Originally posted by MadGuitarest
EVeryone except me and finger cruncher and the other guy think that we are trying to sound bossy.
Ok, don't pull me into this. I didn't say I even necessarily agreed with you, but rather was offering suggestions based upon what you said. Admittedly, while I can relate to something similar to the situation you described, my current situation is more complex and convoluted than that. I certainly am not of the general opinion that bands should be lead by dictators. Collaborative writing between band mates can be very productive.
However, one must look at all the facts before making judgement-calls. In my case, I write the tunes (more specifically, I write the riffs, melodies, etc. and let the bassist and drummer create their own parts), I write practically all the lyrics, I am the frontman/singer (and do a pretty decent job), perform all the guitar solos, and I originally formed the band (8 years ago). I consider my band-mates to be quite talented individuals and they have complete discretion to compliment my writing with their own unique styles, and furthermore, I'm not unopen to criticism. If you take all of these factors into consideration, you can see that I don't harbour a black & white concept of leadership.
I'm also open for ideas from the band mates. The problem is, nothing would get done if I waited for them. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE if they wrote stuff. It would certainly take some pressure off my back. However, despite their technical proficiency, they seem to never have any creative ideas without a kick-start from me. As I've said before, it's easy to sit back and criticise my efforts, but when the tables are turned, the same critics often have nothing to offer. Criticism must be constructive to be effective.
Lastly, I can say with confidence (and still trying to maintain humbleness) that I'm very proud of my guitar ability and consider it one of the main assets of my band. My motto is: If you have it, why not use it? I'm probably one of the better guitarists in Vancouver, but I know my place and I've never carried myself like an arrogant cock. I don't turn my nose up to other bands or people...heck, except on stage, I'm a pretty humble guy. In this business, if you don't portray confidence on stage, you'll be eaten alive.
Anyways, there's certainly nothing wrong with using either a leadership type of approach or a collaborative type of approach inside of bands. Both can work. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with naming a band after yourself. It prevents confusion/arguments later on between band mates. Tons of artists use their own name (ie. Clapton, Vai, Satch, Sarah McLaughlin, Al De Meola, Bryan Adams, Alanis Morrisette, Avril Levigne, etc.) The big point I have tried to establish here is that there's a difference between being a leader and being a prick. Yes, I don't think it would be very fun being in a band where the leader completely disregarded your ideas or input altogether.
That's my 2 cents.