Drummer Cafe Community Forum

I've being working on this project for about a year. My approach to it was as a gig when I first came in, thinking we would be the back-up band for the singer/composer. Since the beginning the guy told us that wasn't his vision: he wanted to be part of a band and feel that every body was as involved with the project as he was, and that we would be all equally important. We all agreed to be a band after a couple of practices because, although the songs were cheesy, the project had an enormous commercial potential.

We have struggled with some difficulties, as every band does, but finally we have evolved into a real band with our own sound. We haven't played that much yet but we have received an excellent response from the audience.

Our singer/composer is nephew of a very respected musician (and now producer/record label owner) in our local scene. They have a paternal-like relationship because of some family issues that aren't relevant. The uncle has always promised our singer that he will produce him his first CD; and he is doing so, but he is also destroying the band without noticing.

He wants this CD to be a bang. So, he hired a very qualified engineer to work in the recording and co-produce the CD. The guy said he liked our musical proposal, but suggested some very difficult to swallow recommendations, as hiring studio musicians to record the CD and use the band for playing live and started the recording process without consulting us and with an extraordinary rush. Our singer opposed because the band sound is fundamental to his music and because of his promise to us, but the engineer said the work would had to be done his way or he won't do it. Our singer's uncle trusts his engineer/co-producer blindly because he has obtained very good results following his advises.

Our singer is now between the sword and the wall, because he feels awful about the production processes, about us and about the deception it could be for his uncle if he quits, but this could be also the opportunity of his life. But what about his vision? What about his dream? Aren't those the really important things to measure ? And what about our feelings, the time we spent and sacrifices we made for the project? Aren't those important too?

My view is, that the uncle should understand your singer/composer, since it's his band and sound that's going on record. Asides, it seems that yout singer/composer is trying to keep up to his word in using the band for the studio project.

You mentioned a paternal-like relationship between your singer/composer and his uncle which can explain the apparent blindness of the uncle in the recording proces. Maybe the unlce is thinking as a father in terms of making this a win-win situation for your singer/composer. Like every father, he can be looking for the best for his nephew, so that he may have the best product at the end of the day. Like always, this vision can be more of an error than a blessing for the nephew.

I would suggest your singer to talk to the uncle (as we would say, que se sincere con el tío), and in a good and humble way tell him his view of what is happening. Maybe at the end of the day the uncle can will understand the situation better, and the band can play the record.

Hope everything works for the best.

Pipus

PS Can you give me the phone # for the engineer, maybe I can do the sessions............................... ......................... ;), just kidding

yeesh. sounds like one of those awful 'welcome to the world of music' situations.

i think the short answer is going to be: no, your feelings and the singer's vision don't matter. maybe if this project turns out some major hit, that will change, but everything i hear tells me it's not always what the artist wants that becomes the driving force. it's logistics, realities, money, etc.

i'm not sure of the uncle's motivations to steer things a certain way [maybe someone owes him a fave?], but if there's a bond between the two, maybe there's hope for a change.

you guys certainly wouldn't be the first to experience this. hope it changes in your favor. but also, you have to ask yourselves if there's a reason for the uncle's desire to have a group of pros in there instead. maybe he doesn't feel you guys are cutting it, musically, or maybe he just has another vision for his nephew.

a tough sitch, either way.

buena suerte!

If the lead singer/songwriter really wants you to play on the recording, he should get another engineer.  

If the lead singer just wants to do what's best for his career and hires studio musicians, he doesn't care much about you guys.  Especially if hiring musicians makes you mad.  It'd make me mad.
Then you should quit.  There will always be other opportunities, and you did say his music was cheesy.  

That's the thing, man. Remember my post at the other forum? "Your drummer is outstanding on stage, but stage drummers aren't good on the studio. I can rise your music to the next level" - he wants to play the drum parts himself! >:(. Anyway, I could give him your phone... ;)      ;D

You are right, smoggy, this is a very nasty "welcome to the jungle" situation. About if the uncle trust in the band I have no doubt about it. The problem is that he is a Merenguero and we play rock. He knows he likes our music and our chemistry, but he doesn't feels with the ability of doing an accurate judgement because his lack of knowledge in this segment of the music industry. He even told us that when his orchestra was about to record their first CD their label did the same thing to them and that he had to go one-by-one of his guys to tell them.

He is the executive producer and everything is going to be done at his studio, but he do not want to be involved in the production process until the final product is ready for approval. He's leaving that to the his engineer (who, by the way is playing my parts almost exactly as I play them, except for some fills that he can't play - I know 'cause I've been there).

