The Importance of the Guitar Setup : And Why You Need to Learn How to Do Them!

 

Original Article (By Phil Weller published 17 June 2025) Here:

https://www.guitarplayer.com/guitarists/jason-isbell-guitar-buying-advice

I'm not going to post the entire article here, but I'll post a couple of the parts I want to address regarding Jason Isbell's comment about young players just wanting to get started on the guitar:

“Spend the 50, 80 or 100 bucks before you leave the music store and let them set it up for you,” he says. “Let them set the action right, make sure the frets are level, make sure it’ll stay in tune.”

“Because of course you’re not gonna be able to afford an incredible instrument when you’re that age. But if you spend the extra time, the extra money, you get home and you can play it. It makes all the difference in the world.”

Okay, let's talk "setups", then...

I don't disagree that a good setup, even on a guitar that might not be the greatest, definitely is crucial to making playing fun and efficient, as much for beginners as people who have been playing for decades. That part is totally true. That's why when I spent a few years working weekends at a guitar shop, one of the most important things for me to learn, for my own benefit as well, was how to get the most out of any given guitar from a playability standpoint. Here's where I have a problem though...

Most people who work at guitar shops, be they mom-and-pops or chain retailers, CAN'T SET GUITARS UP FOR SHIT. One of the things I used to do when I worked at a shop was go around and make sure everything was set up to play comfortably, be it something brand new out of the box from the manufacturer or some used piece of gear. But you go into any given shop most of the time, and it's a crapshoot. Totally by chance, you might happen upon something that's reasonably playable, but most of the time you'll pick it up, be either underwhelmed or completely turned off by the high action and poor intonation, and you'll move on to something else. Sometimes you'll make your rounds with literally everything in the store and there'll be something wrong with everything you pick up.

This is why it's hard for me to support the idea of one must go and play an instrument in a brick and mortar store before purchasing something. I used to believe that there had to be some sort of special connection by actually playing the instrument you're buying prior to purchase (and that DOES happen sometimes), but the way I see it nowadays is that if I'm going to have to do a complete setup and adjustment on it as soon as I get home, it doesn't matter whether it came from a store up the street or some anonymous online retailer. So guess which one I'm going to go with? That's right, the one that gives me the better deal. Yes, yes, support local or small businesses and such, but even that has gotten to the point where it doesn't mean what it used to. Because a lot of the smaller independent shops have kind of become toxic and uncomfortable, and if I'm catching an attitude from the owner or salesperson the second I come in the door, the odds of me actually spending money with them go down to the single digits.

I have seen some of the most atrocious setups come out of retailers like Guitar Center. I discovered 20 years ago that Guitar Center does not hire people who know the products, or know how to service the products. They hire people to accept payment for products, and occasionally quote whatever is on the product page or the company website. I have seen a few people pay good money to get service done on a guitar. Whether that was a pickup replacement or a full-on (alleged) "setup", I don't think I've ever seen anything done that I felt was done competently or thoroughly. And I think that's a shame, because I used to pride myself and not only knowing about everything in the store that I was selling, but also being able to help dial in and service those products as well.

So I guess I would say, while I agree that proper set up, or one that's tailored to the specific player, is important, learn how to do it yourself. Save yourself hundreds or even thousands of dollars, and just learn the basic skills. Adjusting a truss rod is not difficult. Raising and lowering bridges or bridge saddles is easy. Setting the intonation is not rocket science. Turning screws to get your pickups the proper distance from the strings in order to achieve your optimum sound is as simple as it gets. Even changing out electronics or hardware can be done by a novice--just be patient and take your time. In fact, the only kind of work I generally don't like doing and would prefer hiring an actual luthier to take a look at would be fret-work. Aside from that, I have no reason whatsoever to let somebody else take a screwdriver or any other tool to an instrument that I'm going to be playing. I can set it up just fine myself, thanks.

And I recommend that anyone who plays an instrument also learn how to service said instrument. Don't let someone rip you off by halfassing something you could've done better yourself.

Theory Vs. Application : Why So Many "Guitar Students" Abandon the Instrument

 

I was scrolling through some posts on a music discussion site, and I ran across an interesting thread a fellow posted that really caught my eye, as it's been a source of many a raised hackle. Here's his original post:

Years ago, my late wife had a cousin, about 15-16 at the time, who had been taking guitar lessons for a few years. They asked if I could show him some things. So when they were up for a visit, I borrowed the bro-in-law's acoustic and we went to a back room to go over some things.

I wanted to get a general idea how far along he was, so I would know what to show him. So I asked that question. His response? "We're on eighth notes now."

The instant he said that, I knew he couldn't play a lick. He proved me right. He didn't know how to tune, only knew a couple of open chords, no barre chords, and his picking method involved holding his arm out in open space with no control at all.

His lessons with his "guitar teacher" seemed to have involved this "teacher" just going through the book with him. That's it. This kid couldn't play for squat.

So, I showed him some really-for-real things he could play, taught him the riff to "Sweet Home Alabama" and a few other little things, things that anyone would recognize. His "teacher" had never done anything of the sort. His parents, ignorant of music and guitar but well-meaning, simply didn't know any better. All this "teacher" had been doing was "teaching" him the exact crap he could have learned on his own for free by going through the book. It reminded me of the few hideous guitar lessons I took from a woman in my hometown, and to this day I have no idea if she could even play guitar.

Which brings me to the point.

WHY do people insist on drilling into a kid's head that they have to spend 20 years studying theory to make a sound??? For that matter, WHY do they insist on starting them on reading notation on Day One? It's ridiculous. Why not teach them to play something recognizable instead, something to inspire them? But no. They have to dive into the Mel Bay method of playing "Polly Wolly Doodle" or whatever. They present this wall of music theory and give them the impression that they have to learn all of it to play guitar.

I have NOTHING against learning theory. Nothing at all. I wish I knew it much better than I do. But some people seem to think that everyone must START with that.

I've had more than one person tell me at times that they learned more in an hour with me than a year of guitar lessons, and I'm sure some of you have experienced the same. But I could never be a guitar teacher. Why? Because the ignorant but well-meaning parents would go, "What? You're not teaching him/her to read music??? WHAT KIND OF TEACHER ARE YOU??!!" Never mind that musical notation is very limited where guitar is concerned in the first place.

I know there are some fantastic teachers out there, obviously. But it's also clear that there are some really bad ones. If I had been paying for lessons for my kid for 3+ years and he still couldn't play for squat, I would be asking why. But if the parents don't know any better, that's what they get.

I tried a "legitimate lesson" when I first started guitar and bass at 15 years old, and I was done with formal teaching. ONE lesson. Kind of like your wife's cousin, my original "teacher" was achingly inefficient, and was definitely going by the script (which I could've literally done on my own) definitely tried to do the "push the music theory first, we'll learn the actual guitar stuff...eventually" method. Needless to say, he lost me. Even back then, something in my brain told me that this guy was just dragging it out so he's got an indefinite source of income, and to this day I struggle to respect "teachers" who use this methodology. My parents weren't super-supportive early on with me learning guitar. I guess like a lot of parents, they figured it was a "phase" and that I'd bore of it, move on to the next hobby and they'd just sell or donate my pawn shop guitar, never having to worry about me spending a lifetime deluding myself into thinking I could be a professional musician. That backfired stupendously now, dinnit? Point is, the question my dad wanted to know was "when are you going to learn an actual song?", not "what is an 8th note?", "tell me what 11/4 time signature is" or "WHY CAN'T YOU PLAY A PHYRGIAN SCALE YET???" That being said, I don't get why the guy's wife's cousin's parents weren't concerned with his lack of any notable progress. A few weeks? Maybe. But a few YEARS and still nothing to show for it? You'd think they'd want to know what they were paying for. 

