Covers: Faithful or Interpretation

[beatlebum]

This question comes from a discussion on another forum regarding the right approach to doing a cover version. I know it depends on your purposes so the question isn't how best to cover a song, the question is what do you prefer to hear: a faithful cover, well performed and true to the original arrangement or a different interpretation that works well?

 

[acidrock]

Whatever,however,if it's good,it's good.
My biggest beef is with the people who don't like covers.I don't record covers myself,but I've heard some pretty damn good ones coming out of the clinic.

 

[Greg_L]

Covers are for fags.

 

[miroslav]

I prefer well done interpretations...though a well done, faithful reproduction can be fine too, if you can really nail it. Many cover bands can't seem to do either...instead offering up some half-baked version that falls in-between.

That said...while I don't "hate" covers...I do hate listening to (and even more so, playing in) bands that do mainly the well known covers, the Top 40 hits.
My choice would always be to do interpretations of more obscure (but good) covers, and I always prefer hearing a band that does interesting covers that I haven't heard a million times in every other bar, from every other cover band in the area.
Doing interpretations lends itself much more to being creative (VS just copying)...which also then opens the door for doing your own originals alongside them.
When you stick an original in with nothing but Top 40 hits, especially when they are done as faithful replications...it's hard for your originals to have their own "space"…to be in the limelight.
But mixed in with more obscure, interpreted covers...it all blends together, especially if your originals are in the same vein as those covers. People will take it all in that much easier...and they probably couldn’t tell what is cover and what is original.

AFA people who record covers on these forums and elsewhere on the net...I don't really get it.
I think people do it because they automatically gain acceptance just from the credibility of the cover, which is why I think a lot of bands also play covers...there's an automatic “perk”, not to mention, some guys actually think that if they play a Hendrix tune...then they equal to Hendrix.

Unless I was planning to actually include a cover on one of my own albums…my feeling is, why bother recording one? Why not just record your own music?
OK…maybe if you've hit a real dry spell and you don't have any new originals but you still feel like recording something...but I would think the time spent recording covers would be better spent writing some new originals!
I mean...this IS the songwriter forum...right?

 

[acidrock]

AFA people who record covers on these forums and elsewhere on the net...I don't really get it.
I think people do it because they automatically gain acceptance just from the credibility of the cover, which is why I think a lot of bands also play covers...there's an automatic “perk”, not to mention, some guys actually think that if they play a Hendrix tune...then they equal to Hendrix.

Because there are so many good songs out there!
It's also a way to judge or gauge your playing/recording skills.Sometimes I think people don't do covers because they'll be exposed.

 

[grimtraveller]

Few things demonstrate my contradictions and/ paradoxes like the subject of covers. I dig them and I hate them. First off, alot of it depends on whether I actually know the song being covered. It makes a big difference to me if I don’t know the song coz then, it may as well be the original. I have to be honest, there are very few covers that I actually know are covers that I like. The only Beatle cover I’ve heard that I honestly like of the zillions I’ve heard is Deep Purple’s version of “Help !”, which is smart enough not to be a slavish copy but also smart enough not to be a virtually different song. Actually, on Purple’s debut LP, they do 4 covers, 3 of which are better than the original. But then, I heard Purple first in all of the examples but the Beatles one. And therein lies the thing with covers for me – the original has so often insinuated itself in my head with all of it’s nuances and idiosyncracies that a cover version faces an uphill task to impress me. In a way I share Greg and Miroslav’s thumbs down but then, I contradict myself because I earlier said if I hadn’t heard the original, it therefore made no difference. I would never go to see a covers band. In England, they’re really big {they call them tribute bands}.
On the other hand, sometimes a cover can suggest something that the original artist or writer simply never saw and can go on to be something stellar. I used to have this argument with a mate of mine who could never understand why anyone would bother with covers. He would say ‘if you take this song into new areas so it’s moreorless a new song, why not just write it as a new song ! ?’ which was very logical but not that simple. For example, John Coltrane’s band would take a cutey-pie tune like “My favourite things” from ‘The sound of music’, no less and take it on a terrifying two hour improvisation, stretching and mutating the tune out of all recognition, but always dipping in and out of it and coming back. And it was often breathtaking if you like that kind of thing. I heard a steel band do an interesting cover of “Hey, Jude”. But I wasn’t rushing after them to find out if they had a recording I could have !
Soul bands did lots of covers of pop and rock tunes. To me they rarely worked. I saw Buddy Rich’s band do “Norwegian Wood” live and I hated it. In Christian music, it gets even more complex coz church bands regularly have to play other peoples’ songs and there’s often the dilemma of “do we slavishly copy ‘the CD version’ or do we stretch the people a bit more and use our creativity ?”. I’d refuse to listen to the originals and learn it off someone. I was nearly always disappointed when I did hear the original but then, people who knew X version or Y version would be even more so hearing our off the wall versions ! Reggae covers were sort of interesting but soon wear thin for me.
Other than when I was learning the bass, I’ve never been one for learning to play covers. It used to make my friends laugh. When other instrumentalists would ask me if I knew this or that piece, my buddies would say “Oh, he doesn’t play other peoples’ songs !”
Sorry to go on and on and to almost not even answer the question but it’s not a simple question to answer. I suppose in the end, I prefer neither {after all that !}.

