How do you deal with a guitarist who just doesn't “get the big picture”?

M

Malpine Walis

New member
Well, this goes in the noob forum because I don't see a better place to put it.

Basically, I have a guitar player who needs to be told to cut the crap that he pulls. Don't get me wrong here, he is a good teacher and he give me good challenges to learn new stuff. However, he needs to not do some of the things that he does.

As an example, right now, my band does not exist due to the keyboard player going through holiday depression. Nothing that we will not get past given some time. My stand to him is that we will be there when he feels ready to play with us. However, the guitarist decided to pretty much order him to play as a tool to work through what he has to deal with.

Of course it does not end there. When we started putting videos up on youtube, he asked for my password and the next day, I found that he had tried to change the details of my account to look like it was his. He denied doing this. I gave him the chance to bow out as a gentleman by saying that he had given the password to a friend but he insisted that he both kept the secret and did not change the account. No, just no.

Add to the general problems the fact that I have a producer who needed to be reigned in. I did get him to cut his crap eventually but only by telling him that if he did not stop, there would be no band.

Anyway, about a year and a half ago, I walked into the place where we rehearse to find about $5,000 worth of new equipment. The producer had as a goal to see that we did not have to move our stuff around. A noble idea if misplaced but not a bad one. Until the guitarist comes into the picture.

One of the things that we have is an 8 channel PA amp. But nobody is allowed to plug into it. The guitarist has two reasons:

First is that it was “bought for him” The producer differs but he is not important.

Second is that it in electrically incorrect to plug in anything beyond what the guitarist wants. Uli Behirnger gave this amp eight channels but Richard has his own personal view of electrical theory.

Third is his auxiliary penis. He has a transformer that converts a standard instrument cable to XLR and a transformer to convert XLR to quarter inch. They must be mated together so that he can plug his instrument cable into “his” amplifier.

Fourth is that we have a Roland Jazz Chorus amplifier. It is worth about $800 but he refuses to use it because it is not the one that was “bought for him”. The $200 Behringer one is “his” despite what the facts of the matter are.

So let me end with a question:

Given that I find him to be a good teacher but a bad band member, is it reasonable to get him on the plan for being a good band member?
 
I dont know if there is any good answer to your question.

Your guitarist just seems weird. Is he odd other than his gear quirks? If you can't cope with the guy, find a new band. There's plenty of guitarists and even a few that are sane. Good luck.
 
honestly. if he hasnt gotten better y now... he wont. his doing more harm than he is good. no band should be like that. there are more guitar players out there who are just as good and more than likely a better band mate. my 2 cents; dump him before he drives a wedge between the band.
 
Long post. Big frustration. Time to get rid of the guy isn't it?

Anyone playing Behringer gear can't be a big miss. + 1 on the "guitarists enough" comment.

Then again, dumping someone is easier said then done, right?

But no-one ever got better from extending a b*llsh*t situation. Life to short... (and other such cliche's.)
 
Malpine Walis said:
So let me end with a question:

Given that I find him to be a good teacher but a bad band member, is it reasonable to get him on the plan for being a good band member?
Click to expand...

The quote above is the heart of your post. Despite the tale you tell, there are some puzzling things, the relevance of which escapes me at the moment.

So let me make some observations and pose some questions of my own.

1 What is your role in the band? I note a guitar player (the subject in question), and a keyboard player. Who else is in the band?

2 You were prepared to give the keyboard player time out, which is compassionate of you (and I might have done similar), but maybe the best therapy is actually what the guitarist sought, i.e. keep playing. I'm not an expert in 'holiday depression', I gather that you are not, and I daresay there would be few in this forum who are.

3 Why would you give someone your password? That is such a dangerous thing to do, even with close acquaintances.

4 Nor am I sure what role the producer players. He sounds a bit like a manager. But how relevant is it?

5 At least he appears to be generous, forking out $5k.

6 Is the 8 channel PA amp part of this $5k investment? How was this investment made known to the band. Did the 'producer' say something like, "look at the new PA I got for you to rehearse with," or something similar?

