I actually just talked about this in a comment attached to another blog post, but I figured I would go ahead and talk about it here too.
One of my goals next year, aside from releasing an album (probably near the end of the year) and getting a band together to play out (something that has never worked in the past - but if I want to do what I want to do bad enough I'll have to make it work), is to actually form a sort of.... "coalition".... of bands that play out together.
You've probably seen "That Thing You Do," and if you have, you've noticed that the Oneders ("got it - Oh-Need-Ers") are more or less on a bill with other bands on the same label as they tour fairs across the country (if I recall... been a while). Or, in "Walk the Line", Cash shares a bill with Elvis, along the same concept lines.
My Coalition idea (I call it, tentatively, the "Coalition of the Willing") is more or less the same. I'm sure other bands in other areas (maybe even here) already do it, so I'm not trying to claim any originality in the concept. The idea is simply to get at least 3 bands together (including mine, ideally) and form a sort of larger support group with them that more or less supports each other and plays on the same bill with each other. If it worked, it would do a lot of things:
1). As long as all bands involved can do so, the idea would be that you wouldn't have to scramble and stress to find bands to fill a bill that you're trying to play. You already know you've got two (according to whatever gentlemen's agreement you've made, and assuming they can actually do it), and if you need to fill out more, you've got 3 bands already looking to fill that space with 1 or more on top of that. If it worked, that would cut the workload down substantially, and limit stress. Not only that, but if you have 3 different bands (with, let's say at least 3 different people in each) looking for gigs, you've just tripled (more or less) your capabilities in getting gigs, because, again, any gig they get, you're on too automatically (unless you just can't do it for some reason).
2). That "just can't do it" thing actually does come into play. Because, ideally, and if you can afford the time, different members of these Coalition bands can act as understudies or stand-ins in the case that someone can't play in another band. (that's of course, if you're willing - I would be). Think about it - it makes complete sense. What if you just scored a great gig, and you're assuming the automatic attachment of those two other Coalition bands comes into play but now, because the bass player is out, they can't do it and you'd have to scramble to find another band despite the fact that everyone else in said band is able and willing to play? Now your gig could be entirely jeopardized. Isn't it in your best interest to have someone available to fill that spot as a stand-in for them? That is of course assuming said band is willing to allow that.
3). Which leads to another point - sharing of rehearsal space, gear, and resources. I obviously wouldn't say that this is mandatory, but it does make sense if someone is short a bass amp or a microphone, or one of the bands needs a place to rehearse, even if temporarily. Everyone has their own equipment and, like me, I would assume they wouldn't be huge fans of sharing unless it was absolutely necessary (but that's the point - if it was, it's there). And as for rehearsal space, which is hard to come by as it is, now you'd theoretically only need one space, not three. This also becomes very helpful if one is to act as a stand-in for someone else. I think in some ways it might also help in such a way that you now have other "trusted" ears in on your writing and rehearsal sessions besides your own. No one says you have to do what others suggest, but to have some other ears you trust there (and... well you must trust these people, you've just created a working business model with them), is always helpful. We're not talking passers-by or friends that are there to bug you or tell you what they think - we're talking about other trusted musicians that you play out with, even if they're not in your band.
4). On the note of sharing resources, you have also sharing connections, sharing tips and pointers, helping each other load in and out. Having familiar faces and a built in support group. Honestly, I think that's really helpful. Every band has their own support group - friends, helpers, assistants etc. Now put them all together and now you have essentially a giant support group that you're sharing among 3 different bands (if they're willing). It practically guarantees people are there to see your show, and helps with word-of-mouth. The more supporters, the more new or consistent fans (friends of followers etc). And when your support group is out inviting people to the show, they're not only talking about the band they normally support, but yours as well. You've now tripled your street team, in a way.
5). Which leads to this point. Any fans that come in are, theoretically, going to be watching all three bands. Maybe not at first, but as the recognition grows, (that being that wherever one band is, ideally so are the other two, so even if "fans" aren't there initially to see the other two bands, they eventually will understand that they will always be there), those fans will stick around, and the numbers will only grow. Theoretically, of course. Additionally, when this happens - or even before - it will become known as the word spreads that wherever "so and so" is playing, "those guys" and "that other band" will be there too. Almost like, over time, it's just assumed that you're getting a three-shot of bands... like they're a show unto themselves. In one sense, I could see this maybe hurting some egos, but in another sense, I see it greatly improving numbers, feedback, and what-not - which in my estimation trumps the ego-bruising (if there is any to begin with). I could care less if I'm the "most sought-after" act on any bill. Sometimes I'm going to be the first band, sometimes the last - that's the point. Everyone gets their turn, and everyone helps.
Personally, I admit that my ego could, in some ways, be hurt. I have one. I'm human. I feel I have a dandy product that could take over the world if positioned right. But I also realize that everyone thinks that. And I also realize that if I believe I'm right about my work, then they do too - about theirs. And if I am actually right, so are they. It's just logic. Therefore, why not consolidate and work together to make that a reality?
Who cares if the music is a little different - isn't that sort of the point? Why would people watch 3 bands that all sound exactly alike? Why wouldn't they just watch one that plays longer if that's the case? Doesn't it make more sense to make a sort of "show" of three bands that are a bit different from each other, so people always know just by going that they have a variety, and yet, a familiarity?
I dunno... maybe this sounds too ideal, or too utopian or hippy-like. To me though, it just makes logical sense. Because the truth is, being a musician is hard. Especially an unsigned one. And I really don't want to be signed right now. I'm not saying everyone involved in this Coalition would have to feel that way - even wanting to be signed doesn't make you signed. There's still a reality of not being signed that's involved. And I don't think one band, with one figurehead, or even all hands on deck, can do it all alone. That's too much. I see how hard Michele works and I think - you know what, she doesn't need to do all of that herself. She gets it done, and kudos! But what if it were a little bit easier? What if it was okay to lean on some other people you can depend on - knowing it'll come back around and being okay with that too? What if rather than one band sharing amongst themselves, 3 bands shared amongst each other? In some ways I see that being harder to organize - more heads to count - but I see all the really difficult stuff (like being short an amp, being short a band, being short a man, being short on time to promote, being short on people to help) being taken care of - because two other bands are always there to help fill the gap, and the chances of 3 full bands not having anyone available or any resources at the same time are extremely slim. Wouldn't three bands going to Atlanta stand a better chance of organizing and planning and road-tripping than one? If one band of the three was doing an album release party - which obviously would include the other two bands - wouldn't that guarantee faces in the crowd? Wouldn't that guarantee support?
Obviously there's a genuinity that comes into this - are you really part of this Coalition to help yourself, or do you really care about these other bands, and what these other musicians are trying to do? Do you really care about their success? I'm not saying care about it as much or more than your own, but do you care enough about it to expect the same kind of care and attention back? Because, look, if you don't care that much about those other guys, don't expect them to care about you. Seriously. Again, it's logic. If you don't care, it's quite logical to expect that maybe they don't either. It always begins with you.
So... I suppose that means the invite is on the table. Anyone up for an experiment in 2009?
I sure as hell am!
Merry Christmas!
Ender