What Is The Exact Number Of Band Members To Make A Great Band?

4

Rhythm guitar, lead guitar, bass guitar, drums. (The singer can be any of those players.)

No need for keyboards, sax player, frontman, two drummers...that's all nonsense.

4 is the correct answer. Just ask John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

 

5

 

"All hail the Beatles on the SHMF!!"

If four is indeed the "magic number", with those precise instruments, then why did they do so much overdubbing?

 

If you were given 8 tracks, would you only use just four?

 

3 to 6

 

But, that wasn't what you proclaimed. You said that four instruments was the "magic number". Therefore, no need to ever overdub anything else.

 

4

If the band gets 100 bucks for a gig, four guys earn $25 each. Bring in a fifth guy and now you only make $20.

And don't say three then would be better. Three guys have to work harder than 4. Four is the perfect number. You don't have to work as hard and you earn more money.

 

somewhere between 2 and 15

 

It is part of the question. Bands play live gigs and bands record in a studio.
Four is the right number for both.

 

Having been in over a dozen bands, my "perfect band" would be the following:
Lead singer
Lead guitar
Rhythm guitar
Bass Guitar
Keyboard
Drums

I'be been in a few three piece bands and, though it's doable, it takes a degree of skill and commitment that is not all that common. Music doesn't pay enough these days to justify that kind of commitment.

 

'The Fab Five' sounds a bit daft. So I'll go with 4.

 

2 causes problems. Just ask Art Garfunkel or Wham's Andrew Ridgeley.
15 means everybody but the lead singer is broke. Just ask the trombone player in Chicago.

 

5 is the correct answer. Just ask John, Paul, George, Ringo and Billy.

 

1

And it's Damon Albarn.

 

6

The Association, Spanky and Our Gang, Rotary Connection, The Love Generation

 

If the lead singer doesn’t play you need five (Stones). If your singers play (Beatles) four will do.

 

Nowadays, if you are in it for money, you're doing it wrong.

 

...The right number.

 

Lead singer can handle either rhythm or lead guitar. Keys are not necessary. This is rock and roll music we are talking about, not Mozart music. That brings the number back to four.

You echo my thoughts about three piece. Too much work.

 

3... Guitar, Bass, and Drums. The singer could be any one of those as well.

4 if you want to add a synth/keyboard though one of the other 3 could play that in the studio.

 

Yep. I'm with you on that. My ideal is six, but if one (or more) of the other musicians can play their instrument, sing lead, and be a good front man, five will work. That's pretty rare, though.

 

But, since they used saxes, keyboards, string, horns, etc on their albums, that renders your point moot right there. If four instruments are all that you feel is needed, then they should never have overdubbed a single extra instrument, since you feel any other instruments are superfluous.

 

You ever hear of a guy named Jerry Lee Lewis? Or another fellow named Little Richard?

 

Is there really any other reason to make a record other than try to make some money.

My God, Elvis went in to the recording studio for the first time ever in order to record a song for his momma. But we all later found out that Elvis was really messed up in the head. Everybody else goes into a recording studio to cut a record hoping to make some dough. Not Elvis...that mama's boy went into the studio to make a record for his momma.

And to be fair to Elvis, even he wised up after cutting that record for Gladys. Money. Make lots of money. Money for nothing.

 

You can have a great band with two