But I saw it a lot when I gave lessons. I was a glorified babysitter for a lot of these kids on days they didn't have after-school programs, tennis lessons, etc. I also came to the painful realization that most of my students didn't even practice on their own time. I had two students in particular who I'm certain I had to give the exact same lessons 6 or 7 times. I even occasionally would send emails or texts to the parents reiterating the importance of a practice routine, but most of the time those messages would go ignored. But the parents who DID pay attention, have their kids put in the work in between lessons, and have the kids show them what they're working on were great. Those kids went on to not need lessons, and some were already forming bands when they were finishing up working under me. Obviously the different types of parenting will affect the kids' level of commitment, and the ones that put in the effort made giving lessons much more rewarding. I tried to keep lessons fun, subtly-educational and RELEVANT to what the students were interested in.

A wise fellow who ran a local music store taught me a few things about being a well-rounded musician, and I'll never forget the one line when it came to "guitar lessons". He said:

"Classically-trained guitar players get scholarships. Guitar players who learn from watching their peers and idols, and by really training their ear to learn from their record collection...well...those guys are the ones that actually get GIGS."

That has definitely been the truth from my observations and experiences, 30 years later. It's not black-and-white, but it's mostly accurate.

When I started wanting to give lessons, I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't be a boring teacher, nor would I put these individuals coming to me for lessons in a position of having to learn what amounted to mathematical equations, esoteric terminology and mindless regurgitation. Sure, I'd sprinkle in some practical scales, basic understanding of the most common chord voicings (maj/minor/7th/9th/etc) and picking/strumming techniques, but in context that made sense, or applied to--and this was the important thing--what THEY wanted to learn. Not just what I wanted them to learn, or what I was comfortable with (which is what most guitar teachers tend to do). There is something to be said about the teacher having to adapt or even learn some new things themselves, in order to educate their student. Keeps you on your toes, and keeps it interesting for all involved.

My methodology was to find out upfront what students were trying to achieve, and what made them want to start playing. You had some "my parents are making me" type answers, as well as the "I want to form my own band" (which thankfully were the majority). Then I'd find out what kind of music they were into, some of their favorite artists, and tailor a plan according to their tastes, focusing on music that will keep them enthusiastic about playing. I'd teach them how to use a tuner, the parts/workings of their instrument and how to change/replace strings--things I think EVERY guitar "teacher" worth his/her salt should teach their students, but you'd be shocked how many guitar students haven't been taught those things and waste all kinds of money paying some dipshit at the local guitar shop to do things they could do themselves. We'd start with some applicable standard chords (first on "charts" and then the equivalent on guitar tab) to the simplest songs I could find on their preferred artist/genre lists, let them work on getting those calluses built up, and after they're grinning ear-to-ear strumming away on a song they love, I could start working some other information in there: the notes on the fretboard, a major scale, etc. Then you can move into alternate chord shapes, some rudimentary "lead guitar" scales/patterns and different picking/strumming techniques. 

By keeping the students engaged that way, I could tell which ones were going home and playing on their own time, coming back week after week ready, prepared and looking forward to learning the next song. The ones that really worked the hardest were forming bands within less than a year, putting their knowledge to work. Some were even experimenting with writing their own songs as well, which I LOVED seeing happen, as a songwriter myself. Meanwhile, some of them had friends who were taking "guitar" at school (something that wasn't even "a thing" around here when I was in school), who were mediocre-at-best on their instruments, had no creativity, and COULDN'T play a damn thing without sheet music in front of them or someone conducting them. The "classically-trained" kids couldn't improvise, couldn't "jam", and didn't remotely know where to begin regarding trying to figure out a song they heard on the radio by ear. Were they "educated in music theory"? Yes. Were they "competent guitarists"? That's arguable. They could "play" to an extent, but were completely lost without their sheet music/direction, and in many cases, didn't even seem to actually enjoy playing guitar, whereas the kids I was teaching were gleefully chugging out their Green Day and White Stripes songs or impressing their parents with some riff from a recognizable oldie, classic rock or country tune at will. This, I'd imagine, is the drive and elation felt by all of our guitar heroes who learned from listening to the radio, wearing out vinyl records and sneaking into shows to watch others play and see it firsthand.

I suppose it all comes down to it, which method works best depends on the intent of the student. If a parent is trying to create a classical musician in the family, go for all the theory and the "proper lessons" where they're learning how to read their sheet music and follow a conductor, but understand they're going to struggle play with any genuine feeling or passion, and it's just academic to them in most cases. But if a parent wants to let a kid explore music from a more emotionally-connected ideology, all they need is a decent-playing instrument (i.e. NOT the "cheapest thing you can find because you don't know if they'll stick to it", because it's gonna' play like crap and they WON'T stick to it), some songs that make them inspired to pick up said instrument (I was hooked at that opening hammer-on/pull-off staccato-picked intro of "Thunderstruck" by AC/DC) and the determination to succeed at it.  I've learned some theory along the way, but the stuff that gets me gigs, helps me write songs and keeps me interested all boils back down to inspiration and learning by example, NOT and kind of formal musical education. To each their own, and some folks may feel the complete opposite of me. We're both right. Or we're both wrong. But back to the original post, when a student clearly wants to learn but the teacher is holding them back, it's definitely time to reevaluate the situation and match that student up with a mentor who can help them hang on to that flame, not snuff it out with outdated, irrelevant or inapplicable methods that don't suit that particular learner. Everyone learns differently. But with music, unless you're planning on joining the symphony or something, it seems counterproductive to be teaching a kid, who obviously wants to play some familiar songs and (most of all) HAVE FUN with it a bunch of stuff he may never actually use when they could actually be out there enjoying themselves.

Regardless of whether a guitar "teacher" is a stodgy, by-the-book "classical" teacher or one who tailors their lessons to match the desired outcome of their students, let the student be the guide. If your student has a different goal than what your teaching style allows, send them to another instructor who will better suit their needs. Don't hold a beginner on the instrument back, and don't destroy their enjoyment of playing because their goals don't align with your "method".

Also, if you're one of those by-the-book guys, fine, but don't you dare judge the learn-by-ear guys or the "tab-only readers", because I've ran into MANY, MANY sight-readers who couldn't play their way out of a wet paper sack without their "notes" in front of them, while us pedestrian non-readers can hop up onstage and wing an entire set from memory (or by simply observing what the other musicians are doing). It REALLY sucks when I see kids taught that reading music somehow makes one a "bEtTeR mUsIcIaN", even if they can barely eke by on the instrument itself. Case in point:

I recently had to intervene with a conversation between my stepson (who we'll call "Al") and another member of the school jazz band (who we'll call "BH" for "bass hog"). They both played bass guitar in the jazz band (well, Al played half the set on bass and half on trumpet), and this other kid had literally cockblocked Al ALL SEMESTER from using the school-issued bass amp in class. BH used the bass rig, and Al was forced to use a dinky guitar amp which couldn't even be heard. So I was already pissed. Now, a little quick backstory:

Al's mom and I already had him playing bass for a couple years, and the kid has learned and memorized dozens of songs--my only gripe is he would RATHER be on YouTube on his iPad, and he's always complaining about taking time to work on his bass...and that I can't get him to also learn how to use a pick for certain songs. He had to start learning bass clef for jazz band (he already knew treble clef from his trumpet), but otherwise had a great amount of "fingers on the fretboard" experience. He still struggles to read bass clef, but mostly I just think it's some kind of subtle rebellion for being "forced" to play an instrument and enrich himself instead of spending every free minute watching Mr. Beast videos or dicking around aimlessly on Roblox. Anyhow, back to the recital, where I got to meet BH...

