writing originals vs. playing covers

[mdainsd]

No covers! Not no way! Not no how! LOL. I got started in this so late in life... My first and only band started with myself and a guy at work. It has grown into a five piece. All originals all the time. Some of this is because I am on a short fuse time wise. I need to pack in stuff that others have had decades to explore. So right from the git-go we decided to do our own thing. I dont want to invest the time to learn anyone else's stuff. I dont want some clot coming up to me and saying "dude, you so fucked up that song, dont you know that note is on the 10" tom not the 12"???"

Because there is no intention of making a living off of this or even making money (sure it would be nice, but I dont need it) we get to spend our time on creating music, not copying it.

Just my 2 cents. My situation is different than the vast majority though

 

[DM60]

I think covers are fine, if you are going to own them. You look a Joe Cocker, Chet Atkins, Johnny Cash, Van Halen, Aerosmith (They didn't write all of their own songs on the later albums) any Blue Grass Band. But to play a cover like the record, na, what is the point of that. Also, especially for a new band, playing covers with "your" style I think would help develop the original music. Some people can't write music, but play great. So, everyone that can halfway play, can play their way.

I think the major theme here is, cover or not, be original and bring something to the stage. The rest is just colour or color.

 

[SaraphTravis]

Many bands start out playing covers and then mix in a few originals as they go. From a financial standpoint, it is beneficial to know a few sets of covers. Playing original songs is always more gratifying, but until a band has a large enough fan base it just won't pay as well. After a four week run playing originals, it was always the three hour set of covers at the end that allowed us to do it again.

 

[Lt. Bob]

it just depends on what you want to do. If you want to play gigs for money then you have top do covers in general.
If the money isn't an issue and you don't mind doing the gigs for little or no money then by all means go with originals.
It just depends.
Myself, it's how I pay my bills and I have to make maximum money.
So that means predominantly covers although I don't handicap myself by slavishly playing them note for note like the originals as many here seem to do. You really can be pretty free with covers as long as the audience hears the hookline they associate the song with. Plus I might mention that every single song any band on Earth does live is a cover .... even if it's a cover of their own tune.
But even doing it for a living, I have no problems slipping in my own stuff ......as long as they're having fun I can do a fair amount of stuff they've never heard.

 

[ido1957]

If you play an original you cannot be compared to the record. You stand on you own merits.

 

[Chili]

If you play an original you cannot be compared to the record. You stand on you own merits.

...and the way I play covers, better to do originals.

 

[Seafroggys]

Why not do both? All the great bands started playing other people's stuff, and started incorperating their own as time went on. Look at The Who. Look at Live at Leeds. Aside from Tommy, most of it is covers. The Beatles, who are known as the greatest songsmiths ever, did a lot of covers early on, especially live. Even later on, The Who continued to play a few covers, such as Summertime Blues.

From this trend, you can say that albums can be all (or mostly) originals, but why not throw in a few covers for live work? Not just a token live song, but maybe several? Is there anything wrong with that?

And also, consider this. I am a drummer. I am a composer. As a drummer, I love drumming. I only care about what I drum, not whether I am drumming to an original or cover. Also, for example, when I joined one of my bands 5 years ago, they had 20 or so songs already. To me, how are those songs different from covers? Yes, only my band palys those songs, but from my perspective, they're only covers. Only the songs we've written since then are 'originals' to me since I helped write them. What about bands where there is a principle songwriter? Is everyone else playing covers?

Essentially, what I am saying, is the whole original/cover argument is dumb. If you're a musician, it shouldn't matter. And even if you care, unless you yourself wrote the song, its not an original to you. So if you only get feeling from playing originals, then you should get any feeling from anything unless you explicitly wrote it. Which is dumb.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Essentially, what I am saying, is the whole original/cover argument is dumb. If you're a musician, it shouldn't matter. And even if you care, unless you yourself wrote the song, its not an original to you. So if you only get feeling from playing originals, then you should get any feeling from anything unless you explicitly wrote it. Which is dumb.

and I agree ..... I'm all about playing and achieving virtuousity on my instruments. That doesn't depend on who originally wrote the song.
VERY many jazz greats played nothing original at all ..... only covers ..... which they did however they felt like. That's how I play.