7 Or was it a deal cooked up by the producer and the guitarist? Does the guitarist think the whole thing was bought for him, or just a part of it?

8 It is not clear what you are getting at with Richard having "his own personal view of electrical theory". Are you saying that he is using an 8 channel PA head for just his guitar?

9 I can't really see a big deal about this guitar lead - XLR lead - guitar lead thing. It's a bit unusual, unnecessary and odd, but that's not real the problem, is it?

10 The Roland JC is a reputable amp. It's his loss if he doesn't use it. It's a great keyboard amp. Why doesn't the keyboard player use it instead? A $200 amp leaves a lot of change from $5k, so I'm not sure whether it's just that that he is using or what? And it's not very clear what "the facts of the matter" are.

I've gone through the above to show how difficult it is for me (and maybe others) to grasp the 'big picture' you mention in the title of your post.

Having said that, I note the two responses so far, and I tend to lean their way.

When confronted with a situation not to your liking, I think there are at least three choices available to you:
1 cope with it,
2 change it, or
3 leave it.

It seems to me you've been usng the first choice for a while (i.e. coping with it), but that you are now seeking the second choice (to change it), while the two responses are suggesting the third choice (leave).

However, I thinking that opting out is a choice of last resort, and I think it is better to seek a solution that changes things for the better (as you are doing) before opting out.

Have you considered what the future might look like were you to resolve this satisfactorily? Imagine that you are a couple of months down the track, and you have done something (though we don't know what yet). What would have happened?

Difficult people are all around us, and sometimes we have the misfortune to work with them. Sometimes the benefits they bring outweigh the bad bits, sometimes they don't, to the extent that we seek change. But it is difficult to change other people . . . it's such an indirect thing. But we can change ourselves much more easily. So an interesting question is to ask yourself is, "Is there anything that I have been doing that contributes to the way things are at the moment? Is there anything I can change about myself that might make things better?"

I'm not good at strategies, playing games and trying to second guess other people, so I tend not to bother, and I believe it is best to be honest and honourable (even though it may not work). It's not a bad idea to explain your feelings to Richard, bumbling through it as best as you can, express your wish for a better working relationship (which is all you need), and ask what you can do to get there. With luck he'll respond accordingly. But he might not. That's tough. That's when you leave.
 
Thank you all. As much as you have has given me a bit more focus for where I need to go with Richard. Last night's rant does not really tell the story. So let me fill in some blanks and see where this goes.

I am doing this band through where I work. It is kind of a project of mine and it really limits me as far as who I can pick from. Basically, I work in a rental office for a social program and I am trying to get my tenants working together. OK, I get nobility points or something. But I place myself in a dilemma every day.

The producer (his name is Ray BTW) is not a contract guy that I have to deal with. He is a coworker. He has been too big for his britches in the past (getting me all of that equipment that I did not ask for and did not want comes to mind) but I got him to calm down and be a reasonable player in the game. He still thinks that we should play music that people can dance to but I can simply ignore him there.

Ray spent all of that company money out of a desire to help me with what I am trying to do. Mind you, he did not bother to ask what I might want/need first. He made his own choices and went with them. Along the way, he assigned me a drummer who is technically very good. The problem was that he is also in a chronic pain management clinic. I am not interested in gainsaying the guy's personal medical needs but he was really best for the first half hour of rehearsals. After that, he started to go into his narcotic nod and then he was about as useful to us as any heroin addict would be to any band.

The reason why I introduce that goes to Richard again. When the drummer broke his hip, I set up a vote to remove him from the band but Richard would not commit past “whatever you guys want”. I had to pretty much force him to vote the guy out. Any dissent over that matter would have risked the drummer feeling like he could come back and that I cannot allow. So I had to bully Richard into voting.

So if I want Richard gone, that is a simple matter. I can lock him out of my office at rehearsal time. However, I don't want him gone, I want him tamed. I guess that I am going to have to do that by force of will.

