stonerrocklives.com

Wondering how many members is "optimal" for you?

I like 3 (no more than 4) and I prefer the person who sings also plays an instrument.

I went with 3.
4 would be okay though.

I went with 4.  3 is perfect, but I figure the fourth could play keyboards/guitar.

Completely depends on what kind of music is intended to be played.

Doom... Obviously you can get away with two, especially as a live act. If you're a studio act, then you could do just yourself, especially if you're a talented bloke. Personally, I wouldn't do more than four, because then the music may become muddled if you squeeze more than four in, especially if everyone plays instruments.

Other kinds of music can be the same way, if they're Prog, then want to be a live act, you could do three, like Rush, who uses a lot of midi to keep their music full and all that, of you could easily be a ten piece Prog band. Or you could still be a one-man-band if you're not interested in being a live act.

Lots of stuff could affect change on how many members there are in a band. =P

I immediately clicked on one because in a perfect world I wouldnt have to rely on anyone else. but its not true, I need at least a couple depnds on teh band, but I am partial to power troikas

I've been in bands from 2-5 members and 3 is the correct answer for me, but I'll take whatever ya know.

I put 2 but I do like trios.

But 2 peoples bullshit is better than 3 peoples bullshit.

The fewer the better.

At least 4.  Drums, Bass and 2 Guitars for those sweet Thin Lizzy solos.

I put four.  For arranging stuff and getting decisions made and scheduling rehearsal and shows/tours etc., then yes the fewer the better.  But I like having two guitars.  It opens up a lot of arrangement ideas, and is more fun to play in for me.  I've done trios before too, and I'm not knocking them or saying that a two guitar band is better than a one guitar band.  I'm saying for me personally, I like playing with another guitarist.  Have done the four piece with lead singer thing before too, and would be very reluctant to do it again.  Dude was an asshole, and wasn't that great of a singer besides.  For me now, if you're gonna be just a singer, you better have PIPES... and if not, get lost.  I wouldn't rule out going up to a 5 piece or more to play with some other instruments though... keys or horns or something would be cool.

Wow, long winded.  Four.  I like four.

I'd say five. For me when I picture the ideal badass rock band I think of two guitars, bass, drums, and lead singer. It's just gonna give you the most options as far as composition and stage presence. It's a really hard thing to do to get that many members together and on the road but if you can manage it I think some of the greatest rock n roll bands of all time had that format. I've always been in duos just me on guitar and a drummer and I really wish I could fill out a lineup but I'm a teenager and most kids my age just can't play any of my riffs.

Anything without a standalone singer. Probably due to growing up around hardcore bands I've developed some kind of aversion to the sort, you have to be really good to make it work and the way I see it is I haven't come cross many dudes/dudettes who can fully pull it off like Robert Plant or Ozzy. I play in a trio myself and I really like it. It's very quick and we know each other very well, including ones faults. 2 guitars only if you do the dual guitar melody thing, if you're playing the same riff, fuck off (case in point: a lot of hardcore bands).

I really grew to like two when we lost our bass player. Three is the correct answer for me, but with a bit of retooling of the tunes, two would be just right, too.

Quote from: zachoff on January 27, 2012, 03:02:41 PM
Wondering how many members is "optimal" for you?

I like 3 (no more than 4) and I prefer the person who sings also plays an instrument.

+1

Anymore than three people is a huge pain in the ass. Plus I am not a big fan of two guitar player bands.

If you do go four, and have a singer that only sings.... than that person had better be really really awesome. Personally I've yet to ever come across anyone like that (which is why I've always sang and played bass)

Quote from: Chovie D on January 27, 2012, 03:46:35 PM
I immediately clicked on one because in a perfect world I wouldnt have to rely on anyone else. but its not true, I need at least a couple depnds on teh band, but I am partial to power troikas

When I was reading your post I was saying the same thing to myself and then it dawn on me...the only reason I've played in bands is because I rely on others to play different instruments.  It rarely feels like a purely collaborative process.  It's sadly, usually less than the sum of the parts and more like the sum of one persons ideas and the abilities of the others to execute the idea.  While it seems logical that having everyone truly contributing in all aspects of the writing/performing process it also seems far too often that too many chefs spoil the broth.  In addition to my new band I'm also going to try and start a purely solo project.  Not just a studio one but one I could play live...I'm doubtful it'll work but that's my standard state of mind so that's nothing special. 

