (of course) without consulting anyone, the keyboardist started bringing flutes and saxophones and shit to gigs (without rehearsing on those with us). So, in that case, our drummer was the no-nonsense guy who fired the keyboard player, but then things were never the same after that, and, within two months, the band was no more.

Fast-forward about 12-13 years, and I'm living in another state playing in another band doing pretty much the same thing, and exactly the same scenario plays out, except this time the band was together slightly less time, and instead of improvised jazz flute solos, it was new age sound effects that pissed the drummer off.

Countless bands I've been in went from being a riot to being a drag when someone got fired or replaced or whatever. There have been a few exceptions, though, too...

So yeah, in an established band, like the OP's, things can get dicey when you start changing personnel. Best of luck to you @Riffer !

 

[LostTheTone]

People keep saying this, but she could be a 7/10 with good weed connections.

Potentially. But even in that case, the band seem to have come around to "Ah but if we actually make good money then we can buy our own weed!".

And at some point no matter how superlative her Bristols, or how dank her buds... A constant pain in the arse eventually breaks through.

 

[fantom]

Our agency is helping us find a fill in since they have a giant database of singers they use.

Wait you have an agency with a giant database of singers and you spent over 7 pages not firing her?

Talk about luxury of benefit of the doubt.

 

[lewis]

Kick them out and replace them with WAVs on a backing track going to real amps onstage
It what I'm doing with bass haha.

 

[LostTheTone]

Wait you have an agency with a giant database of singers and you spent over 7 pages not firing her?

Talk about luxury of benefit of the doubt.

To be completely fair to the OP; finding a new singer is only half the problem. They have a singer who, despite being a moody cow, impressed them at some point previously. Their complaints aren't that she can't sing, and while I don't think it's been said directly I suspect that she really can go, otherwise they wouldn't tolerate it.

If you have a good (maybe even great) singer and it's all just attitude then you do end up giving them the benefit of the doubt. Because you know they can tear the place up, and you'll always hope that you can get that back. When you're looking at a new singer who is of unknown range and ability, and who has unknown other commitments or character flaws, it's a big leap.

It took me like three months to join my present band. They had a previous singer (and original member) who had been doing other projects but who re-appeared saying he wanted back in. They had another two guys, and one girl, come and try out with them. This was a band who literally didn't have a singer at all, and who were writing music and aiming squarely at gigs and studio recording. And they still felt obliged to the old guy to give him a chance, and to let everyone they had offered an audition to to actually come have their shot because... Well, they promised.

And while they didn't say it so bluntly, in the end a good chunk of the decision came down to me being sober(ish), solvent and with a car, and that I got on alright with the lads. All of this non-singing stuff just to avoid the same kind of problems as the OP is having.

 

[Riffer]

Wait you have an agency with a giant database of singers and you spent over 7 pages not firing her?

Talk about luxury of benefit of the doubt.

Yeah I know it looks dumb lol. The below quoted post kind of sums it up best I think.

To be completely fair to the OP; finding a new singer is only half the problem. They have a singer who, despite being a moody cow, impressed them at some point previously. Their complaints aren't that she can't sing, and while I don't think it's been said directly I suspect that she really can go, otherwise they wouldn't tolerate it.

If you have a good (maybe even great) singer and it's all just attitude then you do end up giving them the benefit of the doubt. Because you know they can tear the place up, and you'll always hope that you can get that back. When you're looking at a new singer who is of unknown range and ability, and who has unknown other commitments or character flaws, it's a big leap.

That's pretty much it. We could fire her and then get someone in who eventually has similar problems or even worse problems. It's the fear of the unknown. We've played over 600+ shows with the current singer and yes their work ethic has declined drastically and their overall attitude is piss poor but there were times where we were a well oiled machine and the gigs were great. And I know it looks like we are taking our sweet time to do the inevitable but we are trying to have the best exit plan and make sure we don't imploded because we acted to fast.

 

[budda]

Yeah I know it looks dumb lol. The below quoted post kind of sums it up best I think.



That's pretty much it. We could fire her and then get someone in who eventually has similar problems or even worse problems. It's the fear of the unknown. We've played over 600+ shows with the current singer and yes their work ethic has declined drastically and their overall attitude is piss poor but there were times where we were a well oiled machine and the gigs were great. And I know it looks like we are taking our sweet time to do the inevitable but we are trying to have the best exit plan and make sure we don't imploded because we acted to fast.

You can fire that person as soon as they act up too.