I may not understand the situation fully, but my first impression was that it may not be as bad as it seems, there in the thick of it.  It sounds to me like you've still got the gig, just not the recording session.  That sort of thing happens all the time, as Smogg pointed out... welcome to the "business" side of the music business.  I know it's hard not to, but try not to take it so personally.  It sounds like the singer/leader likes you and the other band mates just fine, but those on the recording side feel that things will go a lot smoother with more experienced studio musicians.   Like I said, I may not understand the issues fully, but that is the impression I got from your original post.  Best of luck with this.  Just keep the lines of communication open.  You never know what may evolve.
Peace.

I've have though about it seriously, but this could be the ticket for all of us. We are all in the same situation - it is too good to let it go without a fight, or a try.

I forgot something. Don't know how to take this, but the uncle/exec. prod. offered me the road manager gig because he knows how involved I've been with the band. He didn't knew that I have a degree in business administration. When I told him he just freaked about the idea. Sometimes I think about it as a "2^nd place ribbon", but it could be a good opportunity to acquire more knowledge about the industry. It could also be a good opportunity to apply my administrative skills. Just don't know.

Sad but true that musicians are replaced from the band with studio musicians all the time. I know one drummer locally that this happened to, and as it turns out I also know the guy they braught in to record his parts.

As Myles Goodwin of April Wine sings "rock and roll is a vicious game".

Friend of mine is in a similar deal. But he tells me, "I don't even have to play on the album. I only tour."  Given the music's "commercial viability" (read "cheesy"), that's not a bad thing.

While it's true that RUSH wouldn't be hiring a studio drummer to fill in, it's also my guess that RUSH wouldn't be signed if they were a new band today.

Rent the movie "Rock Star" and pay close attention to the part where Mark Wahlberg's character decides he's going to interject himself into the "creative process."

Rush did change drummers after their first album though....don't know why.

My limited understanding of the Nashville country scene is that it is fairly common practice for an artist to use studio players on an album and have a regular "band" as his road players.  I read in MD a while back that Tim McGraw broke this mold a few years ago by bringing his road band into the studio, finally, after having achieved the "Star Power" to make that call.  But this is the exception, not the rule.  But I'm no professional and only base this on what I've read in industry magazines.

I've been on both sides of this coin over the years. I've been replaced in the studio by more experienced session guys, and I've been the session guy called in to replace the live drummer. Once it happened in the middle of a session - I was called in to save the session, and was loading my gear in while the other guy was packing up - talk about awkward!

The key thing to determine is if this producer is the right guy to use for this project. If you determine that he is, do what he says, including letting him hire the musicians he wants. If not, thank him, and look for somebody else to work with.

But this is the reality of the music biz - when it comes down to spending money and making decisions, it can get mighty painful. MANY records use session guys, even when you think they don't.

Yeah, just ask Josh Freese for one...

He's played in the studio with Avril Lavigne, Evanescence and Puddle of Mudd to name just a few.  Sometimes, they hadn't hired a band yet, but sometimes the drummer just couldn't nail like he needed to.

Was hoping some of the big guys to show up. Thanks, Mr. A :)

The engineer/co-producer (because that's what he is supossed to be) teaches recording at the only college here in PR specialized on radio and tv technology. That, along with some other works, is what makes him so admired by the singer's uncle (executive producer of the cd and label owner). But maybe those are the only good qualities he has because is not an organized person, doesn't know how to be team player and has huge ego.

The other co-producer is our singer and the chores were divided by the executive producer like these: "you (engineer) will work all the technical aspects of the recording and you (singer/composer) will work with the music". But since the begining of the recording process the engineer has invaded our singer's zone. Instead of doing suggestions he gives orders and disrespects our singer criteria.

I'm not sure about what's the deal between the exc. prod. and the engineer, but I think they are partners on the studio. Maybe there's were attitude comes from; he might feel like the owner of the circus.

Last night we held a meeting as a band and our bassplayer almost quited. He said that if the production staff decided he wasn't good enough for recording because his isntrument wasn't top-notch he had no guarantee they would think of him as good enough for playing live. So, he asked to be seen as a hired gun.

We explained that if we "jumped into the wagon" it was because of the recording promise - something that seems to be very unlikely to happen right now. It was our goal to be credited on the CD for our participation, but now we were demoted to be just the touring band and that wasn't fair because we colaborated on the development of the songs.