 

[Greg_L]

Why not do both? All the great bands started playing other people's stuff, and started incorperating their own as time went on. Look at The Who. Look at Live at Leeds. Aside from Tommy, most of it is covers. The Beatles, who are known as the greatest songsmiths ever, did a lot of covers early on, especially live. Even later on, The Who continued to play a few covers, such as Summertime Blues.

From this trend, you can say that albums can be all (or mostly) originals, but why not throw in a few covers for live work? Not just a token live song, but maybe several? Is there anything wrong with that?

And also, consider this. I am a drummer. I am a composer. As a drummer, I love drumming. I only care about what I drum, not whether I am drumming to an original or cover. Also, for example, when I joined one of my bands 5 years ago, they had 20 or so songs already. To me, how are those songs different from covers? Yes, only my band palys those songs, but from my perspective, they're only covers. Only the songs we've written since then are 'originals' to me since I helped write them. What about bands where there is a principle songwriter? Is everyone else playing covers?

Essentially, what I am saying, is the whole original/cover argument is dumb. If you're a musician, it shouldn't matter. And even if you care, unless you yourself wrote the song, its not an original to you. So if you only get feeling from playing originals, then you should get any feeling from anything unless you explicitly wrote it. Which is dumb.

I disagree with this haphazard biased logic. I understand where you're coming from but I wholeheartedly reject the notion that playing any music is good just because you think you're a "musician" and any other opinion is dumb. That's retarded. Play covers all you want. Don't act like you're some enlightened badass because of it. Lol. Some people prefer to do their own thing. Some of you want to play someone else's creativity. That's cool. I can meet in the middle. I'm cool with covers that are completely reworked from their original state. Just let me know when and where you're playing so I won't be there.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I understand where you're coming from but I wholeheartedly reject the notion that playing any music is good just because you think you're a "musician" and any other opinion is dumb.

I personally feel that there are a zillion different preferences when it comes to music and playing it.
And I also agree that calling other approaches dumb is wrong. I don't feel like any way is better than any other. It's all what works for you.

However, I do quite frequently see comments disparaging people who DO do covers and calling that dumb. Lots of comments about how "that's not even worth doing" as if doing that makes you not a musician and I feel that's just as wrong, or mistaken if you prefer.

Look ..... for 45 years I've been primarily a hired gun/session player. Yes I've been in plenty of bands but my specialty has always been hired gun work. And I'm not talking about some I, IV, V blues band. Well .... sometimes .... but also bands doing stuff of a Steely Dan complexity and calling me up without me even knowing who they are and it being a matter of "Hi .... I'm Dan ..... can you do a gig Fri. at 7?"
In a typical week, if I played 7 gigs I might play with 4 different bands.

Now, for guys like me ..... everything is a cover. We go to a gig or the studio and do what the person that hires us wants us to do. Sometimes that involves playing a certain thing they want .... other times they want you to be free and put a lot of your own ideas in.
But regardless .... for session men and hired guns basically everything is a cover and all these guys are seriously good players because you have to be or you don't get hired.

So I personally have said many, many times that I don't believe in rules when it comes to music. Whatever makes you happy is what you should do.
And there are plenty of people who don't see the point of doing anything they didn't write ..... and that's cool ... for them.
But the sneers that people who play covers often get are as off base as the idea that only doing originals is dumb and it seems to be a common thing I hear.
What works for you is great AFAIC and that's what you should do. But i don't think looking down on those of us that do covers for a living is ok either. I do covers AND I have a great time doing it.
I do songs however the hell I feel like doing them so really ..... what's the difference?
And would I rather play 17 originals over and over and over , oh and this month I wrote two new ones so now I can play 19 over and over and over? Hell, I play 5 and 6 nights a week very frequently ..... how boring is that gonna get?
I currently have a songlist of around 550 songs ...... I have a ball and I get better as I play.
And when I want to do an original I do.