For the recital performance, the electrified musicians were instructed to bring their own amps. ALL OF THEM. I loaned Al my ex-wife's old SWR practice amp (yay divorce) and showed him how to hook it up. When the kids were getting ready, we found out that BH did NOT bring an amp (claims his is "broken"), and without really marinating on how this little prick treated her kid all year, my wife inadvertently told Al that BH could use the amp when he moved over to play trumpet. Needless to say, I. WAS. PISSED.

Hold up...this little shitstain was a narcissistic little twat to your kid, and you let him use MY amp? This arrogant, screechy little Adam Goldberg-lookin' crotchgoblin was benefiting from MY gear, and I was livid.

After the performance, I went up onstage to assist Al in packing up the cords and stuff, and BH came over, being a real dick to Al, telling him he missed a bunch of notes, and how "bad" a bass player Al is...just showing what a little douchenozzle he is. When we made our way back to the band room to get Al's trumpet case and start making our exit, BH came over again, and made a quip about Al not being as good at reading bass clef, and talking about how much better a bassist he was than Al. I told the kid that Al's been learning from me, and I've been a professional musician for 30-something years now, have a couple hundred songs at the ready at any given time in my head and I can barely even read tab. I asked him what all he played. He rattled off about 5 or 6 songs. I asked "what else?", and his response was, "that's it" and "those are the songs he has sheet music for". I told him Al knows 5 or 6 times that many songs by heart. He made some quip about "bUt He CaN't ReAd ThE bAsS mUsIc", and I retorted, "he may not be as good as you at the sight-reading portion, but he doesn't need to outside of this class, and he could get up onstage and literally sit-in with a group without so much as a one-time-through of any of the songs and play along with them without having to rely on music, soo..."

That shut him up, and he wandered off. I wasn't trying to decimate the kid's ego for the sake of my own enjoyment (although when you see a kid bullying others, I don't have one ounce of remorse for helping shift him down a peg or two), but I think it was a public service to let this kid know that musicians can be just as viable or "good" whether they sight-read music, learn by ear or mimic by watching others' hands. Teach kids better, people. Even if you're an insufferable twat, you don't have to raise your kid to be one.

In closing, I don't give a damn whether you read music or don't. But the second you want to puff out your chest and pretend like you being able to sight-read somehow makes your ability to play "superior", we're going to go have us a "duel" at some random-ass open-mic night and see who can hang with some strangers and entertain better. 😉

Do I Play Guitar, or Do I Play Bass? YES. I Do, and So Should You.

I have always noticed that a lot of my fellow guitarists have wildly varying and sometimes very dismissive, dickish attitudes about a band member most bands cannot exist (or exist AND sound "decent") without: the bass player.

Everyone's heard the shitty guitar player jokes about bassists...

"What, six strings too much for them?"

"What do you call a guitarist who can't play? A bassist!"

"How do you reduce wind-drag on a bassist's car? Take the Domino's Pizza sign off the roof!"

"What do you throw a drowning bass player? His amp."

"Why don't bass players tell blonde jokes? They don't understand them."

"What do you call a beautiful woman on a bassist's arm? A tattoo."

"What's the difference between a vacuum cleaner and a bassist? The vacuum cleaner has to be plugged in to suck."

"How can you tell when the stage is perfectly level? Drool comes out both sides of the bass player's mouth."

"What do you call a bass player in a 3-piece suit? The Defendant."

"What do you call a bass player without a girlfriend? Homeless."

"How do you get a bass player to turn down? Put sheet music in front of him."

"Did you hear about the drummer who locked his keys in the car? It took him three hours to get the bass player out."

There. Happy? Get that out of your system? Good. Now readjust that shitty attitude and start appreciating what a bassist adds to your band or project. You're not a dumb kid anymore, and you should stop and ask yourself: what would I do without a bass of some sort in my band?

When I was 15, about to turn 16, I was working during the summer at a mom-n-pop guitar shop in Clemson (one of SC's better-known "college towns"), and the owner of the store's son got offered a gig up the street doing a two-nighter at a wing bar right across from campus, and he was originally just going to just use one of his iterations of his "band" (translation: whatever available musicians were available who wanted to make a few easy bucks any given weekend). But his go-to bass player (a guy only a couple years my senior who couldn't stay out of trouble of the cringiest kind) was "indisposed" (translation: "presumably in jail this time for doing something dumb"), so he asked if I wanted a go at it. I was an absolute halfass on guitar, only knew a few bad power-chord renditions of a handful of songs (mostly first-gen punk, a couple grunge songs and a couple awful versions of some classics), but I thought to myself, "sure, it's fewer strings, so how hard can it be?" Famous (and colossally idiotic) last words of the naïve and inexperienced, I know.

He went through his "set list" (a hodgepodge of a few blues tunes, some classic rock and oldies, and a handful of fairly simple original songs), and I took a few notes. "Hey Joe" by Hendrix? Sure. "Voodoo Child"? No problem, I can hack my way through it. Led Zeppelin's "The Lemon Song"? Yup. Thankfully, as I've found has usually been the case ever since, the set list was made up of songs that I might not necessarily know how to play, but was familiar enough with so that once I got the main notes in my head, I could "pass" as a rudimentary bass player. It was a Tuesday, and the gig was to span the upcoming Friday and Saturday nights. So I had a couple days to bust my ass and learn a few blues bass patterns, memorize some chord progressions to play alongside and get my fingers as ready as they were going to be for my first "professional gig".

Gigs went fine, the drummer was a super cool older fellow who helped me learn how to lock-in with the kick drum, and who gave me sage advice that I still hold valuable to this day. That man was Freddie Wooten (of Palmetto Drums fame), and he told me, matter-of-factly--and I am paraphrasing but the concept is spot-on what he said-- to never forget when you're playing gigs that "95% of your audience won't know really how "good" you are or aren't, so long as you aren't flat-out blowing it" (and in my experiences, sometimes they can't even tell when you ARE blowing it), "so just play your heart out and have fun, and they're gonna' love it". Freddie is still a friend all these years later and I love him dearly for his mentorship. I hope one day before either of us moves on to that next plane of existence we get a chance to play together again. So thanks to Freddie's coaching and my own built-in angst as a teenager whose parents were in the middle of an uncomfortable (but thankfully temporary) separation, I made it out the other side, having gained some street cred and a lot of self-confidence that I'd previously been missing.

My fingers had big blisters on them and my hands were so wrecked that I didn't want to touch a guitar for 4 or 5 days afterwards, but it was so satisfying and rewarding. 30 years later and I still enjoy playing bass every bit as much as guitar (sometimes MORE so), have learned a lot over the years about voicings, melody/countermelody, feel and attack, and obviously hold far more respect for any bass players I collaborate with than the average douchebag guitarist who denigrates bassists as somehow "less than" guitarists or "guys who can't hack it on a guitar". Often the bass gigs are more lucrative, and I've come to really appreciate the importance of being a competent on-call bassist.