We were very enfatic about wanting to record and signaled most of the failures and weird things that are being commited with this production by the engineer to achieve some not-so-clear goals of his, as getting instruments borrowed from a friend for a very limited time (which now are only available for rent) and propossing friends of his to be hired for the sessions. He also has a very conflicting schedule (specially with mine) and didn't brought anything for the bass player (pro-bass/amp); very strange considering he bruoght the perfect guitars/amps and a $3K DW set for the session. What percentage ($) is he getting from these friends aside from what he is going get from his work? This is business and businesses can get very dirty.

I asked our singer for the registration of our trademark and incorporation of the band. I told him he could be the only ownner of the band or give us some participation, but we need to have that written to prevent similar situations in the future. He agreed. Also managed to talk with the exc. producer about his offer for the road-managing gig. We agreed to meet next week to discuss his business plan and my duties as Road Mngr.

I still have my "2^nd place" ribbon but as our bassplayer said, all he got was kick on the butt. That's how we feel about all this.

Explain to me why I'm wrong about this:

It's like any job.  If your employers make it clear they're willing to dump you the instant they think they can find someone better, return the favour and dump your employers the instant you find something better.  Until then, toe the line.

From what I've seen, drummers get ripped off more than any other musicians.  They share all the hard work to get an act going, then they're replaced by studio drummers when it's time to record, then they're replaced by session players as soon as an act takes off.

If that's the path you're on, perhaps you should concentrate on becoming a session player instead of putting a lot of energy into a specific band.

After all, if you're not involved in the recording, you're not part of the band.  You're just hired help.  Unless you're getting real money, you're getting hosed.

It isn't just a gig/job; we were a band. We are friends no matter if this thing is going on because it wasn't our fault; it was an administrative decision. Thats the hard part of it: we still have to work together in this if we want to remain a band. But what about our feelings? Being a band is not only doing a gig and getting paid. It's being a team, a family and respecting each other. We hang at each other houses, our wives knows each other and get along very well, and this isn't the first time we face an obstacle; but it certainly has been the dificultiest one.

We all have our day jobs and side projects but this one was our baby. We raised it from being just a guy with some funny songs to a band that has an amazing chemistry. Know it is falling apart.

Swallow it or spit it... they aren't leaving any other options.

I guess the main diference is the points of view of the parts. Obviously, you see the project as a band with a singer, and maybe the engineer sees it as a singer with a back up band.

If that's the point of view of the engineer, then the band musicians are non-important factors in the recording project, since they are the live band. Looking it that way, the "band" should not have a problem being substituded in the studio for session musicians. The "band" was merely contracted for the specific job of supporting the singer in a live situation.

Since you think of it as a band WITH a singer, then it's only logical that the band should do the recording sessions. At least the band should be given the oportunity to record, and if something goes wrong, and the specific musician is not cotting it, then his part can be played by a session guy.

since the recording session are on a hiatus at the moment, maybe you can work thing out to the band benefict, and they can, at least, get the oportunity to try.

Pipus

You nailed it, Tony.  And I'm not here to judge anyone, but that's just the way it works, most of the time.  My artist always used studio cats in Nashville every time he recorded, and we always play the live shows.  Check out the names of the players on most albums:  you will see names like Brent Mason, Paul Franklin, Eddie Bayers, etc. on the majority of them.  It is very rare to see an artist use his road band on a major recording.  Nothing against the road band at all, it's just the fact that the "A" team studio players are seasoned veterans of studio work, and time = money, when you are writing the check for session work and studio time (I'm betting that Bart will agree on this).  Most of the studio cats can listen to a scratch track, make a few notes, and record a hit tune in two takes, whereas a "live" player who is not seasoned, studio-wise, might take longer to do the same thing.  His/her playing talent might be the same as the studio cat, but his/her ability to get it done, and done quickly, with no or at least very few re-takes, is paramount to the recording business.  

I have no problems with the fact that I'm not on any of my artist's recordings.  Sure, it would be nice, but, like I said before, that's just the way it works.

And FWIW, I'm not new to the recording studio - I've done tons of session work, but not for a major artist  And I will admit:  it probably does take me a little longer to get a good track down down than someone like, say, Eddie Bayers.  Having said that, I certainly won't EVEN compare myself to Eddie, he's top rate, IMO.

My recommendation for dannydrumperc would be to hang tight for awhile and see what happens.  You might still be winners, and not even know it yet.  Whatever you do, don't let your egos overrule your common sense - it's been the kiss of death for many musicians who thought otherwise.

Good luck,
drumz1

One other thing: if you do go through with the notion of using session musicians, the bandmembers who get replaced should go to the sessions and watch and learn first-hand how the pros who replaced them handle the session. I did that the first time it happened to me, and learned a lot. And I've had drummers who I replaced sit in on the sessions and watch me, too.

