Which is more desireable....

[shall176]

In the context of being a part of a band, athletic team, or even on the job, which would you rather be a part of....

1.  A team (band) that gets along really well, enjoys each others company, and has a very good performance.....

2.  A team (band) that dislikes each other, but yet respects the talents of the other team members, and has a better performance.....

3.  A team (band) that dispises each other and are constantly at each others throats, but have a phenominal performance.......

I am very interseted in knowing the repsonses.  Thanks

[Eccentric-Rhythm]

#1 no question. In a Work environment, the stress level that exists and the tension of working with someone that you would rather take outside and beat down, is overwhelming. I would much rather prefer to get along with everyone. Even if that constitutes a drop in quality. Because sooner or later the animosity will shine through and will cause problems when it comes to light.

God Bless.

[shall176]

I would take #1 in a work environment as well....however on an athletic team #2.  I am undecided as far as what I would prefer in a band, which is part of the reason I wanted to see others opinions.  Ideally you would love to get along with everyone, but would you trade some of that in order to rise above mediocrity and go to the next level....

[bigblackdrummer]

The truth is sometimes 2 and 3 are what really happens in the profession. You always will get guys who you dont like (really dont like) and dont like you! Not everyone hired is your friend.

[Eccentric-Rhythm]

The truth is sometimes 2 and 3 are what really happens in the profession. You always will get guys who you dont like (really dont like) and dont like you! Not everyone hired is your friend.

Exactly. Thats a situation I am currently in. Hence the reason for saying that my ideal situation would be #1.

[shall176]

I agree BBD.....its a trade off at times, and what are you willing to deal with.  I have a friend who may be on the verge of going to the nxt level and is looking for an new band member, but is more than willing to trade quality for some one who will fit in personality wise, even if it hurts advancement.  On the other hand you look at something like the Big Red machine in the 70's.  I hear they really disliked one another, but yet they won championships.

[The Dojz]

To me choice #1 would be must ideal.  If the band all has a great relationship with each other practices will go smoother and everyone will be more apt to compromise and adapt to each other which in turn could improve their sound.  Look at the Beetles for instance, the drummer before Ringo Starr was Pete Best.  However because he did not fit in with the rest of the band, did not care to hang with the band, and was envied by the band because of his own huge fan base aside from theirs, they fired him got Ringo Starr (who might not have been as solid of a drummer as Best was) but he was liked by his peers.  So in the end because everyone in the band got along better their sound improved and they got super famous.   

[Hotsticks1]

I've come to find that musicians that not only play together well but who respect eachother and get along seem to make it farther together as well as when separted.

[shall176]

OK.  Let me rephrase the question a little then.....If you had the choice to play in a band, that no one ever heard of before with the conditions in #1, vs a regionally known band with conditions in #2, or a nationally known band with conditions as in #3, which would be your choice.  In a perfect world, we would all like success and a freindly environment, but what I was trying to find out was, to what extent would the average person be willing to give that up for some measure of success.