Bands performing others' material

  • Thread starter Thread starter cusebassman
  • Start date Start date
C

cusebassman

Freakin' sweet
I searched for a thread of this nature, but found nothing, so here goes!

I found that I tend to listen to artists / groups that write their own material. I have mixed feelings about groups who perform material written by a juggernaut songwriting team... for example, I like a lot of the Motown groups, and their stuff was often written by someone else - but just recently, I *shockingly* discovered that Avril Lavigne doesn't write a lot of her stuff - its either "co-written", or completely yanked. I still enjoy the songs (yes, even the AVril Lavigne stuff - I can't help being addicted to pop... it was designed to do that!), but something doesn't sit right.

Even in the case of groups like those from the 50s / 60s Motown, I still think to myself "Yea - they are very good at the performance of this material, but they lack a creativity that singer/songwriters have" - and that somehow diminishes their overall image in my mind.

Weigh in even if you have read this thread many times before!
 
While I generally value the songwriting art highly in plenty of artists (the Beatles being a prime example), there are a few performers that always keep me from becoming snobbish towards those that don't write their own stuff. Those are Frank and Elvis. I think their talent was undeniable, even if it didn't include writing.
 
i'd agree to find someone interesting who is really only a cover artist they need to have a unique/incredible voice and a lot of charisma (the musicians are interchangable) to catch my attention.. e.g. again johny cash..
 
I think it was quite normal for behind the scenes people to write material for performers before people like The Beatles and Bob Dylan. Of course, there was Robert Johnson and those blues fellas. I agree with the likes of Frank and Elvis being masters in their own right, whether they write or not...but as for performers today...give me a bucket. Like the driver from Spinal Tap said...when you've loved and lost as much as Frank....

Then there's the whole other issue of interpreting the classics...but as for 'artists' who don't write anything, I don't like them. You've got to get your hands dirty...you can't just be unwrapped from your bubble wrap and plonked on the stage to show everyone how in tune you can sing across a thousand octaves.
 
Always keep in mind that music-as-we-know-it is nothing more than another entertainment product competing for your attention and dollars. Whether or not you are entertained by a certain musician/writer or wrestler is only significant when $$ changes hands. We like to romanticize our favorite singer/songwriter when they illuminate our experience for us. When they illuminate somebody else's experience we are not entertained . That's why gay guys don't spend money on hetero love songs and crack heads don't flock to hear Garth Brooks.
The lesson to be drawn from this rant is "Know Your Demographic"


chazba
 
chazba said:
Always keep in mind that music-as-we-know-it is nothing more than another entertainment product competing for your attention and dollars. Whether or not you are entertained by a certain musician/writer or wrestler is only significant when $$ changes hands. We like to romanticize our favorite singer/songwriter when they illuminate our experience for us. When they illuminate somebody else's experience we are not entertained . That's why gay guys don't spend money on hetero love songs and crack heads don't flock to hear Garth Brooks.
The lesson to be drawn from this rant is "Know Your Demographic"


chazba
Click to expand...

I don't think I am getting what you're saying here.

Are you trying to say that just because an artist doesn't entertain me because they didn't write their own material, that they may still hold value to someone else?

Of course, I know that's true - its a specific case of my never-ending argument that taste is taste, and opinion is opinion - just because I think Britney Spears is (or was, at this point), a vapid on-stage presence with no writing talent, that she couldn't entertain someone else. If she entertained no one, she wouldn't have millions upon millions of dollars to fall back on while she destroys hers and her childrens' lives.

I do agree that the acts we see now are tools for money making corporations, just like any other form of entertainment, and that they aren't really true musicians in that sense, but I still think its wrong, regardless of whether their intentions were to be genuine or not.

My issue is that these bands are paraded by the music companies as though they are the genuine article in modern music. You don't see romantic comedies being hailed as modern breakthroughs in film and screenplay writing - they are billed as entertaining, and that's it.

If they came right out and said "This band has their music written by a group of people who know the formula that you consumer sheep love, and their image was also generated as such, here ya go", I'd be fine with it.

If all of this stems from an interpretation of your comments that I was wrong in reading, I apologise - the stated opinions would remain valid, but would be standing alone, instead of being a response to your last post :D
 
cusebassman said:
My issue is that these bands are paraded by the music companies as though they are the genuine article in modern music. You don't see romantic comedies being hailed as modern breakthroughs in film and screenplay writing - they are billed as entertaining, and that's it.

If they came right out and said "This band has their music written by a group of people who know the formula that you consumer sheep love, and their image was also generated as such, here ya go", I'd be fine with it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... I do see your point, but I don't think this is a fair comparison. If you were to replace the word "band" with "movie" and "their music" with "was," I don't think you can say that movies are advertised that way as well. (i.e., "This movie was generated to adhere to the formula that you movie-going sheep seem to love so much.")

By the same token, I don't think the Brittany Spears of the world are being touted by record companies as anything else other than entertainment. I kind of disagree that they are being called "the real deal." And I don't think I've ever heard an artist being passed off as a great songwriter when in fact they don't write their own material. (This may not be addressing your point exactly, but I think it's related at least.)

Anyway, just my two cents.
 
I agree that people who write their own songs have a special appeal. I have spent lots of evenings listening to singer/songwriters who weren't the best players around but had a knack for story telling. But I can still dig a good cover band. I heard a bunch of kids doing Zep last month and they kicked ass and have a strong following around town. I think maybe you were referring to groups that get famous by recording songs written by people who are not in their band. Am I right about that point?? Personally I would like nothing better than to have some kids decide that a couple of my songs were great and that they wanted to put one or two on their next CD. In fact I have several songs on spec at this time and eagerly wait to hear from the producers. Some of my songs are tailored to a younger audience who wouldnt cross the street to see and hear an old codger like me . I write what I write , whatever comes into my head and, like a lot of you guys, I'm trying to make a few bucks from it.
Maybe the best example of a group that was formed by corporate interests using a formula was THE MONKEES....no it was Millie Vanillieeeee...no , it was ( fill in the blank)......


chazba
 
Last edited:
I dunno, I seem to have no difficulty separating the performer from the composer, and can easily appreciate both for their skill/art/contribution.

In the same manner that I can separate a performer from the material. I can appreciate artists whose material I do not like.

The thing is, once the music has been written, produced, and arranged, the artist becomes the performer. Whether they perform their own music or that of another's makes no difference. It's a cover by then, if you get what I mean.
 
Yeah, you know, Zeppelin's first few years were filled with songs they didn't right, in fact most of them. I will definitely admit they changed the songs so much (and in a positive way), that it is practically a new song, but alot of the time it was old lost blues charts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top