Delicate situation: BQ **UPDATED**

[MileMarkerZero]

OK, so I'm getting a BQ started, and have been working on getting another trumpet player. I got a very good player to agree to it, but I am the only member of the BQ familiar with his playing. Now, I also have a GREAT player wanting in that just came to light within the last week. The rest of the BQ members are familiar with her playing, and feel that letting her slip away would be a serious mistake. Now I have to go to the first guy and tell him. The other trumpet position is set in stone as a co-organizer of the group.

We are still in the embryonic stage and are trying to get everyone's schedules to mesh for a read-through session, so nobody really has any time invested in it other than me.

I do still play in a 4tet with this individual every 2-4 weeks, and I respect him and his playing a great deal. But the consensus with the rest of the BQ (and I have to agree with them) is that the other player will be better for the group long-term. It should also be noted that her schedule is more flexible than the first guy's as well.

Any suggestions on how to approach this without burning bridges?

[BVD Press]

Why not have them both audition and then have the other four members make a decision? After a few rehearsals, everyone will be familiar with both players' playing.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I don't see the problem...you and the other three players already involved agree that the "other player" will be better for the group. You haven't even had any rehearsals yet, so you don't have a quintet yet. You and one of the trumpet players are the co-organizers, so organize how you see fit. The more flexible schedule is a big factor, especially in the embryonic stage of organizing a group. Since you've all been talking about this anyway (at least it sounds that way from the information in your post), the decision seems to have already been made.

There is no way to do this without "burning bridges" as you put it...the first player that agreed to play for you will feel slighted (and has reason to). I would suggest being as straight-forward as possible, saying that you and the other members of the quintet feel that the other player is a better fit for you (including the more flexible schedule as a viable reason as well). Frankly, you messed up asking the first guy with another, better player in the area...you're going to have to face the music or live with the just "very good" player.

There's nothing wrong with getting the best players you can together for a group - particularly if you are trying to start a group for hire (good luck with that...I hope the market is better where you are than here).

[NDSPTuba]

Did the other members agree to the first trumpet player before you asked him to be part of the quintet. And did they then change their minds when someone else they were more familiar with came along. That would make it much more difficult to justify in my mind. I know you are just getting started, but you can't play the 'We found somebody else better, see ya later' game and not really piss some people off. The only excuse I can justifiably see is that you are indeed brand new and just working out the logistics of it all and a mistake was made.

[imperialbari]

Schedule rehearsals when the other guy is not available.

Exactly!

Let the scheduling, not the level of playing, appear as the deciding factor.

Nobody looses face. Everybody can play together in other contexts and at other points of their life.

Once I was punked to lead a smaller jazz group (tp, 3tb, as, ts, pn, dr) based on my arrangements. All players were relevant in exactly that constellation, but taking one player out, would let the sound drop dead.

However we couldn't find a regular rehearsal day.

We all met a Sunday afternoon and made some good music. Over the coffee table the logistic disaster was realised by all. I had that knowledge already, but nobody would face it until they threw it in each others faces.

I could have declined that one Sunday rehearsal, but it saved me from being considered the destructive factor.

Klaus

[iiipopes]

I think you are all being too "politically correct." In a different context, about 15 years ago 3 other guys and I were a core of a rhythm section (drums, bass, & 2 guitars) that played as the back line for at least three different groups, and each of us also had other connections and sat in on other gigs as well. Everybody knew each other, everybody knew the different groups had different gigs and different audiences, and everybody got along great. When there were disagreements or conflicts, we just collectively bought the next beer for the offended member and worked it out. This lasted for quite a number of years until all the groups came to the end of their natural life expectancy.

Get everyone together with beverages of choice and work it out. All these years later we are all still good friends and still jam together occasionally.

[Rick Denney]

Get everyone together with beverages of choice and work it out. All these years later we are all still good friends and still jam together occasionally.

You must have missed the part that the question involved trumpet players. Brittle and fragile egos require delicate handling.

My response to the OP: If you made a commitment to the first player, but did so without the authority of the remainder of the group, then you should own up to him and apologize. "I'm really sorry. I lined you up before checking with the group and they had already decided on someone else. I should not have told you that I could make the call before checking with them and I'm sorry."

If you didn't make a commitment, then a simple "Sorry, man, looks like we won't need you after all" should suffice. If challenged, say, "we found someone who had a more flexible schedule and everyone thought that would be necessary."

If you said, "I'll have to clear it with the rest of the guys", as you probably should have done if the hiring authority requires that consensus, then say, "Sorry, dude, the rest of the group already lined up someone else."

