[Harp-L] Musical democracy, or harp-centricism?

["Bob Laughlin" <rlaughlin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Granted, this is a harmonica-centric list. However, in relation to bands, there are bands that put the harp center stage, as if to show the world that hamonica is cool, which it is, or that the harmonica player is cool, which he/she is, and there are bands in which the harmonica is an integral part of the sound, but not necessarily the central factor for the band's existence. One of the drawbacks, I would say, with any band that has an amazingly talented member, recognized for his/her astounding skill on a particular instrument, is that that band tends to become merely a showcase for that talent, and takes on, at least potentially, the characteristics of a circus side-show, with the "bearded lady", or the "elephant man", who is to all observers, the "main draw", rather than just simply a talented member in a band of talented members.

Bands like "The Band", "The Eagles", "Fleetwood Mac", "The Beatles", etc.,,bands in which there appears to be a more democratic, or tempered approach, in which, at various times, each member stands out, shining with approximately equal intensity to the rest, trading places being in the spotlight,,these bands take on a life, and a synergy that exemplifies the saying, "The whole is more than merely the sum of its parts." 

Bands, on the other hand, in which there is an individual who "outshines the rest", or is, perhaps, the "raison d'etre" for the band's very existence,,these bands not only put an extra burden on the central figure to be "always on", but can lead eventually to a premature burn-out. It's always healthy, in this respect, for a band to evolve into a democracy, rather than merely a showcase for one individual.

Unfortunately, some harp-centric bands seem to have only "one star", and a few side-men. That's fine, and there really are no "laws" saying it can't, or shouldn't be done. All of the stars do not shine equally bright, in the night sky. Music is not, or doesn't have to be a socialistic enterprise, or even a democratic, where there is the necessity to share, or to have the principle of "checks and balances". In some cases, democracies are a very ineffective form of government, especially when nothing gets done because agreements are hard to come by. A more effective system for a band is to have a strong, but beneficent leader, who is willing to share the glory, and the responsibility of leadership with others. This, I would think, would also lessen the tremendous load the individual must feel, if he or she is the "headliner". Burn-outs can happen, but I would guess that they happen less frequently when the load, as well as the glory, is a shared one.

I would imagine that the greatest joy a band member could feel would be that of being encouraged to shine as brightly as the headliner. John Mayall comes to mind. Bands like his have spun off several "stars" with "solar systems" of their own, as the "headliner" just continues doing his thing, as a member of the band. Sure, he played showcase harp at times, but that's not all the band was about.

BL