If he wants to use his secondary dick, he is simply going to have to bring his own amp to plug it into.

If he wants to use the PA system, he is going to be given any phone number that I can dig up for Uli Behringer. He will be put on speaker phone for everyone to hear. If Uli says that he specifically intended an eight channel amp to only have two inputs, I can accept that.

Actually, he cannot use the Jazz Chorus amp. My keyboard player is changing to guitar and that is what I will have him playing through. Since neither of the two amps are open to him, he is going to have to come up with something on his own.
 
car-crash.jpg
 
Geeeze, man. What a mess, as hilariously illustrated in the post above this one. I'm kind of an inconsiderate asshole at times, so I try and refrain from giving advice on situations like this. I can tell you that, even for a more socially-inclined person who may be able to help you, it's still not clear what's really going on that you need advice about though.

Here is one example:
The "secondary dick" thing doesn't make any sense, on any level. Why does he want to use the adapters, and (perhaps more importantly) what is your big problem with it? Both he and you seem completely irrational here. He's not doing anything but plugging some metal together for the same end result (an unbalanced instrument signal), but at the same time it's not going to hurt anything, so what's your problem?

Here's another example:
Why does he even want to use a PA amp for a guitar? That has got to sound like shit. Even further: Why doesn't he have his own amp? Why are you accepting members who don't have the equipment to do their part? Is this a real, working band that actually goes out and plays shows, records their music, and makes money, or are you guys just playing around in an office for fun? The distinction is quite important, because it differentiates a business-relationship from a friendship. If the latter, which is really what it sounds like, especially from the tenants-working-together-comments, why does any of this even matter? Can't you just play your tunes in your office and have fun?

No offense intended by any of the above, of course. I think your obviously-very-strong feelings about the situation are getting in the way of your ability to explain the situation to outsiders who know nothing about it.
 
Ok, so it sounds like this somewhat of a social group thing, not just a band.
1) What is the purpose of the band - to get people working together, or to make money, play music, etc?
The answer to that question will lead you to the next steps. If it is the social aspect, then work with what you've got, or give up. If its the other, than get rid of those who can't work within the established framework for the band.

2) No band can exist for long as a democracy. There's got to be one person who will make the final decisions (right or wrong) and everyone must agree to that. Only family bands or bands composed of friends that have known each other for many many years can work without a designated leader.
 
No band can exist for long being a democracy? I disagree. Being a democracy is the best way to go about it. Having one person make all the rules and decisions is a recipe for discontentment and friction. Kinda like Nazi Germany in 1942.

It's much better for all band members to have an equal say and make decisions based upon everybody's input.
 
357mag said:
It's much better for all band members to have an equal say and make decisions based upon everybody's input.
Click to expand...


Bearing in mind that an 'equal say' is not the same as a 'same say'. I wouldn't want to have a regime where all band members do everything and contribute everything the same (and I don't think you're suggesting this either), because that can be as devastating as a dictatorship.

Some people are good at writing, but no good with technology . . . okay, let them do the writing and let someone else do the technology. Operating a band requires many different roles, and different people will have different aptitudes for those roles . . . so if you can negotiate and get agreement on who is doing what, you should be able to operate more effectively.
 
Malpine Walis said:
He still thinks that we should play music that people can dance to but I can simply ignore him there . . .

. . . So I had to bully Richard into voting. . . .

. . . However, I don't want him gone, I want him tamed. I guess that I am going to have to do that by force of will.
Click to expand...


From your post I have pulled out three selected quotes. You should have a read of these and see if they provide any insights about how you go about things.

I get a general sense of frustration and anger through your two posts on this topic, and I guess that's understandable if you are trying to do something worthwhile . . . "trying to get your tenants to work together'.

You probably have a clear vision of what you want to achieve, and feel hampered by the obstacles placed in your way.

However, I'm not sure that the best tactic is to get into loggerheads with co-members: you've ditched your drummer, and are doing the ram headbutting thing with producer and guitarist.