 

[miroslav]

Because there are so many good songs out there!
It's also a way to judge or gauge your playing/recording skills. Sometimes I think people don't do covers because they'll be exposed.

HUH????

"Exposed"...???

How?

If anything, covers give you more hiding room than originals because you don't really have to "think" about what you are doing or create anything new...you just have to copy what someone else created.
Covers provide a "saftey net" and and easy ego boost...where as doing originals, you really have to put it on the line.
Doing covers is like memorizing the answers to a test...you don't really come up with anything of your own, you learn how to memorize.

You can gauge your playing/recording skills with originals same as covers. If people can hear your work, it’s NO different than if you had played/record a cover tune, and I think gauging the playing/recording is even better with originals because YOU have to actually come up with interesting parts/performances rather than mimic what someone else already did for you.
I think that's why so many people shy away from originals...it's takes too much creative effort.

But I don't disagree that there are many good cover songs out there...I just hate that so many people always pick the same ones to do...over and over.

 

[Greg_L]

HUH????

"Exposed"...???

How?

If anything, covers give you more hiding room than originals because you don't really have to "think" about what you are doing or create anything new...you just have to copy what someone else created.
It's like memorizing the answers to a test...you don't really learn anything other than how to memorize.

.

Covers are good for honing your playing/recording chops. Does this really need to be explained?

I used to record tons of covers. Some good, some shitty. No matter, it was just practice, goofing around, and it gave me confidence. Now I write and record better than ever. It also taught me that it doesn't fucking matter one bit what you write. You just gotta play it well and record it well. The substance means exactly jack shit.

Hell, I'm doing a classic from The Who right now just for fun.

 

[acidrock]

HUH????

"Exposed"...???

How?

I said sometimes,I probably should've said some people.
And yes there are "creative" types who only play their own music because they aren't capable of playing covers and there are really great musicians who only play covers.

Also there's lots of songs people think are originals but are actually covers of songs they've never heard before.If they find out it's a cover would they think less of the band?

At the end of the day if it's good it's good,I never understood the whole cover bashing thing.I can fart over a rap beat and call it an original and say I'm being creative,but it's still going to suck.

 

[Greg_L]

And yes there are "creative" types who only play their own music because they aren't capable of playing covers .

This is true. It's easier to hide the suck when you're doing originals. You can always say "I just wanted it that way". Yeah, right. When you blow a cover, or simply can't play it, there's no hiding it.

"Original artists" that can't play covers suck way worse than someone that does play covers.

 

[miroslav]

Covers are good for honing your playing/recording chops. Does this really need to be explained?

I used to record tons of covers. Some good, some shitty. No matter, it was just practice, goofing around, and it gave me confidence. Now I write and record better than ever. It also taught me that it doesn't fucking matter one bit what you write. You just gotta play it well and record it well. The substance means exactly jack shit.

Hell, I'm doing a classic from The Who right now just for fun.

Not sure what you are "explaining"....I never said playing covers DOESN'T hone your skills. I've done covers in bands...and had fun doing them. I just don't see much point in recording them as I've turned my attention to doing just originals.
My previous response was to the comment that people avoid doing covers because of fear that they will be "exposed"...which makes no sense.
Your playing and recording skills are going to be needed (and visible to all) when doing originals same as they will for covers....and IMO, originals put those skills even more on the line because it's ALL you...you're not just copying what someone else already did… but sure, you can use covers to hone your playing skills.

AFA the view that substance means jack shit...I think it really depends on the type of originals you are doing and you target audience, like if it's just some shred...then no one pays much attention to the "melody" or the lyrics...etc...they just listen to the shred.
But you can still do songs with substance and have them mean something...it's really up to the songwriter how he/she presents them, and if the songs have substance or not.