I went through a few temps at my job. Now all my temps are at least pretty good.

Write down what she did wrong. Fire the people with the same behaviour. You guys get paid, so it's a job - you get let go if you cant meet expectations/the job description.

 

[LostTheTone]

You can fire that person as soon as they act up too.

I went through a few temps at my job. Now all my temps are at least pretty good.

Write down what she did wrong. Fire the people with the same behaviour. You guys get paid, so it's a job - you get let go if you cant meet expectations/the job description.

You CAN fire the new guy if they are crappy. But you don't want a reputation for being the band that has dicked a bunch of singers around.

It takes time to get a band to gel, and the last thing you want is to be going to a paying gig with a singer that you haven't had much chance to play with. Even if they are good and are trying hard, dropping a set list on someone three days before a show is a recipe for problems.

 

[budda]

You CAN fire the new guy if they are crappy. But you don't want a reputation for being the band that has dicked a bunch of singers around.

It takes time to get a band to gel, and the last thing you want is to be going to a paying gig with a singer that you haven't had much chance to play with. Even if they are good and are trying hard, dropping a set list on someone three days before a show is a recipe for problems.

You arent dicking singers around. You're filtering crap for the right professional person to join your group. The hope is that it doesnt take long lol. This isnt an originals band playing for $50 in a DIY space.

Many pros have learned a set the day before a gig. It's a recipe for disaster if the person who said they can do it was lying (and thats not professional so tell all your friends).

 

[LostTheTone]

You arent dicking singers around. You're filtering crap for the right professional person to join your group. The hope is that it doesnt take long lol. This isnt an originals band playing for $50 in a DIY space.

Many pros have learned a set the day before a gig. It's a recipe for disaster if the person who said they can do it was lying (and thats not professional so tell all your friends).

You definitely are dicking everyone around if you hire someone, play one show, then fire them.

Many people have managed to learn a set the day before... So what though? No singer would WANT to learn a set under that kind of pressure, with zero rehearsal time.

Personally, I would be unhappy going to a rehearsal if I only knew what we were playing the day before. I feel like a dickhead going to practise and having to read lyrics off my phone, even when it's stuff I wrote a few hours earlier and couldn't possibly have learned yet.

It's fine getting someone to fill in for a while. That's ok. Plenty of people have another gig and will be willing to jump in for a month or two for some extra cash but who don't want it long term. That's fine.

But if you hire someone, on the understanding they are the new long term singer, and then fire them ten minutes later, that's the kind of band other singers don't want to be in.

 

[budda]

You definitely are dicking everyone around if you hire someone, play one show, then fire them.

Many people have managed to learn a set the day before... So what though? No singer would WANT to learn a set under that kind of pressure, with zero rehearsal time.

Personally, I would be unhappy going to a rehearsal if I only knew what we were playing the day before. I feel like a dickhead going to practise and having to read lyrics off my phone, even when it's stuff I wrote a few hours earlier and couldn't possibly have learned yet.

It's fine getting someone to fill in for a while. That's ok. Plenty of people have another gig and will be willing to jump in for a month or two for some extra cash but who don't want it long term. That's fine.

But if you hire someone, on the understanding they are the new long term singer, and then fire them ten minutes later, that's the kind of band other singers don't want to be in.

You wouldnt have enough to go on after one rehearsal, unless they were a no-show.

It isnt dicking around if someone doesnt meet the expectations set out at the start. That's how jobs work

 

[LostTheTone]

You wouldnt have enough to go on after one rehearsal, unless they were a no-show.

It isnt dicking around if someone doesnt meet the expectations set out at the start. That's how jobs work

Sure, but inviting someone to try out isn't the same as hiring them. When an audition/trial doesn't work out, you don't fire them, you say "Sorry dude, no bueno" and move on.

And it's totally ok to try out lots of people. But when you hire someone to a paying gig, both of you are supposed to be making a commitment at that point. You never know if they really have the marbles until you actually get out and play. But that's true for most jobs too. You don't see if someone has a crippling drug problem and/or fear of wedding parties until there's really something on the line.

Trying people out is fine. But hiring, firing and hiring again is what gives you a bad name.

 

[odibrom]

... I've been following this thread for a while and whenever I come here I think "are we there yet?"...

... and with the idea that I'll be raining over the pond... (as not actually adding anything new to the thread and repeating what everyone else already said)...

