Like the Album or Not?

[ggunn]

I didn't vote, as it's all dependant on the particular song. Some solo's have a vibe that is actually a big part of the song. If that's the case, then it should be pretty close to the original. Most stuff though, I would prefer that the person playing it just went with what they want. If the solo is just a solo, I want to hear the guitarist's style really show in that situation. If they dig the original, they will still add what is thier own signature to it.

I am no longer in a cover band (yay! I escaped!), but I never saw much point in learning a solo note for note. The guy who wrote the solo wrote it to his particular strengths, and mine are different. We made the same money (which is, after all, the only real reason to be in a cover band), whether I played it exactly as he did or just noodled around the root for 12 bars. Generally, though, I would learn a couple of the signature licks of a solo and play them where they were supposed to go, and fill out the rest with improv. Cover songs are ephemeral, mosty of them anyway; I didn't see much reason to spend a lot of time and effort emulating a song exactly, only to have it fall off the rotation after a month or so. YMMV.

 

[jfrog]

e·phem·er·al Audio pronunciation of "ephemeral" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-fmr-l)
adj.

1. Lasting for a markedly brief time: “There remain some truths too ephemeral to be captured in the cold pages of a court transcript” (Irving R. Kaufman).
2. Living or lasting only for a day, as certain plants or insects do.


n.

A markedly short-lived thing.

Sorry, ggun, but you used a big word. I had to look it up.

 

[reel buzzer]

Yeah, depends on the song and where you are.
"Stranglehold" at Summer's on the Beach - go ahead and jam for 20 minutes.
"Sweet Emotions" at the Button South - that better sound dead-on at 4:40 a.m.

 

[Armistice]

If the song is "iconic", try "noodling" around the root (that sounds vaguely illegal, or slightly disgusting.. ) for 12 bars and I don't think your audience would be that thrilled - in some songs, with great solos, the solo is as much a part of the song as the riff / chord changes / words. You wouldn't change the words would you?

Luckily cover band audiences don't generally hang around here...

 

[tc4b]

the solo is as much a part of the song as the riff / chord changes / words. You wouldn't change the words would you?

Yes, I would change the words. I would also like to hear them changed when I'm out, just like the solos. Go ahead and change the chords and riffs, too. My thing is, I've HEARD the original a million times already. I once heard "I'm all out of love" re-worded to be "I'm all out of drugs." Is that super creative and original? No, but I listened. If I'm very uptight and treat the original like it's religion and changing it is blasphemy, what the hell, I can always go home and turn on my stereo.

But, I'm probably crazy.

 

[ggunn]

If the song is "iconic", try "noodling" around the root (that sounds vaguely illegal, or slightly disgusting.. ) for 12 bars and I don't think your audience would be that thrilled - in some songs, with great solos, the solo is as much a part of the song as the riff / chord changes / words. You wouldn't change the words would you?

Luckily cover band audiences don't generally hang around here...

Well, thrilling the audience is usually not a goal for a cover band; it's mainly providing a sound track for hooking up and/or getting drunk(er). And yes, I changed the lyrics sometimes when I got bored, which was a lot. Twenny twenny twenny four hours to go, I wanna be fellated... ;^)

Did I mention that I am happy not to be doing that any more?

 

[nkjanssen]

I argued that this was really dull, and that I wish the guy would just be himself and be creative during solos, while a friend argued that people are there only to hear what they're used to.

Your friend is correct. Most people are dull. Dull people don't want to hear interesting music. Dull people want to hear albums that they have already heard a thousand times. Or, at worst, cover bands playing songs that sound just like the albums that they have heard a thousand times.

What do you do when you play out? Duplicate the album or improvise (or compose, I guess) your own?

Depends on the song. Sometimes I stick close to the album. Sometimes I improvise more. But, in all cases I'm the guy who played on the album, so I have a bit more freedom that way.

What would you rather hear when you go hear a cover band?

I would rather hear them play their own songs.

...deviating even a little from the script makes it more interesting to hear.

Writing your own script makes it even more interesting.

Just say "no" to cover bands.

 

[ggunn]

I would rather hear [cover band musicians] play their own songs.

No, you wouldn't. Most folks who are in cover bands are not songwriters, so any original material they could come up with would more than likely suck. And, yes, I am including myself in that analysis; I am lucky enough to have run into three songwriters of varying prolificacy who rescued me from the cover band I was languishing in and who let me arrange and write guitar and bass parts for their songs.

 

[nkjanssen]

Show me a musician who has NEVER played a cover, and...

There's a huge difference between playing a cover and being a cover band.

 

[nkjanssen]

No, you wouldn't.

Yes, actually, I would. I would much rather hear someone having a good go at coming up with something original and failing miserably than someone giving up entirely and just learning covers. Though, I'd probably just rather listen to some good recorded music than either of those options. I guess, for me, the hirearchy is:

1. Good original band.
2. Good canned music.
3. Bad original band.
4. Good cover band.
5. Bad canned music.
6. Bad cover band.

Though, I'm not totally sure about number 4 and number 5. They are very close, but bad canned music is often easier to ignore than a good cover band. I might want to reverse those.

Of course, there's really nothing worse to listen to than a bad cover band.

 

[ggunn]

1. Good original band.
2. Good canned music.
3. Bad original band.
4. Good cover band.
5. Bad canned music.
6. Bad cover band.

Well, for me it varies. There is a cover band here in Austin, The Eggmen, who, when they play three sets, come out for the first set in black suits and play Beatles covers up through Rubber Soul (or is it Revolver, anyway, the last one before Sgt. Peppers), the second set in accurate copies of the uniforms on Sgt. Peppers and play all Beatles after that point, and in the third set in different psychedelic costumes and play other 60's material (Stones, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Buffalo Springfield, Hollies, Who, etc.). They are very good and very entertaining.