When I'm considering a team member in whatever situation, I always start out with, "Yeah, I think we may need somebody like you, but I need to check with other folks first. I'll get back to you." I do that even if I think I have that authority, because (as you found out here), I never really have that authority.

Even a trumpet player might be bright enough to realize that you are only scheduling rehearsals during his conflicts as a means of excluding him. How can that not undermine a future relationship? Being straight if you made a commitment when you shouldn't have is the only way to have a hope of a future working relationship, even if he's mad at first. If he stays mad forever, you probably don't want that relationship anyway.

Rick "who does not think an honest approach requires telling him the other person is a better player" Denney

[Toobist]

Get everyone together with beverages of choice and work it out. All these years later we are all still good friends and still jam together occasionally.

You must have missed the part that the question involved trumpet players. Brittle and fragile egos require delicate handling.

My response to the OP: If you made a commitment to the first player, but did so without the authority of the remainder of the group, then you should own up to him and apologize. "I'm really sorry. I lined you up before checking with the group and they had already decided on someone else. I should not have told you that I could make the call before checking with them and I'm sorry."

If you didn't make a commitment, then a simple "Sorry, man, looks like we won't need you after all" should suffice. If challenged, say, "we found someone who had a more flexible schedule and everyone thought that would be necessary."

If you said, "I'll have to clear it with the rest of the guys", as you probably should have done if the hiring authority requires that consensus, then say, "Sorry, dude, the rest of the group already lined up someone else."

When I'm considering a team member in whatever situation, I always start out with, "Yeah, I think we may need somebody like you, but I need to check with other folks first. I'll get back to you." I do that even if I think I have that authority, because (as you found out here), I never really have that authority.

Even a trumpet player might be bright enough to realize that you are only scheduling rehearsals during his conflicts as a means of excluding him. How can that not undermine a future relationship? Being straight if you made a commitment when you shouldn't have is the only way to have a hope of a future working relationship, even if he's mad at first. If he stays mad forever, you probably don't want that relationship anyway.

Rick "who does not think an honest approach requires telling him the other person is a better player" Denney

I've encountered precisely this situation. Rick gives the best advice. If you really take ownership and say 'sorry' you're far better off. He/she'll understand, especially if you prefix it with: "I totally screwed up..." before: "...the group's already decided on somebody."

Something else to consider is asking if he/she would like to sit in on a few rehearsals to learn the book to keep in mind for subbing. That way it's not an insult to his ego so much as a simple miscommunication.

[MaryAnn]

I'm on exactly the other side of that fence right now; someone contacted me and asked if I would like to play horn in a quintet, with a trumpet player whom I know and have played with before.

I said I'd be delighted to give it a shot, but had he cleared it with the trumpet player (who is organizing the quintet) because the trumpet player knew that I sometimes still have trouble with dystonia.

I got back an "oopsie" from the guy who asked me, and will not be offended if I'm not asked to sign up. Remember that this goes both ways, that people can choose to be offended, but that you also have to treat them with respect. It depends on the person whether you need to be straighforward (taking responsibility and apologizing) or play the schedule game. I personally would be much MORE offended at the schedule game, if I suspected that I was not being told the truth. I can deal with truth; I have much more trouble dealing with game playing. Others may deal better with the converse.

MA

[ken k]

I like Rick's idea. You should just do this even if it is not totally true. :

Rick said:
"My response to the OP: If you made a commitment to the first player, but did so without the authority of the remainder of the group, then you should own up to him and apologize. "I'm really sorry. I lined you up before checking with the group and they had already decided on someone else. I should not have told you that I could make the call before checking with them and I'm sorry."


Remember you may need a trumpet sub at some point in the future. My quintet has three trumpet players. All three guys are very busy so when one of the "regulars" needs a sub they have the third guy to call as the "first call" They all know both books very well by now and really they are all three part of the group. We may be the only quintet that has 6 members!!!!

ken k

[windshieldbug]

I agree with Mike. What if this were a professional orchestra, would you book someone for a gig, and then say, "Sorry, we decided we liked a different trumpeter better... "?

Wait a bit. See how it goes. For one, you're going to need subs, and two, it may not work out, anyway. But since you've already made a commitment, try it out first, and see how it works out.

I hate to suggest this, but what happens if your new trumpet player doesn't work out for some reason, and you've burnt your bridge with the last? I know trumpet players are a dime-a-dozen, but I, for one, wouldn't even do this to a viola player.

And that's why contracts came about. Won't EVERYONE in the quintet be nervous knowing that they could lose their seat at any time if enough of you just THINK that someone else could do better? Hey, I already think that someone else could do a better job of personnel manager!

[eupher61]

One quintet I was in toyed with the name "The 'We're So Fat We're a Sextet' Quintet".

