Stupid question about cover songs/remakes

[VomitHatSteve]

They still are. They try to cover their own old music.

I'm pretty sure you just covered an old Henry Rollins joke.

If you want to make money playing covers, you should do boring note-for-note renditions.

If you want to be awesome, your covers should sound more like this: Macarena - YouTube

 

[Lt. Bob]

I play nothing but covers ...... while the singing needs to have the hook lines and lyrics people want to hear ...... I play my own solos on stuff ...... I'd pretty much never do a solo note for note ...... mine are better anyways.

And, to me, playing covers just means you're playing those songs.
I play stuff differently every night and I believe most savvy audiences prefer that.

The very best cover bands I've heard and played with, some making LOTS of money and being in demand, did the songs however they wish.

I suppose if you're covering Rush you'd HAVE to do their songs exact because they're so structured ........... but for pop and top 40 and classic rock etc etc . there's lots of room for doing them in your own way.

Also ....... I've recorded hundreds of covers for fun ....... not one person I ever showed them to said a single word about anything I did differently than the original.
In fact, the only comment I ever got in that vein was "I like how you have the feel of the original without actually playing it the same".

 

[grimtraveller]

There is a place for cover bands, like it or not.
However, I do agree that many of them totally suck ass.

I don't come into this debate from the view that covers bands suck or that they are wonderful.That there is a place for covers bands is indisputable. Alot of people like to hear a familiar song while they're out having a meal or a drink. Or let me put it another way ~ alot of people don't object to hearing a familiar song while they're out having a meal or a drink. It's a different scenario from a tribute band because there is more intent in the mind of the punter ~ with a covers band, you may not have any idea of what songs they will play { and there's no onus on you to listen}. After all, there's a huge history of songs to choose from.
Virtually all the significant pop and rock bands from the 60s, 70s and 80s had members that were in de facto covers bands.

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.

No, I'm not saying that at all. If you're going to play at a wedding, you're being bloody selfish and pretty daft breaking into a self composed 15 minute progressive jazz rock epic in 17/8 time with wordless chanting and a chorus composed of an English interpretation of Vedic literary wisdom. Many people respond to familiarity.
However, if you are a new band and you want to make a living playing music and you do not want to play anyone else's music but your band's, then you shouldn't. It'll be a struggle but that's called 'paying your dues'.

How does anyone become a good musician if they don't first mimic (cover) other people's songs?

That's a very different question to whether or not you should cover other people's songs.
One of the things I really hate about all of those talent shows that we get force fed from America and the British equivalents that are just trying to copy them is that you virtually never get anyone doing original material. The logic being that people want something they're familiar with. Late last year, I saw one lady from up North do an original song. It was about being drunk or hungover but it was a fabulous song. And the audience went nuts. So did the panel.
Actually, people become good musicians by practicing. It may be other people's songs {at least initially, it likely will be}, it may not be. When I was teaching myself to play bass, I learned maybe 5 songs, in the main, snippets of songs. I remember my mindset at 18 was that I didn't pick up the bass to play other peoples' stuff. I came up with my first piece the night after I got the bass and I rarely looked back.

Haven't we all done tons of covers over the years?

My route was somewhat backwards. I'd been playing for a few years when I became a christian and then I didn't play for a while. By the time it became known that I could play a bit I'd played for 7 years. From that point I played in church outfits for the next 21 years and the majority of the songs, by the nature of that situation, were 'covers'. So yeah, I've done hundreds. But it wasn't by choice. Before I could play an instrument, I wanted to learn so I could play the songs I loved. Once I picked up an instrument, that idea seeped away pretty quick. But we're all different.

 

[Lt. Bob]

might point out also that jazz players, especially older ones, tend to do nothing but covers but the melody is the only part that's actually covered and even then they might change how it's played a lot.
But then they just go off and stretch out.
No one ever says, "Hey .... you didn't do that Sonny Rollins solo note for note"

 

[Greg_L]

I love recording covers. They're fun and good practice for mixing and trying out tones and techniques. I just don't like playing them live, and like even less to listen to them live.