... a little back story, by 2015, PSIORB started its working days with me and the bass player (we're a trio). We had an interesting experience with a 1st drummer that tried to take us into adventuring into one of his other projects, which didn't turn out well so we moved on and found another drummer. This second drummer was quite proficient and expressive, we kind of liked him, but he missed rehearsals without warning, or warning a couple of hours before the scheduled rehearsal time. We didn't have our own place and had to go for rental studios (by the hour) so we had to schedule with a week or so in advance. A few times we caught him lying about his excuses, saying he was at work and then finding photos of him in facebook at a dinner with friends (?) at band practice time... nevertheless, his playing with us didn't last a year, he took the initiative of moving out, but if he didn't, we were determined to kicking him out. So we started searching again for a new drummer. We recorded a guitar+bass song and sent it to whom ever wanted to try us out so they could experiment over the song. Several mails were sent, but we received only one reply. Nevertheless he's our actual drummer since 2016. At the beginning we tried him out after he sent his view on the song and told him we were expecting more replies and would contact him later. No more replies came so we kept him. First thing to do was to lay down expectations, objectives, working methodology, personal responsibilities and band duties as well as each one of our personal problems and situations in life regarding jobs, academics or personal relationships. It all counts when committing to a band. One doesn't have to tell one's life story as a Curriculum Vitae, but major points of possible friction with the band's objectives are super important, like "I have a car, but it's unreliable" or "I'm in the brink of a long term relation break up" or "I'm unemployed and looking for jobs elsewhere"... or "I'm a par-time murder for the mafia"... The point is, lay your cards down on the table as clear as possible for everyone to see so everyone can make an informed decision. If the vocalist has to buy stuff, he/she will have to buy stuff in order for the band to work, otherwise, he/she is out, this is unquestionable. You can obviously supply help in order for the interested parties to get the most functional gear for the band's needs. Getting back at PSIORB's little story, since we rehearse very few times per month (once a week when we can), I've suggested that we all get audio interfaces in order to record our ideas and study them at home. They all said "yes" to the idea and I've helped them to make informed decisions on what gear to buy, but ultimately it was their decisions obviously. Then, we made plans on how to make things work at a distance, so we decided to all work with the same DAW and use a cloud service to store our working projects. This way, everyone could get access to the latest version of whatever song we were/are working on.

So, record some songs played by you and ask for wannabe singers to record something of their own over it. This implies that the singers will have to know a bit about recordings and as such, is minimally versed in the field as to what gear does what and so on and isn't just a pretty face with a nice voice (which is important but not that important). It will also allow you to do casting without even wasting rehearsal time with potentially wrong subjects, you'll rehearse those you'll find are good enough and choose from there.

... and I wouldn't care about what other bands in your circle think about how you manage your band, it's YOUR band, not theirs, so if you have to go through several vocalists, go through them until you find the one that suits YOUR needs, not the other bands' needs. You are doing this for YOU, not for your "competition". YOU are the show when YOU are on the stage, THAT'S what counts. If that means having a different singer per gig, then it means that until you find one that coops with your operation...

... so, are we there yet?

PS - life is too short for these kind of headaches...

 

[metallicity]

I'll throw this idea out there too.

This is a paying gig.

You play a fair number of weddings.

You are being paid to make their day special.

So why not a simple contact that states the basic requirements of being in the band?

- Being on time for rehearsals and gigs.
- All band members use IEM's so making sure you know how to set up your gear, that it's working properly (maybe the band even owns a backup set for any member to use if theirs breaks down during a gig).
- Conducting yourself in a professional manner while at the gigs. (whatever the band defines that to be)

(basically list the same points you made earlier in this thread that describe where the singer was falling short)

But, this isn't just for a new/old singer it would apply to the whole band.

Just a few very simple basic ground rules (keep it short and simple) laid down as a written contract, one printed out for each band member and each signs their copy. That way every band member can feel secure that they are all literally on the same page regarding a few very simple things.

Then, if anyone starts falling short of their agreed to contract you'll all have a band meeting, give that person a few chances to get back on track and if it isn't fixed they are out.

The band will make it known in the local circles that they have a simple contract for each band member and if someone was fired then it will be clear to the entire local scene that the person let go wasn't living up to their very simple contract. If you go through a bunch of singers (I doubt you will) then the whole area will know the local singers are a bunch of unreliable flakes and that can't live up to a very simple contract they themselves agreed to. You will also become known as a professional reliable band that can be depended on to show up on time and put on a good show.