At the end of 2023, I was recruited to join a steady-gigging private-events band on bass. Well, that was the original intent, anyways. Because the group has a list of "stand-ins" so that they don't have to cancel gigs should a member be unable to make it, I also made it known that I could play guitar so I could remain on that main rotation. I've since been basically given all main guitar duties--which is fine, I'm not complaining that my guitar skills are in demand, please don't misunderstand me--but I'd be remiss not to say that I was kind of looking forward to the simplicity of just lugging around a single bass in a gigbag to shows (all their stuff runs direct so no amps to schlep around), playing some tasty basslines, and getting that paycheck.

One of the things I loved about playing bass with that project is that sometimes, if I'm being completely honest, when I'm playing songs I'm not entirely thrilled about, I find the bass parts to be much more interesting or even challenging, and often more FUN than plinking around on guitar during songs I just don't really "feel". There are many songs out there that I genuinely DISlike, or flat-out hate, but if I'm playing bass on them, I can get lost in a different place. Especially when I'm having to slog through some cheesyass overplayed song that makes me sick to my stomach to even listen to, let alone play--I'm looking at you, "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Hotel California", and all your ilk--I just find the bass parts far more intriguing. I don't have to force myself to play a guitar riff or solo I detest, and instead I can listen to the drummer and pretend I'm playing something completely different in my head canon. Yes, I'm still playing the actual song, but something about playing it as part of the rhythm section makes it less corny for me. I feel like a sellout when I'm playing those kinds of songs on the guitar. And don't you dare fucking ask me to sing backup on that horseshit. But somehow when I'm locking in that bass groove, I can get over having to play crappy music to a certain degree.

In a future blog, I may address in depth what it means to "play bass like a bass, and not like a guitar", because that's also a consideration when one decides to bring the thunder. You don't just "play the root" on everything, and you have to make sure you're playing with your drummer. At the same time, don't suddenly start pulling out all your little tricks you goof off at Guitar Center with either. Not every song needs slap-bass, and Flea, you are not. Just play the song. Listen to solid bassists like Cliff Williams, Dusty Hill, Kim Deal, Tina Weymouth and Michael Anthony, who are deceptively simple in their approach (but isolate their tracks to hear how damn GOOD they really are). But also listen to Andy Fraser, John Entwistle, Geezer Butler, John Paul Jones and Geddy Lee, and pay attention to the "extras". All of these players give the bass its own voice, and do way more for the songs than just "double the guitar". With the usual guitarist-filling-in-on-bass, it's painfully obvious to me, watching them schizophrenically go from oversimplifying the bass parts to trying too hard to impress people, and I can't take them seriously because they're mocking the fundamentals of the instrument.

The biggest issue I see though, is the irrational phobia a lot of guitarists seem to have about playing bass. You either get the ones who think they're "lowering themselves" by performing bass duties, or the ones who can't wrap themselves around how to play the bass entirely. You can tell them all day long that the strings are the same as the lowest four strings on their guitar, and the notes on the fretboard also are the exact same notes as on their guitar (just an octave lower), but their eyes glass-over and they look more confused than the dog listening to your voice on the answering machine. It's still a BASS GUITAR. It's not like someone's trying to get you to understand a woodwind or a steel drum. Quit pretending to be obtuse thinking it will save you from the dreaded bass guitar position. Look, guys: the bass is a respected, necessary instrument in almost ever style of music to some degree or another, and you really need to just get over either the idea that your ability to play guitar is somehow "superior" to bass, or conversely, get over the idea that they're inherently so different that you can't wrap your mind around what to do on a bass. And a big ol' middle-finger goes out to any of you egotistical shredder trash who think you're simply "too good" to bother with bass. Keep playing in your bedroom and whinging online about how you can't "find a good band".

Make yourself a valuable musician for your band, or give yourself an additional tool for songwriting, recording, gigging and overall enjoyment. Just pick up the bass. There's nothing to fear, and there is no more negative a blot on one's escutcheon for playing bass than there is for being an insufferable douchebag guitar player. Cut the shit.

I'll close with a vindicating joke FOR my bass playing homies out there, which might be oversimplified, but hammers the point home that a mediocre bassist is more useful than a hundred mediocre guitarists:

A man buys his son a bass for his birthday, and also pays for 5 lessons. After the first lesson, the boy comes home and the Dad asks "What did you learn today?" "I learned the first 5 notes on the E string." the son says proudly. After the second lesson, the dad asks "What did you learn this time?" "I learned the first 5 notes on the A string." the boy says. After the third lesson, the Dad waits at home for hours and hours. Finally, around 2am, the son comes home, smelling of whiskey and cigarettes. "Where the hell have you been?!" the Dad demands. "I had a gig," says the son.

Goodnight, everybody...

Centaur'd 'n' Feathered : The Comically Frivolous and Hypocritical Litigation Between "Klon LLC" and Behringer (Music Tribe)

What's REALLY fueling KLON-gate???

 This one's so wacky I had to change up my schedule and post something. In case you haven't been paying attention, Bill Finnegan (under the alias of "KLONLLC") is currently trying to sue Behringer (parent company is Music Tribe) for IP infringement of their on again/off again (i.e. Bill makes one every once in a while when he feels like it or needs a few months rent or something) "legendary" pedal that they call the "Centaur". To catch up the new kids, a little about the Klon Centaur first:

The Klon Centaur is an overdrive guitar pedal designed by Bill Finnegan in the 1990s, known for its "transparent and harmonically rich" tone. It was first sold in 1994 and quickly gained popularity for its ability to boost a guitar's signal without significantly altering its core tone. Due to its unique design and limited production, the Klon Centaur became highly sought-after, with used units fetching high prices on the secondary market. 

In the late ‘80s, Bill Finnegan was gigging bars and clubs in Boston when he noticed that sound engineers were asking him to turn the volume down at smaller venues. He played a Telecaster through a Fender Tweed Twin, and says that the ‘sweet spot’ on his amp was around 6 or 7 on the volume knob. When in-house engineers forced him to turn down to 3 or 4, he lost the harmonic richness of the amp. To remedy this, he tried using a vintage TS9 Tube Screamer to replicate that natural tube distortion sound. However, “[The TS9] compressed the transient response of the original signal a lot, had a midrange character that I didn’t like, and subtracted a noticeable amount of bass response from the signal as well”, he told Premier Guitar in 2014.

Finnegan then set out to create an overdrive pedal that would bring all the richness and dynamics of a cranked amp at lower volumes. Together with MIT graduate Fred Fenning, he sought to invent a new type of overdrive, completely different from the Tube Screamer. And in 1994, after several years in development, he released the Klon Centaur Professional Overdrive. It was met with instant critical success. Every pedal was built by Finnegan’s own hands, and the circuitry remained a closely guarded secret as he covered every circuit board with black epoxy. It purportedly took Finnegan 12 to 14 weeks to fulfill each order, and used Centaur pedals were selling for disgustingly-inflated prices. This placed more pressure on Finnegan to meet demand. Finnegan claimed his profit margin was "not very sensible" (which is wild considering that he was selling pedals for more than the average "independent short-run pedal builder" you see on Reverb or Etsy), and he cited difficulty in hiring employees to expand the business in Boston, where commercial space was expensive.