Tim McGraw's drummer, who has played with Tim for twelve years, finally got to play on the latest TM record. But before doing so, he followed around the session drummer who usually does Tim's records, to see how he handled sessions. That was both a humble and smart thing to do.

This is really easy to figure out. The uncle is paying for his favorite nephew to cut a record. His money, his say. If the band was paying, they could ignore everybody's advice and make all the decisions. As a label owner, its also his say as to who he offers a record contract to--a band or an individual artist. The only thing to be concerned about is to protect the performers and writers rights.    

Exactly.  This is being described as a solo artist project.

If you're working for a solo artist and you're not getting a salary and you're not getting any share in potential royalties and you're not getting any writing credit, exactly what are you getting for all your hard work?


I'm assuming that drummer got paid for his time during those 12 years.  No?


There's always the chance you guys can rewrite the rules later if the record helps the band take off.

Thanks to everyone. Very good advises so far.

My point has always been that this guy is managing everything to his favor and has not given us a fair try. He thinks we have no or very limited recording experience, which is my situation, but our bass player has recorded on almost every major studio in PR - TV & radio ads, jingles, demos, soloist singer projects (both secular and Christian); something this guy ignores because he didn't even asked. He simply wants to do it his way or no way.

John Rutsey bowed out because he was diabetic and didn't want the rigors of the road to upset his health.

Is what you'll gain from the recording worth it?  After all, you might be disappointed, but you're not really losing anything by letting your singer record a solo album, are you?

That's the main reason I told him to registrate our trademark and incorporate the band ;)

We don't have bass player anymore, or that's what I understand.

I talked to "our" singer on Saturday (his BD) and our bass player called him just before me. He congratulated Tony (our singer) and asked how was going everything with the recording and when was he scheduled. Tony told him that his tracks were already done by someone else the day before, to what he responded "so you don't have a band" and hanged the phone.

If I get the road manager gig, he will be my first call for bass. He was also our back-up vocalist for choruses and lead in some covers. I'll make him the best offer possible.

I'm also pushing Tony to hurry on the registration/incorporation of the band. I know that things will be smoother as soon as we get control over that. Tony is not a businessman. He is also very emotional. I know I can manage all this to end as frictionless as possible.

---

I received an email from a guy inviting me to join a band. He seems to be the guitarist and leader of the project, which is composed of members of some very respect broken bands in our local scene.

…

Told Tony about the email. I think he shocked/frightened 'cause he didn't talked too much after that. I smoothed it a bit by saying that it could be a good chance if I contacted them and use them as back-up band (along with some others we know) for a promotional tour sponsored by some liquor distributor or something - that's assuming I get the road manager gig. He liked the idea (although I felt him still a bit cold  ;D).

Our bassist is still quite upset. He will record the back-up vocals, as I will do the percussion, but that wasn't the agreement when we joined the project.

I have some other oportunities... nothing concrete but they are there; and I want him to know he isn't the last soda in the desert and that if he wants a band he has to fight for it, or he will loose it.

To be harsh, it sounds like the singer has already made up his mind to do whatever it takes to get a record made, and that includes dumping his band.

All I can say is if you co-wrote any of the material get it in writting. After that suck it up and move on. Personally I couldn't take the road manager stint. Has the distinct aroma of a buy out, and I would feel like I was "giving it" to the other band members.

You gotta do what's right for you, but that's my cent and a half worth.

"Isnt it a pity, isnt it a shame
No one ever warned the boy
Rock n roll is a vicious game, oh yeah"

April Wine

Okay, I'll pipe up, even though I have almost no professional experience. 

This whole saga sounds like pretty typical and quite reasonable music business practice.  It sounds like you've allowed Business to mutate into Politics.  I agree with those who make a distinction between studio work and live work.  They are two very different disciplines, and while you may be a great studio drummer, the powers that be in this situation don't know that and they don't care.  Time and money is of the essence, and they are going to go with the proven commmodity.

You may have been a band for a little while, but maybe not.  If you haven't played in front of an audience much, then I suspect that you weren't, because a band is forged on stage, not in the practice space.  If you can make peace with your role as a hired gun for live performance, and the "road manager" gig, then you may be able to turn this into other opportunities.  Once this project is off the launching pad, you'll be able to network and make contacts with other musicians, club owners, booking agents, A&R folk, etc.  Personally, I would jump at the chance to perform in any capacity with a professional act.  It's all about building your resume and growing as a musician and expanding your skill set.  Think about it.

Slim