Mjbphotos asks a valid question, and it is worth exploring with the group: "1) What is the purpose of the band - to get people working together, or to make money, play music, etc?"

At the moment I get a distinct sense of lack of cohesion, lack of common goals, and lack of agreed, negotiated roles. Maybe a good starting point is to work through this boring stuff first.
 
That's the most topics I've seen crammed into one thread. But 3 points got me as a little bitchy:
Malpine Walis said:
Third is his auxiliary penis. He has a transformer that converts a standard instrument cable to XLR and a transformer to convert XLR to quarter inch. They must be mated together so that he can plug his instrument cable into “his” amplifier.
Click to expand...
You know, if you're playing very large stages or somewhere where you need really long cables, it's a great idea. Short unbalanced cable into a DI, balanced cable making up the bulk of the distance, converted back to unbalanced at the amp. Less signal loss/capacitance issues.

That said, if you're standing next to the amp or in a small room, it's a bit much, and means extra points of failure to troubleshoot when things go wrong. But I wouldn't let it get to you. To call it an auxiliary penis tells me it bothers you more than it should.
Fourth is that we have a Roland Jazz Chorus amplifier. It is worth about $800 but he refuses to use it because it is not the one that was “bought for him”. The $200 Behringer one is “his” despite what the facts of the matter are.
Click to expand...
Lols. Jazz Chorus is a hell of an amp and has been around for decades and will still be around for decades, unlike the Behringer. I do find it a little weird that he's concerned with tone enough to use a balanced cable for long runs yet prefers the behringer, but ease up, it's his choice. It might be a poor choice and devoid of logic, but it's what he likes, so that's it.
Given that I find him to be a good teacher but a bad band member, is it reasonable to get him on the plan for being a good band member?
Click to expand...
A good teacher? That you don't respect? What do you mean "bad" band member? Cos he's picky?

He might be a bit of a jerk about "his way" and lots of people are, sometimes I am for sure (but usually not about music). It really just seems to me that you're that way too. You want it YOUR way as much as he wants it his way.

Being a "good" band member is very much about tolerance and understanding, the best way to improve the situation is to set the example. Seems to me you're not very tolerant of him!

Or, if I've misconstrued something and he's just an actual jerk, let the baby have his bottle. It's not worth your obvious stress, either let him go or keep him, but don't let it bother you so much. You're saying you will lock him out of rehearsal? That's a dick move. You want to tame him? That's pretty dumb. Not letting him use an amp that he doesn't even want to use? Sheesh.

I commend what you're doing with a social program type band, and it would be very trying. But I really feel you're going about it the wrong way. Someone once said "be the change you want to see"... But feel free to ignore me entirely.
 
357mag said:
No band can exist for long being a democracy? I disagree. Being a democracy is the best way to go about it. Having one person make all the rules and decisions is a recipe for discontentment and friction. Kinda like Nazi Germany in 1942.

It's much better for all band members to have an equal say and make decisions based upon everybody's input.
Click to expand...

That's good in theory, I mean... who wants to be compared with Nazi Germany, 1942, right? :rolleyes:

The only band I was ever a part of that was actually successful, however...had a very clear "dictator". This isn't to say that it's not also an excellent point about how everybody can play their own role (I was the website/myspace guy :p), because gecko's right on the money there. I'm just saying that when it came to debated decisions: Ricky (our Hitler, I guess...) had the final say, and that was that - and that really worked well for years. We all made a living by playing music. Call it "Nazi Germany" if you will, but Ricky called it "My band", and the rest of us called it "a pretty fun job".

Which brings up another point - I'm not creative at all - but I love to play bass. I don't give a flying rat's ass what I'm playing, (the successful band was actually rap/rock *vomit* ) I just love to play - and I can play like a motherfucker. The "democratic" bands all lost their chance on this bassist by not having their shit together.