This "mythical" circuit remained uncopied for over a decade until 2008, when its secrets were revealed to the world, and [coincidentally or not so much?] Finnegan decided his situation was unsustainable and he discontinued the Centaur. He declined large requests to make more, but continued to make them for someone he claimed was "a close friend", purportedly "a single mother who needed financial support", to sell on eBay. I can neither confirm nor disprove this arrangement, but nevertheless, "Klon" was no longer an "official" entity, and was not producing inventory of their products until the short-lived "Klon KTR" was introduced in 2014  as an "updated version"--it was said that the goal was to create a straightforward design that could be built by a contracted manufacturing firm and would be easy to repair, among other considerations, while preserving the Centaur sound. The Klon KTR took two years to design and sold for $269, and was discontinued in I believe 2020 or 2021 entirely...okay, maybe not "entirely", if we count the occasional single unit put up on eBay alongside one-offs of the classic Centaur, with both fetching utterly vulgar winning bids.

As of 2019, used Centaurs sold for between $1,900 and $2,500 USD. As of 2024, they sold for up to $20,000 USD. And two months ago, a  "new build" Klon (#RG 019) sold for $6,200. Free shipping though, what a saint. Yes, someone paid over six grand for a new "official clone" of a Klon. Wild shit, amirite? I should also add that aside from these occasional popup sales of a one-off Klon, the social media pages have been largely quiet for quite some time aside from some photos that looked like older "glamour shots". OK, so now to the current story...

In  November of last year, Behringer dropped their take on the circuit. Behringer is quite famous for utilizing copycat components to bring sought-after circuits into the hands of players of ALL financial stations, reasonably priced and largely identical in function to the original designs.

 Admittedly, Behringer drifted into the grey area when they used the little horsie-guy (centaur character) and the name "Centaur" on the pedal. But the way I saw it, Klon hadn't at that point even posted on Instagram for almost 2 years, and for all we know, Mr. Finnegan was no longer with us. Plus, it's an entirely different, more compact (and pedalboard-friendly) housing with different knob, switch and jack placement, so there's no way anyone's going to mistake this for a big honkin' real "Centaur". Apparently though, Finnegan IS alive, and took offense to Behringer's new offering. Earlier this month, it was announced that "KLONLLC" was suing for infringement over what they call "blatant counterfeit" (over a pedal they had literally thrown in the towel on and hadn't produced in a long, long time). 

You know you're doing it right when the guys making bank selling extremely overpriced (and inaccurate) knockoffs of their own products once in a blue moon are suing you for making a similar product that does "the thing" just as well but for a price any guitarist can afford (not just famous players or doctors and lawyers). I personally think Behringer is (as usual) doing a killer job bringing quality, hard-to-find products to the working musician, and this looks more and more like Finnegan at Klon is just being a salty little bitch, when you consider there are "Klones" out there that aside from the lack of the word "Centaur", are FAR more identical (some almost dead nuts) to the originals that have been available for many years, and those companies haven't been sued. 

Original used Klon Centaurs are redonkulously overpriced for a basic-ass overdrive. Yes, it's a "nice-sounding" overdrive, but is it worth having to sell a kidney to own? Hell no. Even the "official" remakes (which aren't even authentic anymore, circuit-wise; "KTR" and such) are extremely hard to come by---I tried even finding an official website or store to buy one and couldn't---and good luck even finding one of the shitty "official" KTR's (which were plagued with QC issues) for under a grand. But Behringer's "Klone" is like, $69. More than fair price for a niche-but-simple pedal like this, and much more practical for someone who wants a well-made Klon-inspired pedal without having to have it insured. 

A couple days ago, it was announced that Behringer was going to placate Finnegan's whining and change up the pedal's branding. The Behringer logo which was previously on the front (jack-side) panel was moved to the front, they altered horsie-guy and changed the name from "Centaur" to "Centara". 

Despite the change, the first batch made it out with the "Centaur" markings, and as of this writing, there was at least one on eBay someone was already asking as much as $1,000 for. "Butthurt Bill", as I have decided to call him, seems unimpressed by the fix, and is still pursuing the litigation, evidently seeking reparations for the units that have already sold and are out there in the wild. I totally get an ACTIVE company who is ACTIVELY PRODUCING an item taking this kind of action, and I could totally understand if Behringer had also used the same enclosure as Klon, but let's be clear: no one will "accidentally" buy the Behringer Centaur thinking they're buying the revered actual Klon.

There are literally HUNDREDS of different Klon Centaur clones out there, and some are even the same size and control/jack layout as the original, but he's not going after any of them. Just going after the one with the deepest pockets. It's more obvious than ever now, and it's kinda' gross, to be honest. 

All this over a product that he doesn't even actively produce, and hasn't for many years. He pops up every once every year or two to sell literally one or two random things on eBay for mind-blowingly outrageous prices and then disappears again, and the bidding wars seem to get worse every time, for what is one of the most basic overdrive/boost circuits, made from readily-available, milquetoast components. No "New Old Stock" or "rare" parts. The Instagram Klon page is getting dragged for the most part: he's only seeking litigation from the "offender" with the kind of big money to make it worth a lawsuit attempt, which makes it look like nothing but a cash grab...for being surly because a major manufacturer has demonstrated the fact that the Klons themselves are grossly-overpriced for a very basic circuit made from readily-available (i.e. non-"rare") parts...for being inactive in the production of the actual Klon products, and leaving a gaping hole of opportunity for other manufacturers...for only selling them at auction to manipulate the market and to capitalize on the desperation and gullibility of us tone-chasing guitarists. They're all valid concerns, based on what information we, the public, have.

And maybe that's a strategy, it's implied, to keep batches small or nonexistent in order to really capitalize on the insane hype about the pedal thanks to all the famous users and mythological status, which is pretty shitty, to be honest, if he's doing this and the complaining about others doing something similar so average, working musicians or hobbyists can actually afford one. Others have suggested he should be ashamed that Behringer put the pedal out for $69, exposing that he's always overcharged for this basic, simple pedal and could've been providing a tool all along for ALL players, not just wealthy celebrities and desperate collectors, and that might actually be one of the reasons he's so mad about it, because Behringer have been the first major company (if you don't count JHS's "Notaklon" build-your-own-pedal kit) to really drive home that there's no unobtanium in the design, and it should have always been a more reasonably-priced piece of kit. I don't disagree. 

So while blatantly ripping off a design of a product actively in production is grey-area at best, the Behringer version isn't a direct copy, period. Similar color scheme, similar little character, and the word "Centaur", but the housing and control/jack layout is instantly discernible. No one who would be in the market for either is going to be "fooled" into believing one is the other, and no one who is in the market for a real, authentic and horrendously-overpriced Klon is going to be swayed to buy a copy that they deem "inadequate" instead, because it's "not the real thing" to them and nothing but the authentic (pardon the pun) Klon will do. It's a completely separate market for people with ludicrous amounts of disposable income and/or the need to own one as a status symbol of some sort. The Behringer, like so many of the other Klon "Klones" before it, just puts 97% of the original pedal's tone and capabilities in the hands of commoners for a sensible price. Much respect for that.

Some commentators said they hadn't originally planned on getting the Behringer clone, but after seeing Finnegan's blatant attempt at a cash grab via litigation, and his insistence on NOT reactivating his active production or increasing the frequency thereof, plus no plans to release the "original" for a player-friendly price, they'll gladly buy the Behringer and save themselves several thousand dollars. Some, just out of spite. 