 

[grimtraveller]

might point out also that jazz players, especially older ones, tend to do nothing but covers but the melody is the only part that's actually covered and even then they might change how it's played a lot.
But then they just go off and stretch out.
No one ever says, "Hey .... you didn't do that Sonny Rollins solo note for note"

For me, that's always been the beauty of jazz. I've got many records where the artist in question is doing a cover. But the word 'cover' is something of a misnomer because the piece is so improvised. I've often wondered why they didn't split them as different tunes and get a writer's credit {and therefore a royalty} because that in essence is what they did.

 

[Lt. Bob]

For me, that's always been the beauty of jazz. I've got many records where the artist in question is doing a cover. But the word 'cover' is something of a misnomer because the piece is so improvised. I've often wondered why they didn't split them as different tunes and get a writer's credit {and therefore a royalty} because that in essence is what they did.

Well, when you're improvising it's not really a tune.
But you don't have to limit yourself to jazz to play this way.

Maybe because I have a lotta jazz background but that's basically how I play any song. It could be Brown Eyed Girl but there's gonna be significant improv in there when I play it.

I'm pretty much in demand so I gotta say it's just not true that you have to slavishly play note for note to make money.
They'll also recognize good musicianship.

Sure ..... the little old lady doesn't appreciate the improv but they still come up and compliment the songs they wanted to hear. So even the ones that aren't hip to what you're playing don't care so much if you play note for note.
In fact ...... the only ones that do would be musicians since the vast majority of audiences can't even tell if you're wildly out of tune ...... much less whether you played a triplet where quarter notes went.

As for the term 'cover' being misused ...... I've never personally defined doing a cover as having to play it note for note. To me it's never meant anything more than it's someone else's tune.
In fact ...... in a 45 year music career the only place I've ever heard people insisting that covers had to be note for note is right here at HR .............. and mostly among amateur musicians or players with limited live experience.

 

[chuckduffy]

I love recording covers. They're fun and good practice for mixing and trying out tones and techniques. I just don't like playing them live, and like even less to listen to them live.

+1 - Same here. I record them by the dozen. High speed tracking and mix in as little time as possible. I shoot for 3 to 4 hours for a full band treatment including mix. Sometimes the results are good, sometimes bad - but it's all great practice and I don't get stuck messing with any single song for weeks at a time. Over all I get better over time and it keeps things from getting boring.

 

[grimtraveller]

Well, when you're improvising it's not really a tune.

But it can be. Many 'tunes' I've come up with happened while improvising. When someone like Coltrane's band started off playing "My favourite things", when the band went off on 40 minute excursions, they weren't playing that song anymore. It was a launching pad from which they'd take off. They'd return to variations of the theme and then take off again.
I guess for me, 'tune' is just a shorthand I use interchangeably for 'song' or 'composition'.

As for the term 'cover' being misused ...... I've never personally defined doing a cover as having to play it note for note. To me it's never meant anything more than it's someone else's tune.

I agree. When I called it a misnomer I meant it more specifically in the jazz sense. Much of the time, those group improvisations seem to me to have ceased being someone else's song. But recordings show that they are often identifiable, followable pieces in their own right.

In fact ...... in a 45 year music career the only place I've ever heard people insisting that covers had to be note for note is right here at HR

In church people can get ever so upset if on a record {let alone in a meeting !} someone tries to deviate in any way from the way they feel a particular hymn or song should be ! It's actually quite funny.
But I agree with the main thrust of your point ~ audiences and listeners are alot more knowledgable and appreciative than we sometimes give credit for.

 

[Rod Norman]

Yeah, right. I can't date you because you don't look exactly like my last girlfriends. Do NOT listen to them! First there is the copyright. To sell your CD, all you have to do is go online and get the mechanical licenses based on how many CD's you intend to make and sell. Second though, is the "P" in a circle, called the publishing or performance rights. They protect ThAT arrangement. You need a unique and original intro and outro, as well as some subtle differences in the arrangement of the song itself. The point is to make sure you are NOT sounding like the other bands who arranged their versions. Bands who work hard to sound like the original recordings are called tribute bands. But they usually only do one band's songs. If you never intend to sell those CD's you may be ok to use them as demos for venues. But if you give them out, even for free, you are still violating copyrights. You need mechanical licenses for any and all distribution to the public. Don't listen to your drunk friends on this. Go online and study the specific requirements as it pertains to the law. Good Luck,
Rod Norman

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?