Covers: Faithful or Interpretation
- Thread starter beatlebum
- Start date
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I wouldn't really say we "dumb it down"...we play to our interest and our ability...JUST like the guys who did those Top 40 hits that so many bands like to cover. I would guess that you also try to play your best...original or cover.
Come on now...I know you're not going to say that most of the stuff you hear in bars is very difficult.
Sure, every once in awhile a band does some really difficult covers...and nail them! And that's impressive.
But most of that "party band" shit is nothing all that complicated, and I think any decent bunch of players could do it...just practice!
That's where I'm at...pulling out interesting covers that make people take notice.
acidrock
GO PACKERS!
Once again,non-musicians don't know and don't care as long as it's played well.Come on now...I know you're not going to say that most of the stuff you hear in bars is very difficult.
Pate foix gras is more complicated than a cheeseburger,but I'll guarantee you more people would rather eat a cheeseburger.
You have to look at it from the perspective of the person who pays the cover charge.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
The point is....we CHOOSE to do what we prefer.
I know your typical bar crowd wants to hear the same boring covers...
...but that doesn't mean you HAVE TO play them....does it?
Heck...if it's only about pleasing the bar crowd...well, you know how that goes.
When I use to play covers in bars...we did mostly obscure stuff. People would come up and ask for the "hits"...and we would say that we didn't do them.
But we did the obscure covers very well, and we picked good ones that would always go over even though people didn't know them as "hits"...
...and at the end of the night, they were happy and we were happy for not doing the same boring covers.
When you play the same old covers...that's when you are "dumbing it down".
I wouldn't really say we "dumb it down"...we play to our interest and our ability...JUST like the guys who did those Top 40 hits that so many bands like to cover. I would guess that you also try to play your best...original or cover.
Come on now...I know you're not going to say that most of the stuff you hear in bars is very difficult.
Sure, every once in awhile a band does some really difficult covers...and nail them! And that's impressive.
But most of that "party band" shit is nothing all that complicated, and I think any decent bunch of players could do it...just practice!
That's where I'm at...pulling out interesting covers that make people take notice.
Now you're off on another tangent. Who cares how difficult something is? Newsflash: 99% of your audience doesn't know a powerchord from a paradiddle. If you're playing for elitist musician snobs, then technicality may matter, but then again they probably won't be paying attention anyway. I know I don't. When I play live, I'm never watching or listening to the opening bands. And while we're talking about bar bands, a cover band will make ten times what an original material band makes. People that drink and smoke want to hear stupid vapid shit like "sweet home alabama" and "purple haze".
The point is....we CHOOSE to do what we prefer.
I know your typical bar crowd wants to hear the same boring covers...
...but that doesn't mean you HAVE TO play them....does it?
I don't play any covers live. I'm fine with making 100 bucks and not pleasing anyone in the crowd.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I love blues...but I couldn't listen to a blues cover band all night long...
...never mind an original one!!!
Especially the blues guys that just do 12-bar blues all night long!!!!
acidrock
GO PACKERS!
Let's put this in context.
I used to play in an acoustic duet,we played shit kicking sing along crap.One of our most requested songs was "Cover of the Rolling Stone".Fuck,we might've played it four times some nights.In an internet discussion amongst musicians it sounds like pure torture,in a bar where everyone is singing along and stomping their feet it was actually a hell of a good time.
I guess the crowd being satisfied was good enough for me.I could've played originals at home and been "creative".
I used to play in an acoustic duet,we played shit kicking sing along crap.One of our most requested songs was "Cover of the Rolling Stone".Fuck,we might've played it four times some nights.In an internet discussion amongst musicians it sounds like pure torture,in a bar where everyone is singing along and stomping their feet it was actually a hell of a good time.
I guess the crowd being satisfied was good enough for me.I could've played originals at home and been "creative".
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
No I'm not...you raised the issue of "honing your skills" by doing covers.
I'm just pointing out that most of your typical bar covers don't really tax the playing skills of the average musicians...do they?
But yeah..the audience has no clue for the most part....
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Sooooo then...are you playing originals live...or are you making that $100 some other way???
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Well...that's really what this is about...doing what makes you feel good.
When I was playing out...we did covers AND originals.
It's really NOT about just "playing originals at home" in order to be creative.
I do understand that it's not easy to get some bar gigs unless you are a "party band"...BUT...there ARE gigs out there if you are really good band, regardless of what you play, covers or originals.
I do agree that doing the hit covers is an easier gig if you are looking to gig a lot.