In my experience, it is rare that true democratic collaboration in a band ends up being much more than a homogenization of ideas.

However many it takes to make music you love.

this many is a good number..

i went with 3. but in the music i make, there are really no solos and the vocals are what the bass player refers to as "caterwauling" . . .

Three members for me.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Strictly musically speaking, more is potentially better (Allman Bros, etc) but factoring in personal relations, drama, financial horseshit, less is obviously gonna be better....
     I always preferred two guitarists over one, and definitely prefer the vocalist play an instrument if possible.

There are great examples of every combo, of course

There is no right answer. 1 person who sings and plays guitar through 2 amps with a drum machine can be done live. They have complete control but have a lot of gear to set up and will sound minimal. 6 with a dedicated and really good singer, bass player, 2 guitar players, a drummer, and a keyboard/other instruments player can potentially write super complex layered stuff but I can't imagine trying to get 6 people together for band practice and gigs. In the winter somebody would almost always be sick and miserable or unable to play. I've been doing the 2 piece metal thing for awhile but am now interested in making it a 3 for a more full sound.

For heavy rock I think 3 instruments is best, metal works best with 3 or 4, psychedelic rock 1 guitar player maybe a keyboard player too, progressive anything 3+.

When I think "rock band" or "metal band" in my head I tend to envision 3 or 4 people on stage in various combinations but OM is great as a 2 piece and The Grateful Dead did well with 7.

Quote from: liquidsmoke on January 28, 2012, 04:17:01 PM
There is no right answer.

Applauded.

I LOVE a solid 3 piece band(bass, guitar, drums) , especially where the vocal duty is shared. 4 piece is ok if there is keys , guitar , sax, etc being added. I am not found of a frontman doesn't play anything but there are exceptions to that rule. Neil Fallon from Clutch has started to play guitar in the last few years but was just a singer prior and he most definitely held up his end of the band. Those guys are few and far between however. Its always easier WITHOUT the lead singer type, that being said my current project has a lead singer!

And of course you have Ozzy and Plant....again those are HUGE exceptions to he rule.

3 is best it's hard enough to coordinate 3 people one more and you always have the "one guy that can never make it to practice"

As few as you can get away with

As many as you need to properly deliver the material, and no more than that

That might be 1 or it might be a whole orchestra

I prefer power trios to the 2 guitar and separate singer-type bands i was in when i was younger

I can't really see myself working with more than one other person. I don't have the patience. Maybe if it was the right group... Nah.

Quote from: neighbor664 on January 27, 2012, 04:27:17 PM
The fewer the better.

Exactly right  :)

The more the merrier. That way, bills are split up among more people and if one person flakes out and leaves the band for any/no reason, it is less of a hardship. I'm going through this right now with our guitarist quitting out of nowhere and this is the umpteenth time this has happened to me and I really resent it. I'd rather have two guitarists for that reason.

Also - and not only because I'm a stand-alone singer - I don't think singers are less likely to phone it in if they are also playing an instrument; if anything, they're more likely. I've played bass and sang at the same time and it's hard to put in the same energy level when you're doing that as you do when you're just holding a mic. If your singer sucks, it's not because he doesn't (or does) play an instrument; it's because he sucks.

Also, more people = more people to help carry shit. I was in a 2 person band (now three people) with a guy who has a bad back, and can't really carry anything (or pay for anything). More people to help load equipment is nice. Two people can be a little severe, if there are stairs involved, bad backs/knees, alcohol, etc.