I really don't see it working out as what might've been the retirement scheme it appears that it was planned to be. Or, as some have suggested, perhaps it WAS a sly marketing plan all along, with Finnegan actually cooperating with Behringer to create some hype, and it will be quietly "settled out of court", and he DOES get to retire comfortably. Guess we'll have to see.

The fun part is that if history is any indication, this also means my first-run edition that I pre-ordered months ago that's on its way (from my preorder in January) just became a "lawsuit-era collectible" ($$$$$$$). So I guess, thanks for being a petty, whinging lil' bitch, Bill. 🤣

Do You HATE to Change Your Guitar Strings and Put it Off as Long as Possible? ME TOO!

Just saw a post on a gear page where a guy was wondering if others shared his anxiety about changing guitar strings until you don't have a choice to, and I for one can relate...

Yup. Sometimes I am reluctant because I hate wasting a set of strings that isn't TOTALLY dead (growing up in a lower-income bracket makes one frugal as hell...LOL), and sometimes, as has also been mentioned, I get anxious about knocking something out of whack with a guitar's setup. But sometimes you've just gotta' do it.

With my studio-only guitars, I generally always wash my hands before using them, and only really end up needing to change strings if I have a blowout or just want to try something different. I've got a few guitars---my Angus Young SG, my Danelectro Convertible, my Gretsch Double-Jet Firebird and one particular Squier hardtail Strat that for some reason is the most "authentically old school 'Strat'-sounding" of my Strats---which have all had the same strings for over a year and a half. For my live guitars though, I try to go as long as I can before restringing, but after two or three gigs (especially if they're outdoors, or down near the coast in the saltwater air or something), I start taking inventory on how worn they are. I do like to wipe down my strings with a cloth of some kind after shows (sometimes with a little rubbing alcohol on it) to keep sweat/grime from building up and causing rust or just grossness. Plus, while they'll still deaden over time and not sound as great, in most live scenarios that's not a dealbreaker. The audience can't tell (and frankly, neither can I in the overall mix), so I'll carry on and get through one more gig before doing maintenance and restringing.

I used to HATE letting one specific friend play my guitars, even for one song, because he had such an aggressive pH that within literally minutes, a perfectly good set of strings turned moss green, and if not cleaned off immediately--particularly if left overnight--they'd end up feeling like barbed wire from the residue and buildup. It was freakish. I finally ended up just buying a specific secondhand Squier Tele (he loved Teles) which I set up especially with his feel and string gauge, and he could play that one all he wanted without funkifying my guitfiddles. I would on occasion go to his house, and all three of his guitars had grungy strings and fretboards, and gunk all over them. He was proud of never cleaning them, and insisted the grossness and grime added to the "mojo". Even got mad once and chewed me out when I borrowed his old 70's Fender Tele Deluxe and I wiped it down a little and restrung it with fresh strings when I returned it. But I'm sorry, when it gets so nasty that you can't tell if it's a maple or rosewood fretboard, it's overdue for a little elbow grease. Sorry, digressing...

My usual sign (aside from breakage) that it's time to change is if I run my finger under the strings and feel dents in the string windings from fret contact. If I can really feel flat spots, those strings have got to go, unless I just want to do some performative finale at the next gig or something where I intentionally rip the strings off the guitar. Even when I HAVE to change strings, I don't like it. But it's a necessary evil, and I'd rather be inconvenienced with doing a restringing with a little maintenance/cleanup than break a string mid-song during a performance if my gut told me it was time for a string change. If you're keeping the same gauge, more often than not, you don't need to adjust anything, just tune up and go.

I've settled on a few "cheap but reliable" lesser-known string brands to string up my stage beaters, and I have noticed than some of the "not big name brand" strings will also show some noticeable wear on the wound strings where my palm rests in front of the bridge. I do have a really heavy right hand though, so that doesn't surprise me. Once they start looking a little "coppery", I get in the headspace to plan on changing strings. I also recommend if you own more than one guitar, putting them into a rotation of some sort definitely helps prolong the life of strings, since you're not constantly playing the one instrument. By rotating between three guitars I usually bring to gigs, for example, I can sometimes go a half dozen performances before having to change strings on a guitar, unless I just happen to be forced to play one guitar all night (or the majority thereof).

But ultimately, if your current strings aren't giving you intonation issues (as will happen with those flat spots I described above), don't sound dead and aren't starting to have tuning stability issues (as mine sometimes do on plain strings when the ball-winding starts coming undone from aggressive use of my Maestro Vibrola or my Duesenberg Les Trem on certain brands), then play those suckers till they fall off. You make the rules for your guitars. If you're comfortable, no need to change them until you have to. And if you're not heavy-handed like me, you're going to get far more mileage out of a set of strings than I would.

If it ain't broke [pun], don't fix it. ;)

Democracy in a Band : Its Importance and Relevance, No Matter the Situation

 

You've probably already read my previous blog where I explained the most recent incident which got me thinking about the importance of determining what type of leadership you want in your band, and why it's important to be upfront about your expectations, along with making sure your bandmates do the same. Which brings us to the concept of "democracy" in a band.

As bad as it sounds, I have to admit that years ago when I went from being a control-freak about my band at the time (mind you, I was a very young adult at the time), and let things become more "democratic", that's when progress started to halt, the gigs started waning and the group lost cohesion in some ways. So sometimes there's truth in the need for someone spearheading the direction and providing the motivation to a group. Whether it was in my first "serious" punk band in high school, or my long-running alt-country/Americana outfit that followed, in both instances I can look back in hindsight and see exactly when things went from being strong and productive to falling apart piece-by-piece. Said hindsight also shows me where being too staunch OR too lax created unnecessary tension and counterproductivity. You have to have that middle-ground approach.

Now, being a "leader" in a band doesn't mean being an unjustified, unqualified diva, nor does it mean taking credit for your bandmates' hard work. It also doesn't mean denigrating their contributions when they are in fact literally propping you up. However, it DOES mean being assertive about your band's direction, choice of material, performance quality and being the soul of a band. It doesn't mean some dipshit singer should take all the glory for a band if he/she is only contributing an occasional barely-usable lyric or because he/she is the most visually-noticeable member because they're able to prance around with a microphone while you're busting your ass playing instruments providing their background music. It often means the person writing the majority of (or all of) the material is the creative center, and probably should be the de facto "leader" of the band. Someone who is a "leader" should have actual ownership in a group, and can enforce, incite and intervene when necessary to facilitate progress. But that doesn't HAVE to be "one person", especially when you're a band just starting up and there are no "rockstars" in your group. Never forget that if you're "starting a band" all over again, nobody gives a flying fuck about your achievements and accolades (real OR in your own head), and your street-cred is absolutely meaningless. There is no "seniority" in an upstart band, whether you're 15 or 55. If you disagree, I implore you to stop for a minute and ask yourself how that current project is ACTUALLY going. Told ya' so.

I think a "driving force" is a must when it comes to groups focused on original material. Not so much with cover-groups, where your band doesn't "own" the art/material in question, and I've found that cover-bands are much more fun to be involved with when there's more of a democratic mentality. At least, that's how it SHOULD be. Anyone who's been paying attention, or has known me, knows I've had to whore myself out in cover-bands during artistic lulls, in between finding bandmates for original material, etc., and I've unfortunately seen that the majority of the cover-bands I've ever encountered have had a strange sense of entitlement and completely unwarranted elitism about them. I have witnessed both from the outside AND inside the horrors, and it's silly when a bunch of breathing jukebox components take themselves too seriously. I like to address the "cover-band quagmire" when talking about this subject, because in a cover-band, you are literally just another player, despite some folks holding themselves in higher regard than deserved.