Well, I'm of the opinion that for playing live, it's better to nail something easy than flub your way through something unnecessarily difficult. Like I said, the audience doesn't know how hard something is, but they do know when you fuck up. Which brings us back to originals being easier to hide flaws.No I'm not...you raised the issue of "honing your skills" by doing covers.
I'm just pointing out that most of your typical bar covers don't really tax the playing skills of the average musicians...do they?
But yeah..the audience has no clue for the most part....
We play originals and sometimes do a few covers that no one knows. I don't oppose unique covers at all, but I'm not gonna drop an original in the set list for a dumb cover song. For an encore, if there is one, we sometimes do a heavily rocked up version of "Ring of Fire" and we're thinking about switching that to AC/DC's "Let There Be Rock".
My band likes covers more than I do, but I try to keep em steered towards more originals.
AGREED!!!
So why do originals need to be any different?
You write a nice 3-chord R&R tune that kicks ass...and then what, someone says you're dumbing it down because you have no skills....????
All of my songs are dumb 3 chord rock and roll. I don't dumb them down because my skills are already as dumb as it gets.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Exactly.
I think a lot of cover bands just play by the numbers. They don't even want to consider doing more interesting/obscure covers...never mind originals.
But as you obviously are proving it...it IS possible to gig, get paid...and NOT be just another "party band" doing the same played-to-death covers.
I'm hoping to stir up a live band gig sometime this year...I'm just waiting for the right bunch of people to come along. Most of the guys looking for a band situation or looking for members, are looking to do the same old covers.
But I'm sure I'll find the right situation eventually.
I don't particularly care about the $$$...that's not my need or motivation, and I'm no 22-year old anymore, so if I'm going to make the effort to go out and gig again, I want to play what I want to play.
We do make a little money, but we have actual fans....somehow. Most original material bands are just playing for their wives/girlfriends and the other bands. But cover bands make WAY more than we do. I'm friends with the singer of a cover band that gigs 4 nights a week. He makes a very comfortable living playing radio rock covers. They make 1000-1500 a night. That's about a grand a week for each guy. 52k a year....on top of what his wife makes. Not millions, but not terrible.
I'm obviously not in it for any money. I just like going out and beating my drums.
I'm obviously not in it for any money. I just like going out and beating my drums.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
All of my songs are dumb 3 chord rock and roll. I don't dumb them down because my skills are already as dumb as it gets.
Believe me…just ‘cuz I like to talk up originals VS covers doesn’t mean I’m breaking some real new/complicated compositional ground!
I have a lot of 3-chord shit…once in awhile I toss a 4th or 5th chord in there just to get away from the 3-chord Pop/Rock!
I write what I like…what makes me feel good…what I find interesting/pleasing to play…and yes, what I am able to comfortably do well, but I do also try to push on my limits and improve my skills…same as if I was doing some covers.
I do miss the cover band aspect of learning songs that you didn’t write, because it does teach you something…and then I do miss playing out, because there’s something about being put on the spot, under the lights and NOT being able to stop and start over!
Simman
Well-known member
Wow! This really fanned the flames.
I think this thread actually started as the result of a thread in the mp3 mix forum.
It doesn't really matter does it. If you decide to do a cover, then do it; if you decide to do an original tune, do it. All that matters is whatever you do, do it well.
When I do covers I try/perfer to do them as accurately as possilbe. Most cover bands hack their way through them for whatever reason but the end results usually is sucky (IMO) when not done to the original. I'm always amazed at bands, or individual players, that can't actually play the song they're trying to cover. Why cover a tune if you can't play it?
Oringinals are good but (in regards to covers) there is nothing to reference so there is no way for a listener to decide if the aritist/musician nailed it. I've head a lot of originals that I think completely suck (IMO) and most of them are on the radio. However, this should not be confused with playing ability.
To me asking the question: are covers better than originals is like asking if it's better to mix from the drummer's or audience perspective. Either way just do it well.
I think this thread actually started as the result of a thread in the mp3 mix forum.
It doesn't really matter does it. If you decide to do a cover, then do it; if you decide to do an original tune, do it. All that matters is whatever you do, do it well.
When I do covers I try/perfer to do them as accurately as possilbe. Most cover bands hack their way through them for whatever reason but the end results usually is sucky (IMO) when not done to the original. I'm always amazed at bands, or individual players, that can't actually play the song they're trying to cover. Why cover a tune if you can't play it?
Oringinals are good but (in regards to covers) there is nothing to reference so there is no way for a listener to decide if the aritist/musician nailed it. I've head a lot of originals that I think completely suck (IMO) and most of them are on the radio. However, this should not be confused with playing ability.
To me asking the question: are covers better than originals is like asking if it's better to mix from the drummer's or audience perspective. Either way just do it well.