 

[Greg_L]

Not sure what you are "explaining"....I never said playing covers DOESN'T hone your skills. I've done covers in bands...and had fun doing them. I just don't see much point in recording them as I've turned my attention to doing just originals.
My previous response was to the comment that people avoid doing covers because of fear that they will be "exposed"...which makes no sense.
Your playing and recording skills are going to be needed (and visible to all) when doing originals same as they will for covers....and IMO, originals put those skills even more on the line because it's ALL you...you're not just copying what someone else already did… but sure, you can use covers to hone your playing skills.

AFA the view that substance means jack shit...I think it really depends on the type of originals you are doing and you target audience, like if it's just some shred...then no one pays much attention to the "melody" or the lyrics...etc...they just listen to the shred.
But you can still do songs with substance and have them mean something...it's really up to the songwriter how he/she presents them, and if the songs have substance or not.

In case you missed it:

It's easier to hide the suck when you're doing originals. You can always say "I just wanted it that way". Yeah, right. When you blow a cover, or simply can't play it, there's no hiding it.

You're romanticizing the "creative" angle. Playing a cover doesn't mean you aren't creative, and being creative doesn't mean it's gonna be good.

 

[miroslav]

It's easier to hide the suck when you're doing originals. You can always say "I just wanted it that way".

Not really.

You listen to someone playing an original same as when they play a cover tune. Their skill doesn't change when going from one to the other.
If they suck with their playing...there's no way to hide it just 'cuz it's an original...or a cover!

Like I said...I don't hate covers, I only hate listening to or playing the same tired old covers that many bar bands choose to play.
It's as if there's one master set list that gets passed around from band to band when it comes to your typical Pop/Rock covers that you hear in most bars.

AFA recording covers...knock yourself out.
I find working on originals more interesting.

 

[acidrock]

This is true. It's easier to hide the suck when you're doing originals. You can always say "I just wanted it that way". Yeah, right. When you blow a cover, or simply can't play it, there's no hiding it.

This is what I'm saying.I've seen some sucktastic bands that were "creative" but I'd probably rather see a really good cover band.

Being called "creative" is more important to some than others.I'm impressed by really good songs,but anybody can flip a few words on a tired progression and call it an original.

I've written a bunch of songs and I don't consider myself creative at all.It's easy to write songs,it's hard to write really good ones.

 

[acidrock]

AFA recording covers...knock yourself out.
I find working on originals more interesting.

And that's fine,but not every one is you.

 

[Greg_L]

Not really.

You listen to someone playing an original same as when they play a cover tune. Their skill doesn't change when going from one to the other.
If they suck with their playing...there's no way to hide it just 'cuz it's an original...or a cover!

.

The way you hide it with originals is you dumb it down. A cover forces you to maybe learn something you don't already know. With an original, who's gonna question it? They have to accept what you play at face value. You can easily hide a lack of skill in originals. I do it all the time, and I'm damn proud of it.

As for tired, generic old covers, I totally agree. I typically won't touch a cover anymore unless it's one that just about no one knows, no one expects, or it's something I can completely bastardize and make it my own.

 

[miroslav]

This is what I'm saying.I've seen some sucktastic bands that were "creative" but I'd probably rather see a really good cover band.

The reality is that most cover bands don't really play very complicated covers...they play shit that's pretty easy Pop/Rock...and yet many of them still aren't all that good at it even when all they have to do is learn the song like it''s already been done!!!

It's easy to write songs,it's hard to write really good ones.

Exactly my point.

It's much easier to just grab some really great covers where someone else already did the hard work for you.

 

[Greg_L]

I've written a bunch of songs and I don't consider myself creative at all.It's easy to write songs,it's hard to write really good ones.

Right. I don't even think about it. I just write what I write and try to rock the fuck out. I don't care who likes it or if it's "good". If I'm happy with it when it's done, it's good. Someone, somewhere, once said "half the people are gonna love you, half are gonna hate you". I'm totally okay with that.

 

[acidrock]

Like I said...I don't hate covers, I only hate listening to or playing the same tired old covers that many bar bands choose to play.

That's because you are a musician.When was the last time you played for a crowd that was nothing but musicians?

When I used to play out we'd have to play some songs three times in one night but I never sulked about it,if the crowd was having a good time then so was I.I felt it was my job to entertain.

 

[Greg_L]

That's because you are a musician.When was the last time you played for a crowd that was nothing but musicians?

When I used to play out we'd have to play some songs three times in one night but I never sulked about it,if the crowd was having a good time then so was I.I felt it was my job to entertain.

I think miroslav has totally missed the point.