Off Message

Do you really need all these people?
Current mood: thoughtful

I’m becoming deeply suspicious of bands with too many members in them. Caught the end of a band called Annuals last night, supporting The National at the Astoria. Annuals had maybe six or seven people in the band, and predictably made a self-indulgent Arcade fucking Fire-style pig’s ear of things. The National had six band members, which again was probably too many for the mumbly morose half-arsed noise they make. See also here Arcade Fire themselves, Guillemots (live at least) and seemingly every other sodding band from Canada at the moment.

For me, three or four members is the optimum for a band. Merely having two members is a bit odd, a bit unfamiliar, although still deeply impressive and strangely fascinating: White Stripes, Death From Above 1979, Blood Red Shoes. Part of the interest there is a sense of, OK, how do they do that?

Three members feels slightly skimpy still, but again is terribly impressive, depending on the band. We Are Scientists, Kitchens of Distinction and Pull Tiger Tail all make or made a fantastic racket.

Four members is yer bog standard for a band – far too many of these to list. And the extension of four members is of course five. This is still acceptable. Maybe your singer can’t play anything, and you need that extra guitar to fill your sound out (Maccabees, Foals). It needs some justification, but it’s understandable, again depending on the band.

Any more than five? Well, you’d better have a fucking good reason to be there, that’s all I’m saying.

And another thing:
Current mood: contemplative

Surely it’s a little unfair to have too many band members? Unless you’re like some U2-sized ginormo stadium outfit earning squillions, having six-plus mouths to feed means there’s less in the kitty per capita to go round. Come on, bands. Trim those line-ups a bit. Cut the chaff. You know it makes (financial) sense.