 

[Riffer]

@odibrom thanks for the comment. I get what you're saying. I actually get what everyone is saying in this thread. I didn't even think I'd get 1 page of replies, let alone to page 8!!! I think what it really comes down to is that yes, this is a job. If you aren't doing your job or pulling your weight, you get let go. And you're right about we are doing this job for us, not the competition so the argument of how it would look to some outsiders is irrelevant.

@ijohnh67 I do like the idea of the contract between the band members as to what is expected. We may do that from here on out.

 

[fantom]

Yeah I know it looks dumb lol. The below quoted post kind of sums it up best I think.



That's pretty much it. We could fire her and then get someone in who eventually has similar problems or even worse problems. It's the fear of the unknown. We've played over 600+ shows with the current singer and yes their work ethic has declined drastically and their overall attitude is piss poor but there were times where we were a well oiled machine and the gigs were great. And I know it looks like we are taking our sweet time to do the inevitable but we are trying to have the best exit plan and make sure we don't imploded because we acted to fast.

As many others said, if you hire a bad apple, fire them too. The main thing that matters is the band (sans singer) agree on the evaluation process and has the resolve to power through it. If you need to try 6 singers before everyone agrees someone will work out, just see if everyone is committed to working it out so you don't create a rift and split up.

You definitely are dicking everyone around if you hire someone, play one show, then fire them

You are telling me that a brand new singer, hired by an agency, has expectations that they are a full-time member forever? This isn't how any profession works. No one hires an unknown without evaluating options. Auditions or test shows are totally normal. You are effectively saying that a job should hire someone without interviewing them or seeing if they have the skills and personality to work with your team.

If you pay the singer for the show and you are transparent, nothing is wrong. "We are auditioning a few singers. Right now, this is a session gig. We will pay you x dollars for your time. If everything goes well, there is a high chance we will ask you to commit to more performances on a regular basis."

How is that dicking someone over? It sounds like giving someone an opportunity. I mean the singer can just as easily quit because they don't like it or don't want to gig or rehearse regularly. It is a risk for both sides.

 

[LostTheTone]

You are telling me that a brand new singer, hired by an agency, has expectations that they are a full-time member forever? This isn't how any profession works. No one hires an unknown without evaluating options. Auditions or test shows are totally normal. You are effectively saying that a job should hire someone without interviewing them or seeing of they have the skills and personality to work with your team.

If you pay the singer for the show and you are transparent, nothing is wrong. What is wrong with, "We are auditioning a few singers. Right now, this is a session gig. We will pay you x dollars for your time. If everything goes well, there is a high chance we will ask you to perform." How is that dicking someone over? It sounds like giving someone an opportunity.

Ugh, dude, we are arguing over what "hiring" means, and it's pointless.

Yes, I get it, you are talking about "hiring" a fill in guy via an agency. I am talking about THE BAND "hiring" a full time person.

These are different things.

And if the band "hires" a new singer, then that IS a longer term arrangement, and "firing" them is dickish after two minutes.

With a temp, you don't "fire" them; you just don't book them for the next gig.

 

[budda]

Ugh, dude, we are arguing over what "hiring" means, and it's pointless.

Yes, I get it, you are talking about "hiring" a fill in guy via an agency. I am talking about THE BAND "hiring" a full time person.

These are different things.

And if the band "hires" a new singer, then that IS a longer term arrangement, and "firing" them is dickish after two minutes.

With a temp, you don't "fire" them; you just don't book them for the next gig.

No, we fire them. They get told they arent needed anymore and thanks for their time.

Why would you keep someone you just hired if they cant meet expectations? Make it make sense.

 

[LostTheTone]

No, we fire them. They get told they arent needed anymore and thanks for their time.

Why would you keep someone you just hired if they cant meet expectations? Make it make sense.

What the shit dude!?

What did I JUST fucking say about different meanings of "hire" ?

You hire a fucking cab driver to take you home, but when you get out the cab and hand over a 20 you don't say "You're fired!". You hire him for one ride, when the ride is over, it's done and he doesn't show up in the morning to drive you to fucking work, does he?

If you hire someone for one gig, you don't have to fire them. You either ask them to come along next time, or you don't. But once the gig is over, there is no more agreement between you.

The only reason to fire someone is if they were asked to be a permanent member of the band; someone who both of you agreed will continue working with you on an indeterminate basis.

 

[bostjan]

You hire a fucking cab driver to take you home, but when you get out the cab and hand over a 20 you don't say "You're fired!"

Speak for yourself!

Some people have anger issues and they just need to yell "you're fired!" at other people constantly. It makes this sort of people feel like they are powerful and important.