While some cover-band gigs have been pleasant, stark in contrast from other tours of duty (or doody) with cover acts, I can say that in most instances, it's been miserable. I'm currently doing hired-gun work with a "private events band" that is largely covers, some originals, and even is letting me bring in some of my own original material, much like when I played with my "adopted family" in The Oath (a well-known party band in the Upstate) during their final 5 years. With this situation, I find myself receiving a fair cut in compensation, some say in choice of material, a general sense of being appreciated for my work, and I don't feel like I have to watch my back. It's very "business-like", and not very personable at times, but there's respect there. In a cover-band I had played in from 2016 till 2020 or so, we eventually had to fire our "singer" because he was a drunk who'd embarrass us every show; we carried on as a trio, but ran into local drama because "Big Ben" decided he'd make sure everyone knew we were "assholes" to him for kicking him out, conveniently leaving out the part about "why", and he never seemed able to recollect that last show where he literally passed out on a table at a gig. And around a decade ago, I left a scenario wherein there were basically 3 little grumpy old men who were at odds to control the band from different angles: Power-chord Jamey had certain "local celebrity" connections, a rehearsal space and a Marshall half-stack he didn't even know how to dial-in. The drummer (Dave, whom I dubbed the "Boston Buttroast") had a few adequate booking connections so despite obvious technical deficiencies, so he remained harder-to-dispose of than the other sidemen. The frontman owned the bulk of the sound reinforcement gear, lighting, the trailer and had a buddy who would (for a cut, of course) "run sound" (arguably speaking). In their minds, as long as their lead guitarist and bassist kept their mouths shut and just did their job carrying the load like obedient pack mules, things were kosher. As you can imagine, that took its toll. And despite having stuck around for over a year and a half (more than three times my originally-agreed-upon stint), I never felt trusted, or "part of the band", so when the opportunity arose in a moment of unnecessary tension and histrionics, I had to leave. I am fine being a gun-for-hire, but don't expect me to swear undying loyalty to your band if you're not earning it. And especially, don't treat someone a certain way and then act surprised when they're not as committed as you'd like them to be. Cover-bands and even "tribute" bands are barely one step above karaoke, and are literally some of the easiest gigs you can play. You are doing shit you didn't have to write, and audiences are very "flexible" (some would say "have incredibly, annoyingly-low standards") so you don't even have to be any good in most cases. Most AREN'T, if we're being honest. If you're paying appropriately, a player should show up, do his/her job, collect a good compensation and then "see you next time". No hassle. No drama. No bullshit. "Rehearsals" really aren't necessary either, everyone should know their parts, and I shouldn't have to waste my time standing around while other people work on "learning" songs they were supposed to learn on their time. When the compensation stops making it worth the headache to show up, you can have a discussion, or you can just quit. Which one of those will work for you is something only you will be able to decide. Go with your gut. Always.

Bands that do original material are a little more complex, in more ways than one. This is why I will say that one of the most important things, if not THE most important, is transparency, from day-fucking-one. From the moment you first utter the famous like "hey, we should start a band" or when you post that Craigslist or Facebook ad looking for people to play with. If you aren't willing to invest in others' creativity but expect them to dedicate time, energy and creative power into YOUR art, my opinion is that there's something wrong with you, but if that IS your modus operandi, have the balls to be honest and upfront about it. You can't expect everyone else to invest into your work if you're dismissing and disregarding theirs because you feel yours is more worthy somehow, but for God's sake, at least be forthright if this is what you are looking for. This is why many remain unknown in a sea of other unknowns, and will remain so until they learn to be transparent with future associates or change to a less-narcissistic mindset. Be honest with your intentions. Don't even have one initial rehearsal/jam/practice/etc. if you haven't been crystal-clear about your expectations, aspirations and boundaries. 

Part of the reason I used my examples was to demonstrate what happens when you've been given false impressions or have no idea what exactly you just signed up for. And that's the lesson I want you to take away here. Don't lure musicians into what they believe is going to be a "band" only to turn around and tell them they are just there to polish your turds. Pulling a bait-and-switch like that is a colossal dick-move. And if you AREN'T a raging egomaniacal narcissist and want to co-author and collaborate, just make it a point that everyone who's helping you create art gets their proper recognition. Unless you take a vote on it and pick someone who's going to be your mouthpiece, figurehead or "rep", share the privileges AND responsibilities. For folks who insist on being the one in complete control creatively, and want "yes men", you have to make that clear before you start asking people to play with you. Because when you say you "want to form a band", you're not being honest. You mean to say that you "want a backing band". Most people aren't going to want to hop on board just to play your same shitty songs you've been trying to get recorded and performed onstage with a band since the 80's, and you might be better off just grabbing that acoustic guitar to go do some more open-mic nights and coffeehouse gigs. The older you are, the more you probably need to hear that the reason you're rebooting YET AGAIN is because your old habits are toxic as fuck, and you need to humble yourself a bit for some good reflection and reconsideration. Just BE HONEST about what you want, what is acceptable, where you will/won't compromise and your goals. Ask the same of your would-be bandmates so that before you ever waste each other's time and energy, you know exactly what awaits. No, that's not going to help you with personality conflicts and other dangers of interacting with other human beings, but it can definitely mitigate your problems and most definitely can prevent you from dealing with certain annoyances down the road. So above all, BE TRANSPARENT!

Do I believe there should be some leadership in a band, regardless of whether you are an "artist" or just a covers-musician? Yeah, of course. But there is no one-size-fits-all solution, so you have to treat each scenario with the same respect and scrutiny. As mentioned in the previous blog, if it's all done honestly and properly, you can delegate duties and become a well-oiled machine. You rely on each member to make it work, and unless you signed up specifically to be someone's support musician for their "solo" vanity project knowing they will receive all the recognition and you'll never be more than their henchperson, then no one person is a "star" in a band. In cover-bands, there is no need for hierarchy. It's just a band. No writing credits. No publishing rights. Just booking and playing. Just going through the motions. Just a bunch of uncreative people mimicking others. It's as easy as it gets. When we do those gigs, we're just playing. And if we're smart, the minute it stops being fun enough to be worth our pittance, we stop and go do something else. But if you are an artist/songwriter, or are in a band where you're backing one, you need to know where you stand with the person you're propping up, or the musicians who are helping you bring your music to life. By all means, if you are an original artist, take your art by the horns, and own that shit all you want. If you put together a band, however, make sure they know upfront how much input they will (and WON'T) get, and let them know the boundaries. If you are a songwriting team, same applies. Just be honest with your bandmates about what you need them for, and trust me, they'll either stick around for the ride and provide you the backbone you need, or they'll excuse themselves respectfully and save the drama of clashing with your ego. Win/win. Regardless, just please, for fuck's sake, DON'T TAKE YOURSELF TOO SERIOUSLY. Just have fun with it, find like-minded musicians and remember that whether they're YOUR songs or not, they wouldn't exist without your bandmates, at least in a performance scenario. And never forget: it's ALWAYS 100% voluntary for all parties involved.

Democracy? Mos def. Unless you've made it clear that's not how you roll and the other participants are cool with it. But there are no "benevolent dictators". And if you're starting up a new band for the umpteenth time because you can't keep people on board when they find out you're wanting sole control and will settle for nothing less, it's time for YOU to make a change if you want to keep the next group together.

Mic...dropped....