[iiipopes]

Get everyone together with beverages of choice and work it out. All these years later we are all still good friends and still jam together occasionally.

You must have missed the part that the question involved trumpet players. Brittle and fragile egos require delicate handling.

Trumpet player egos are no more brittle and fragile than lead singer and lead guitar player egos. Trumpet player egos just take more beer. I know. I used to be one.

[Rick Denney]

...I know. I used to be one.

Trumpet players who become tuba players don't count. They demonstrate untypical personalities just by that act.

Rick "who has, however, met a few tuba players who would make good trumpet players" Denney

[Steve Inman]

Our "quintet" has 6 players -- 3 of them being trumpets. The "better" 2nd trumpet player is a swing-man (so to speak) and switches back/forth between parts if/when needed, to bolster whichever part needs it. If the 1st tpt is playing pic, the 2nd tpt may help cover a few low passages on the 1st part. This also lets one trumpet at a time rest chops during a longer performance. And, of one trumpet can't make a gig, the gig goes on.

Cheers,

[iiipopes]

...I know. I used to be one.

Trumpet players who become tuba players don't count. They demonstrate untypical personalities just by that act.

Rick "who has, however, met a few tuba players who would make good trumpet players" Denney

I appreciate that. But I am also a lead guitar player as well. But I don't attempt lead singing. I was cured of that a long, long time ago when my voice broke, it shattered. But I can hold up a good baritone/bass line in church choir and the occasional chorus gig.

[FreeBandMusic]

Be honest... the schedule dodge would really get on my nerves.

I would say something like "I'm sorry; I shouldn't have asked you; the other members have already lined up so-and-so. It's all my fault..."

Also, if this quintet works together for more than a month, you're going to need subs... line him up now!

John

[Chriss2760]

Sometimes you get the best light from a burning bridge. - Don Henley

But having said that, a large portion of rehearsing and performing with a group is how well you interact with each other. Music performance is a very personal thing to many, and while ideally we would all put our egos on the shelf, that just isn't the way it is most of the time. (Certainly not in the case of trumpet players. )

It sounds as if the second player (better player/better availability) is the group's choice at this time. That's not to be discounted. Just be kind and honest with your friend.

Good luck with this one, it's sticky.

[MileMarkerZero]

I finally got ahold of the first trumpet player I asked (he was out of town all last week), and told him the situation. He completely understood, even said that knowing who the new trumpet player is that he'd have made the same decision. No harm, no foul, and he would be happy to sub in with us occasionally. Honesty was, in the end, the best policy.

So th esituation was resolved as well as could be hoped.

Thanks for al lthe input!

[Rick Denney]

I vote for honoring the original agreement with the first trpt player to which you spoke.

The situation has been resolved, but for those who face this in the future, there is no conflict between the advice I gave and those who said that the original commitment should be honored.

I just didn't see that as a choice. A commitment can only be made by a person authorized to make commitments on behalf of the organization. Someone else can make a commitment, but he or she may be overruled and if so bears the responsibility to make it right. But in that case, those who truly have the authority to make the decision should not be bound by the unauthorized commitment made (supposedly) in their behalf.

The question is: Who has the authority to make a commitment on behalf of a group? This is one of the big questions that any group must resolve right from the outset.

My reading of the original post was that the OP had made a commitment, but another opportunity more favorable to the rest of the ensemble had become available. So, who has that authority? That's why I gave my answer in those terms. If the ensemble makes those choices by consensus or vote, then no one member, even the founder, has that authority. If one member is the founder and owner of the group, and essentially hires the other members, then that should be clear from the start. Only in that case would a commitment by the OP to the trumpet player have any real authority. In the absence of that authority, he has to come clean, which is what he did and I'm glad it worked out.

But it was clear to me that the OP didn't want to buck the opinions of the group consensus, and thus that means he doesn't have the authority to make those commitments without that consensus. Thus, he didn't have the authority to uphold that commitment, and telling him to do so might have undone the relationship with the rest of the group.

My advice going forward: If the group's authority is in its consensus, then stay true to that consensus and don't make commitments without it. If the group's authority is in one leader, then make sure everyone recognizes that consensus is a courtesy and not authoritative.

It sounds a lot more formal the way I write it than it has to be, but in all groups it has to be something.

I once formed a quintet to play a wedding gig for a friend. Because it was my gig, I assumed I had authority in the group. But the other members did not assume that, and we had some friction because of that. In hindsight, I would have had less attitude (and much better playing ability) from working pros, who generally know for whom they are working. I would have had more fun, too, even though nobody would have confused me for someone who belonged in that group.

Rick "a believer in a clear chain of command" Denney