Food for thought - sorry for the language if that offends :p
edit: P.S. I'm really not a cocky guy, I was just making a point. :D
 
Last edited:
TyphoidHippo said:
The only band I was ever a part of that was actually successful, however...had a very clear "dictator".
Click to expand...

Being a "band leader" is also a role, just as doing web stuff, or playing bass, writing music, carting gear or looking after technology is. And just as band members would defer to the web guy on issues of web design, so they should defer to the leader on issues of leadership.

The difficulty comes when there's a posey of alpha males competing for the top spot.
 
Just say to your guitar player 'Hey man what's that on your shirt?', point to his shirt and when he looks down lift your pointing finger and bop him in the nose playfully and go 'Oooooiiiiiiiahhhhh!'
 
You guys should hook up with JordanD. I think he'd be a great front man for your band.
 
i'm still unsure just what you're trying to accomplish.are you the boss trying an experiment on how to get people to work together better or work for some kind of social shelter for needy people trying to help them by offering the gift of music.the way it sounds you're dealing with a lot of folks who have an array of social issues like the drummer going into his own mental domain after a half hour or the guitar player who appears to be competing with you on control issues.


do you play an instrument & just what is your role in this band?it sounds to me like your trying to cram the music thing down their throats so you get the glory of being the guy who is helping them get along together socially or something.at first it sounded like issues from a teenage high school band.locking a guy out of band practice is just childish.you all seem to have social issues but if your the leader than you must take the high road and deal with these issues in an itelligent way.i still don't uderstand the teacher aspect of your guitarist.if he's more knowledgeable than yourself on the matters of music maybe you should take a step back on your control of everything.


sounds like you need to have yourself a band meeting with all of your participants so you can decide what role everybody plays in this project,what goals you have,type of music,etc.my point is that while it sounds like you're trying to help,the people involved may not find any joy in it and may only be doing this cause they feel they have to.if this is the case they will never cooperate.
 
Just so much going on here, I have decided to really limit my comments. But I will say this:

Last two bands I pulled together have both been very democratic:

The Too Big Guitar Group (not it's name, but a very apt description) is a bunch of guys and the occasional gal who all play music and get together at the UU church I am a member of. All decisions are made democratically, but it is unwieldy and slow- if this were to be a professional band, that alone would prevent us from making any money on the open market (we do the occasional show and donate the take to the church, as a way of giving back.) Still, I have concluded that there is really no other way this group could continue to exist.

Previous project was a bluegrass band I personally pulled together. That one, I did NOT maintain sufficient control, and things got messy. (Frankly, Malpine, I suspect that is what has happened with your project, too.) Two biggest mistakes I made were 1.) not making it clear to the banjo player, whom I appointed music director, that insofar as the band was concerned, he was beholding to me, and 2) Not wielding a heavier hand when we took on a certain mando player, which came back to bite me on the butt later. I did have a good, clear vision, and did manage to communicate it to the band members, and keep them pretty much on track, at least enough to forge a pretty tight, crowd-pleasing/leave 'em screaming for more three hour show. Unfortunately, the band broke up less than a week after the best show we ever turned in. Seems they really didn't want to be a professional band- they were happy enough just playing the music, even if it meant they made money for someone else but got none of the take.

Lessons learned (which, again, I think could apply to your band, Malpine):

1. Decide, BEFORE HAND, what kind of band it will be" music genre, level of professionalism, purpose of forming the band, etc.
2. Decide on a vision, and communicate it to POTENTIAL members, BEFORE they are members. You can have some flexibility on that vision, but be careful on that part, lest you lose sight and control.
3. Communicate CLEARLY and FULLY what everyone's role(s) is/are, to them. Have them say they understand.
3. Communicate to all members- and hold them to it- the level of leadership you expect to be "cottened" to. If someone gets too far away from that, either too much or too little coming from them, set 'em straight with a private talk. (3rd mistake I made that I gave the mando player, AKA "The 300 pound diva," the "My way or the highway" lecture in front of everyone.)

Hope that helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top