Stupid question about cover songs/remakes

  • Thread starter Thread starter RawDepth
  • Start date Start date
RawDepth

RawDepth

New member
Recently, my weekend cover band made a studio demo just to get gigs. The CD is full of cover songs that we do in our show. (We know we can't sell it and don't want to.) Anyway, when I post stuff in the MP3 clinic to get mix advice, people tend to nag more about a certain part or instrument not sounding like the original.

Q:
Is the goal of a cover song to sound exactly like the original or different from the original?
 
Personally I think you have that choice to make. Obviously if you present a cover where you intimate that it's supposed to mimic the original in every way and it doesn't, people will likely point out the anomalies. If you present what is an interpretation of a song, then it should be listened to in that spirit. I'm sure you have your own mind, therefore you have to decide what and how you record, then take note of what elements of critique apply to the aspects of your piece that you want to get feedback on and politely thank those who offer their thoughts while not beating yourself up over comments on the stuff you are not wanting to be influenced by opinions upon.

Regards

Tim
 
If I'm doing someone else's song, it's what I want to do with the song, for better or worse. The original has already been done. If you're doing a demo to get gigs, then in my experience get as close to the orginal as possible.
 
Without any kind of imperical data to back this up, I think the more successful cover bands will try to get as close to the original as possible.
 
State your case:
this is a version - interpretation etc.
That way you are pointing to the type of critique you want.
A "cover" suggests replication to me & a "covers" band in my experience sought to play the hits as close as they could to the originals as that's what audiences want when they see a "covers" band.
Bands like Mama Mia and The Australia Doors Show make their mega money by doing songs as closely as possible to the original (recorded as opposed to live too which often necessitates extra technology).
If you interpret or do your version then you're offering the audience something new.

GREAT versions/interpretations include the Damned's recording of Help.
Lame versions include Johnny Farnham's version of the same song.

Australia was littered with dismal covers in the mid 60's when there was a radio ban on overseas artists. Being that the original wasn't going to be played performers didn't need to apply any interpretive skills or perspective and just covered the original rarely doing the song or themselves any credit.
 
Not that I would ever willingly go see or even sit through a fucking cover band, but if I had to, I'd rather hear a band do their own thing with covers. I don't want to hear some halfassed local shmoes slop their way through famous songs. I'd rather they butcher them into their own thing. You'll never be as good as the original so I have more respect for someone that acknowledges that and does it their own way and maybe even makes it better.

That's if I'm the listener.

If I'm playing it, I'll usually try to do it different.
 
If I am using it to practice my playing, recording and mixing I shoot for the original. Anything else I do whatever I want :-)
 
It's 100% down to what you want. If you want to emulate then stick to it, and if you want to do your own spin, do that.

I'm sure there are strong cases for each side, but in the music I listen to the more successful covers have put their own spin on the track.

I'm thinking of guns and roses as a pretty solid example.
Live and let die, knocking on heavens door, sympathy for the devil.

Greg will know much better than me if the Spaghetti incident album was true to the originals or not; I don't know,
but it's depressing how many people think the above three are guns and roses songs, but in a way the kind of are now.
 
Last edited:
Van Halen was a cover band. Not sure why I posted, but there ya go. :)
 
Greg_L said:
They still are. They try to cover their own old music.
Click to expand...

LOL! Right?!?

And poorly. A good friend of mine was their FOH soundman for a while. Not a bunch of great things to say from him.
 
RawDepth said:
Is the goal of a cover song to sound exactly like the original or different from the original?
Click to expand...
This will always be the dilemma on this topic. As a player, I'd rather die than have to do note for note renditions. As a listener, if I was ever in the highly unlikely position of listening to a covers band, I'd want the songs to be identical to the originals.
Logic and rationale have no place in this conversation ! :D

Greg_L said:
You'll never be as good as the original
Click to expand...
I'd slightly re~jig that as "you'll never be as good as the original version that I heard". There are bands whose do some songs on records that are not theirs but theirs was the first version I heard and even when I hear the original, the original version that I heard is the one that's insinuated itself into my brain.

Steenamaroo said:
it's depressing how many people think the above three are guns and roses songs, but in a way the kind of are now.
Click to expand...
That depends on one's age and listening experience.
For me though, anyone trying to do "Sympathy" is wasting their time. Hot pokers up my posterior will never get me to appreciate any other version but the original. I'm very stubborn that way !
The orchestra my son plays in did "Live and let die" last year. It didn't sound anything like it !

jimmys69 said:
Van Halen was a cover band.
Click to expand...
They were. David Lee Roth thought Eddie was a better guitarist than Steve Vai because when Eddie was coming up, he had to learn tons of covers which gave him a wider palette and more stylistic variation.
That said, the "Women and children first" album is all originals and I love it to bits.
 
Greg_L said:
Not that I would ever willingly go see or even sit through a fucking cover band, but if I had to, I'd rather hear a band do their own thing with covers. I don't want to hear some halfassed local shmoes slop their way through famous songs...
Click to expand...
grimtraveller said:
...As a player, I'd rather die than have to do note for note renditions. As a listener, if I was ever in the highly unlikely position of listening to a covers band, I'd want the songs to be identical to the originals...
Click to expand...
How does anyone become a good musician if they don't first mimic (cover) other people's songs? Haven't we all done tons of covers over the years?

So, you are saying that every new bar band or wedding reception band should have an entire show comprised of only new original material? I don't see that working too well. Besides, people make requests.

There is a place for cover bands, like it or not.

(However, I do agree that many of them totally suck ass.)
 
Last edited:
Yep.... I was once in a cover band in the standard power trio format of drums, bass and guitar that played, amongst other things, a few Steely Dan songs. And whether you like SD or not, those songs took some playing as a guitarist/singer in a three piece... I learnt a lot in the process. :D

Including how my mad guitaring skilz were being wasted on an inebriated audience who wanted to hear Johnny B. Goode instead... :eek: ;)

But back to your original question - I had a cassette (eek!) of cut down covers for the same purpose - to get work - we just made them sound like we would sound.... And it didn't really get us any gigs, so I got nothin' for ya! :facepalm:

Except that it pretty much cured me of playing covers ever again. Like a 12 step program, only quicker.. :laughings::laughings::laughings:
 
RawDepth said:
How does anyone become a good musician if they don't first mimic (cover) other people's songs? Haven't we all done tons of covers over the years?

So, you are saying that every new bar band or wedding reception band should have an entire show comprised of only new original material? I don't see that working too well. Besides, people make requests.

There is a place for cover bands, like it or not.

(However, I do agree that many of them totally suck ass.)
Click to expand...

I don't dispute any of that, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I'm not hauling my drums out to play someone else's songs, and I'm for damn sure not going out for a night of listening to someone else play someone else's songs. To me covers are fun for goofing around in a garage and they're fun for recording practice. They can be fun if you're totally rearranging them. If you're earnestly trying to recreate the original versions, well I'm not interested.
 
The Damned / Help (1976) - YouTube

John Farnham - 'Help' 1980 - YouTube

I played in a 50/50 band in the mid 80's. Half the set was poor originals by the singer and the other half excelelnt power pop (Plimsouls etc).
We had to play the covers because our original repetoire was so leaden. The "leader" wouldn't let anyone offer songs other than himself.
I learnt recording from the sessions putting together demo tapes (to send to venues) of the better played tracks - all done in a small studios in Sydney (Ramrod) & at Bonnyrigg High school music rooms (my mate was Music Master there & was very into the latest 4 track recording).
I quit in the end & they "expanded" their repetoire to include more contemporary covers like Huey Lewis & the news songs - then they sank without a trace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top