H

Too Many Chefs in the Kitchen? : Do Bands REALLY Need a "Leader"? How to Split Duties and Credit...Or Just Split

One constant source of disdain and struggle with most bands who don't have their shit together is: just who is in charge of the band?

Often, it depends who you ask. A lot of crowds misinterpret a vocalist/frontperson as the band's leader, while others may think the band follows the flashy lead guitar player who seems to exude more confidence/cockiness than the others. In reality, it's different for every band, and in many cases I've seen (or even been involved with), even the band members themselves may be confused about who's actually calling the shots. Who really IS in charge? Does ANYONE really need to be the "leader"? How do you pick this leader? What happens when the power goes to their head or they do not efficiently handle the responsibilities, or you find yourself working as a yes-man for an egomaniacal narcissist? Well, let's see what I've learned over the years...

First off, you've probably asked yourself a time or two whether your band needs a bona fide leader. The answer, in short, is yes. But it's not that simple, and what's important---no, CRUCIAL to remember is that the role doesn't have to be filled by one person. In fact, it might be better if you split leadership into different roles. Plus, it shows not just commitment FROM the members, but TO them as well. Keep in mind that I'm coming from the angle of an unsigned, independent band who are either just starting out or relegated to their region/scene. It really depends on a few factors, but the most important ones are:

1) A representative for bookings/decision-making - this person is the go-to person when it comes to making contact with venues or booking persons, receiving calls for bookings, keeping up with the members' individual schedules to prevent scheduling conflicts, negotiating terms (and NOT just accepting ANY booking he/she is offered), confirming dates (both with the venues AND the other band members) and handling promotion for shows and events. It's fine if other members contribute to bookings too, but it works better if all the bookings are being funneled through one member, and gives off a more professional, organized vibe.

2) A fan/media representative - this person serves as the Q&A guy for the band (and should NEVER answer a question he or she isn't sure about), and not only handles first-contact with media/press representatives but also would serve as the first-line defense when the band is approached by fans. This person should be not only knowledgeable but personable as well, for obvious reasons. You don't want a drummer or guitarist who doesn't even know the lyrics to the songs, for example, trying to explain the "message" therein. And likewise, you don't want some douchey vocalist who doesn't even play an instrument talking about the "creative" process (that he only has to provide some "words" and a halfassed performance for), the elements involved in any of the instrumentation, or the inspiration for the sound of a song someone else wrote every other part for aside from the "poem" that would become the lyrics. This person (if they're up to speed and doing their job right) should also be the one taking the lead for handling the social page/webpage and responsible for keeping all the information updated. 

3) The onstage leader - this is the person who kicks things into gear onstage and makes it fun. Keyword: FUN. The person who helps everyone recover when the drummer fucks up a song, or who turns a certain way to show his fretting hand in order to remind the other guitarist/bassist the note they should be playing. The person who initiates and demands crowd responses/interaction. Often the most entertaining person to watch onstage, the one who most has his shit together performance-wise and the one people will talk about the next day. Sure, your "vocalist" might be upfront, but maybe your bass player is more fun to watch because he's getting into it, or you have a guitarist who does interesting parts that don't sound like someone wanking around in the guitar store trying to impress people. Those are the people your band needs to make sure are visible.

4) The creative leader - this is the chief songwriter/arranger of the band (for original music) or the guy who serves as the final say/set-list writer (for cover-bands). This is pretty self-explanatory in most cases, but in the case of original music, just like copyright credits and album credits, this person must be given proper credit for being the musical director or the pen behind the new art. A "lyricist", for example, is not necessarily a "songwriter", I've learned. In a certain project I was in for about a decade, someone else wrote "lyrics" (and really didn't want anyone else's ideas in that regard), but the "music" was always written by other members. At first everyone contributed, but as the project aged, members left and I was the sole creator of the actual songs, barring a cool bass-riff that our bassist played that I arranged into a song on one or two occasions. Part of the reason I have a bad taste in my mouth about that "band" was because I was never really treated like a partner, even when I was contributing 98% of the actual musical compositions, and it started becoming more like a vanity project for a "vocalist" who was not really pushing himself and had no real range vocally, and who was also not writing relatable or hooky lyrics to boot, causing many of my songs to feel shortchanged. So make damn sure you're ACKNOWLEDGING and paying proper respect to the creative power in your group.

Again, this all could be handled by one person, but in a relatively-busy working band it's highly unlikely, not to mention inefficient and insufficient, and definitely not recommended. An active band member probably should only hold one (MAYBE two) of these positions ever. Any more than that, and I promise, you will have to deal with booking fuck-ups, inconsiderate behavior, people burning-out quickly, information getting botched and eventually infighting that can lead to a shake-up or member loss. It goes without saying that you should choose who does what by not only their eagerness to do it, but also their competence to do it. The last thing you need is your flaky-assed drummer who half-listens to anything anyone says handling bookings, especially when he's made it clear he'll play every weekend, anywhere he can book regardless of your commitments and schedule. You also don't want your Lynyrd Skynyrd-obsessed rhythm guitarist picking your set-list. And you definitely don't want the stoner in the band representing you to fans or media giving off the wrong impression. Pick duties based on strengths, and if someone sucks at it, you have a responsibility both to yourself AND your band to tell them so, and to put someone more capable in that position.

There are going to be other struggles as well, I will warn you. It may be a member who doesn't contribute anything to the band insisting on admin rights to all the band pages you have put the time and effort into creating and moderating just so they can post their own drivel/insight and do other things that demonstrate a lack of experience and make you look like a high school start-up band, or worse, boot the other band members from admin-privileges and hijack everything altogether. I've also had self-medicating bandmates use the band's page to covertly try to score good weed and constantly drop covert drug references that make the band a liability, to venues and to themselves. Yes, nonsense like that actually happens. 

Also keep watch when a member's significant other who doesn't do anything "musical" handles all the bookings and money, and gets all Yoko on you with everything ranging from song choices to wardrobe to skimming "admin fees", pulling "rank" at every turn. Just learn the power of "no", and don't become a victim. If you cannot handle all the duties mentioned in the confines of band membership, do yourself a favor and get an outside, neutral party/manager to help out. That way no one will end up blaming someone on mishandling money or swaying band decisions based on cronyism/favoritism/nepotism.

Most importantly, if ANYONE who plays any of these roles, inside or outside the band, starts power-tripping, abusing their position or simply just isn't doing the job, redistribute it and relieve them of the duty. You might even have to relieve them from the group as a whole if it gets nasty. DO NOT HESITATE. Find someone else to do it immediately. Letting it go on for weeks, months or more will only create more tension, and will result in counter-productivity, not to mention it will make mortal enemies out of band members. And you will soon find yourself starting all over again with a new group, worrying about what to expect from them as well.

So yeah, your band should have "leadership", so to speak, but there should be no one chieftain if it is a BAND, because if your band members are all contributing their part you are all on the same ground, and no one is higher up the totem pole than the others. Choose wisely, because you have to live with your decision, at least for a while.

In another blog, I'll discuss what happens when you sign up for a band under the ruse of a democracy or "team" mentality and then find yourself dealing with the old bait-and-switch from someone wanting to essentially have a crew, not a team, with no intention of allowing true contributions or shared "artistic control" over what happens in the band. This is something that hits close to home, having reared its ugly head yet again in my life just last month, and I feel the subject deserves its own blog because it can cross both professional and personal boundaries like few other things. Stay tuned for that one, it'll be a doozy...