But a cover band like I was in (lowest common denominator stuff), yeah; I wouldn't have walked across the street to see us play, even though we were very accomplished. It paid well, though.

 

[ggunn]

There's a huge difference between playing a cover and being a cover band.

You got THAT right.

 

[nkjanssen]

There is a cover band here in Austin, The Eggmen, who, when they play three sets, come out for the first set in black suits and play Beatles covers up through Rubber Soul (or is it Revolver, anyway, the last one before Sgt. Peppers), the second set in accurate copies of the uniforms on Sgt. Peppers and play all Beatles after that point, and in the third set in different psychedelic costumes and play other 60's material (Stones, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Buffalo Springfield, Hollies, Who, etc.). They are very good and very entertaining.

Tribute bands who do the whole costume/show thing are almost more like theatre. When they're well done, they can be fun to watch. But, a typical bar-band cover band running through classic rock, 80's nostalgia and modern top-40? I'd rather chew on tinfoil.

 

[Sirnothingness]

I haven't played in a cover band in about 10 years, but I would keep the solo prety well as is if it were a good solo. If it sucked, then I would alter it some. Depends.

 

[ggunn]

Tribute bands who do the whole costume/show thing are almost more like theatre. When they're well done, they can be fun to watch. But, a typical bar-band cover band running through classic rock, 80's nostalgia and modern top-40? I'd rather chew on tinfoil.

No contest there.

 

[Dumby]

Boundries?

Music has no rules nor boundries...therefore the guy in the cover band can play it exactly the way it was written or whicever way he wants...he's the one with the gig...there are no rights and no wrongs.....except pessemistic musician's...

 

[gbdweller]

No, you wouldn't. Most folks who are in cover bands are not songwriters, so any original material they could come up with would more than likely suck. And, yes, I am including myself in that analysis; I am lucky enough to have run into three songwriters of varying prolificacy who rescued me from the cover band I was languishing in and who let me arrange and write guitar and bass parts for their songs.

Wrong. If you read bios and interviews of some of the greatest songwriters or players out there, they almost always list the artists they were influenced by and the hours they spent listening to and trying to copy and or play like said artist. I've been privileged enough to play with many exceptional musicians in many different cover bands covering many different styles from hard core metal, to wedding style dance. Among those musicians were numerous songwriters with exceptional songwriting talent. Personally, while enjoying writing and performing original material, I make my bread and butter playing covers. Very few ever make it to the level in original music where they can make a living at it, and quite a few of them are terrible. I've also had the privilege of covering some terrific bands and enjoy doing it (thanks for influencing my chops and style).

For those of you in this thread who are trying to label covers or originals as better or worse, unfortunately you've lost sight of what is important, and that is music itself. I will continue to play both, and will equally enjoy playing both because I just love to play. Period. If you don't want to hear covers, don't go. If you are fortunate enough to make it big with originals, or even make a living with them for that matter, more power to ya.

 

[ggunn]

For those of you in this thread who are trying to label covers or originals as better or worse, unfortunately you've lost sight of what is important, and that is music itself. I will continue to play both, and will equally enjoy playing both because I just love to play. Period. If you don't want to hear covers, don't go. If you are fortunate enough to make it big with originals, or even make a living with them for that matter, more power to ya.

Wrong. I never said that playing covers was better or worse; I just said which I'd rather play and which I'd rather listen to. Personally, and given the choice, I'd rather play original material in a garage than covers on a stage, but that's just my pref. I have no plans to make music my primary source of income; I did that for a while and nearly starved. YMMV and good luck to you.

You may have played in cover bands where the members were great songwriters, but that's not been my experience. Virtually all the good songwriters that I've known are driven to play their own stuff.

 

[gbdweller]

Wrong. I never said that playing covers was better or worse; I just said which I'd rather play and which I'd rather listen to. Personally, and given the choice, I'd rather play original material in a garage than covers on a stage, but that's just my pref. I have no plans to make music my primary source of income; I did that for a while and nearly starved. YMMV and good luck to you.

You may have played in cover bands where the members were great songwriters, but that's not been my experience. Virtually all the good songwriters that I've known are driven to play their own stuff.

You're right. I probably should have posted a little clearer when quoting you. You never said playing covers was better or worse. I was just trying to address the songwriter thing when I quoted you. There were a few posts made by other members that did bash cover musicians and the people that pay to go see them. We all have a common interest and that is music. I would love nothing more than to be able to have the time to just play my own stuff and get it all recorded, but unfortunately, the mortgage company won't allow it. Covers do get boring sometimes, but I imagine that playing any song, original or not, loses it's excitement after you've played it a couple hundred times. In the meantime...Jam on.

 

[TheRockDoc]

Quoting myself for reference purposes only:

Most people in my experience use 'funking it up' as an excuse for 'fucking it up'. I believe strongly that while any hack can make any drunken bar slut dance The Dirty, it was always a matter of personal integrity that I played the solo the way it was on record- unless we were purposely changing it and rearranging it.

When played like the record, it tells me that someone took the time and cared enough before they ask for my money at the door.

Just my humble opinion

Because of this relatively mundane post, and relatively different opinion from other posters here (judging by the poll), and instead of calling me to the carpet, some anonymous dickwad posted that I was 'bashing musicians and acting superior' in my rep.

By throwing that out there in the way it was done, I would say that one act alone shows the person was doing exactly what they accused me of. I just don't get this damn rep point thing- don't know how it's figured, but...sounds like someone didn't like me from another thread. Wah wah wah

Don't throw anonymous snowballs from behind your little pseudo-original Partridge Family cover tune tour bus- cOmE oUt aNd pLaY!!!!!!