Teamwork. Or not

[entanglement]

Which configuration suits creativity in a band better? One head who writes everything, gives the whole sound its shape.. or all members coming to the table and jotting down musical ideas together? Or maybe is it entirely dependant on the kind of personality the band has.. one works well for one and the other might be suited better for another.

Historically, the one think tank man in the center kind of bands have been the ones inventing newer sounds and sparking genres. Black Sabbath.. Iomi wrote most of the music (I think), Bathory, Burzum, Death?, then there's Nirvana (for grunge, and who basically put an end to metal's domination in my eyes). Opeth reigns supreme as one of the front runners in metal today. What works better in your eyes? An image of a final sound in one guy's head coming to life as the end product? Or people sitting at a table putting pieces together to write songs resulting in a rather different picture from the ones initially intended by all?

Your thoughts.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think occasionally individual participation and collaboration yields more creative results. Pink Floyd and Genesis both suffered turmoil among their members, and at the height of its peak (the few years before the members went their separate ways) each group produced some of its best material, in my opinion.

 

[Zephyrus]

The majority of good bands, I'd say, are the result of one man handling the majority of the songwriting. Therefore, more solo bands are successful than bands with a democratic songwriting process.

That said, I give my hat to the two-man bands like Limbonic Art, in which the potential of teamwork most easily pays off.

 

[Einherjar86]

The majority of good bands, I'd say, are the result of one man handling the majority of the songwriting. Therefore, more solo bands are successful than bands with a democratic songwriting process.

That said, I give my hat to the two-man bands like Limbonic Art, in which the potential of teamwork most easily pays off.

I think bands with a central songwriter can be excellent bands and write incredible songs, but I think the sound is often more static than bands with multiple members contributing material. Bands with a central writer usually stay together longer, but this isn't always better. Bands in which all or several of the members contribute usually lead to turmoil, but with pleasant side effects for fans.

 

[Zephyrus]

I think bands with a central songwriter can be excellent bands and write incredible songs, but I think the sound is often more static than bands with multiple members contributing material. Bands with a central writer usually stay together longer, but this isn't always better. Bands in which all or several of the members contribute usually lead to turmoil, but with pleasant side effects for fans.

The fact that there is a huge diversity of band governments makes up for any shortcomings of individual ones.

 

[entanglement]

That said, I give my hat to the two-man bands like Limbonic Art, in which the potential of teamwork most easily pays off.

I just HAD to mention Darkthrone here.. one of the most consistant and brilliant bands of the entire BM subsection.

I think having lesser members in a band in the writing process gives room to experimentalisation. Most 'inventions' or developments, if you may, are more often works of a least possible number of heads, if not one. In order for creativity to REALLY be 'creativity', one-writer IS the way to go. All members throwing stuff in results in bands writing material along the same formula, because that's the safest bet in an environment that doesnt allow a personal expansion of thought and hence, true artistic expression.

There's no-one to say 'No' to a man working by himself but himself.

 

[Zephyrus]

Once you hit the 3+ songwriter mark, sacrifices tend to be made. I myself am in a two-man band with Cookiecutter, and I see our songwriting never as a compromise of ideas, but rather a synthesis. Nick writes all the guitar lines, while I combine them with my own ideas in terms of drumming, bass-work and vocals. Neither member exerts his influence over the other's area of the process. Rather, we draw from our own influences. For me, I look to bands like Mysticum and Behexen, while Nick looks to Krieg and I Shalt Become.

 

[entanglement]

That's how it must work like in those great duos mentioned before too, and I'm glad that it works for you that way. Your writing processes must always be a good time spent.

I do think though, that metal's crowded by personalities who probably do not tend to get along as well.

 

[genocide roach]

i think someone was reading my review of the jeff martin cd!

anyways, collaboration is the best. you can generate more ideas with more people, and then get opinions on whatever you come up with.
~gR~

 

[Matt]

Depends on the type of music imo. In a lot of progressive bands, the members all write their own parts to the songs, like in Yes. It seems that in most metal bands there's usually one person with the songwriting ideas.

 

[AchrisK]

I tend to think it is good to have more than one person influencing the music writing process, but to have one dominant seems probably good.

I am not a musician, and I am not sure I could write a lot of riffs, but I feel like I could join up with a person who writes average to good riffs and songs, and I could take what they have started with and bring it more to life with ideas like build and release, variation of a theme, and other ways to make basic starting riffs into compelling music.

 

[Einherjar86]

i think someone was reading my review of the jeff martin cd!

Jeff Martin of The Tea Party, or the American Jeff Martin?

 

[viewerfromnihil]

i prefer bands with one primary song writer but even then occasionally the other guitarist will participate and drums can make or break a song.

 

[A1a23]

I'll have to agree that more creativity is yielded by a single song writer rather than that of multiple song writers. With multiple song writers, it's much harder to fuse different creative ideas from more than one person, bc different people's ideas don't always match well.

 

[Omni]

I think that bands with multiple members contributing have to potential to be the most creative, until they decide to fight amongst themselves.

 

[Zephyrus]

Depends on the type of music imo. In a lot of progressive bands, the members all write their own parts to the songs, like in Yes. It seems that in most metal bands there's usually one person with the songwriting ideas.

Is it safe to say that the more technical the music is, there more it benefits from multiple songwriters?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'll have to agree that more creativity is yielded by a single song writer rather than that of multiple song writers. With multiple song writers, it's much harder to fuse different creative ideas from more than one person, bc different people's ideas don't always match well.

I actually think that that's what forces a band to strive to be more creative. They have to find creative ways to blend their specific styles and techniques.

 

[genocide roach]

I am not a musician, and I am not sure I could write a lot of riffs, but I feel like I could join up with a person who writes average to good riffs and songs, and I could take what they have started with and bring it more to life with ideas like build and release, variation of a theme, and other ways to make basic starting riffs into compelling music.

ive written many riffs after hearing a bandmate's ideas. and i think thats how alot of songs get written
~gR~

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Yep...that is called inspiration and artists of all kinds utilize it to create what they create. Music is no different, of course, and I think it depends on the band and what they are trying to achieve sonically and artistically to judge the best way of writing songs.

 

[ShadarLogoth]

I think more than one person collaborating is good for a band, even if your the main songwriter you need a person you can trust to show the riffs, or full arrangement to, and get an honest opinion on whether it sucks or not.