So don't be feeling sorry for me or look down on the cover thing ..... I probably have more fun playing music than any of ya'll and I don't find playing covers a burden at all.
What I want to be the best player I can be before I croak and this is one of the very best ways to get there.
One song I gotta cop a super twangy country feel and the next I'm doing Miles Davis .... or Doctor John ....... or prog ..... or reggae .... demands a lot and that's what I want .... to be pushed.

And you guys can write some songs I wanna do!

 

[Seafroggys]

Greg I think you misunderstood me. The dumb comment was a reference to people who categorize covers and originals as two completely separate entities of music, and calling one completely inferior (99% of the time, covers). Nor did I ever say that cover bands were the way to go. Cover bands can be cool to play in, but I wasn't even talking about "cover bands" (I don't think I need to define what I mean by that). What I'm trying to say is that for most of the musicians who are in the generic "hip" scene (not jazz, classical, etc.) seem to have a warped view of what is or isn't a cover. And my point was that unless you yourself wrote the song or had a hand in writing it, how is that song more special to you than a cover?

If I wear my writer's hat, yes, I want to do originals. But if I wear my drummer's hat, I just like playing awesome stuff.

And going off on what Bob says....wouldn't 99% of orchestras in the world be cover bands? Would your holier than thou singer-songwriter look down on those guys? Really?

 

[Slowrider]

"What I want to be the best player I can be before I croak and this is one of the very best ways to get there.
One song I gotta cop a super twangy country feel and the next I'm doing Miles Davis .... or Doctor John ....... or prog ..... or reggae .... demands a lot and that's what I want .... to be pushed."



You said it, man.

I've been on both sides of that fence, and there's nothing quite like a LIVE audience.

Playing all originals, was stifling. And, hardly anyone notices them anyway. Unless, you get good radio play. And, I mean GOOD radio time.

Unless, you are dedicated to working the music BIZ; you will be left behind in a heartbeat.

Covers, are where the money, and personal satisfaction is. People love to hear what they like, and as long as they are paying, that's what I gave them.
No covers, were ever played exactly alike, anyway. Each and every time, was a new experience. And, like Bob; we always slid originals into the mix.
Worked with some of the greatest guitarists, drummers, and keyboardists in the business. You'll never see that kind of action sitting in your room, waiting for a break. Being a session player is one of the best ways to get great. You do not have a choice.
The competition is stiff, LIVE or studio work. You slack off for even a second, and someone will take your place.

You need to EXPOSE yourself to the public. They will let you know if you are any good! Quickly!

 

[Greg_L]

I personally feel that there are a zillion different preferences when it comes to music and playing it.
And I also agree that calling other approaches dumb is wrong. I don't feel like any way is better than any other. It's all what works for you.

However, I do quite frequently see comments disparaging people who DO do covers and calling that dumb. Lots of comments about how "that's not even worth doing" as if doing that makes you not a musician and I feel that's just as wrong, or mistaken if you prefer.

Look ..... for 45 years I've been primarily a hired gun/session player. Yes I've been in plenty of bands but my specialty has always been hired gun work. And I'm not talking about some I, IV, V blues band. Well .... sometimes .... but also bands doing stuff of a Steely Dan complexity and calling me up without me even knowing who they are and it being a matter of "Hi .... I'm Dan ..... can you do a gig Fri. at 7?"
In a typical week, if I played 7 gigs I might play with 4 different bands.

Now, for guys like me ..... everything is a cover. We go to a gig or the studio and do what the person that hires us wants us to do. Sometimes that involves playing a certain thing they want .... other times they want you to be free and put a lot of your own ideas in.
But regardless .... for session men and hired guns basically everything is a cover and all these guys are seriously good players because you have to be or you don't get hired.

So I personally have said many, many times that I don't believe in rules when it comes to music. Whatever makes you happy is what you should do.
And there are plenty of people who don't see the point of doing anything they didn't write ..... and that's cool ... for them.
But the sneers that people who play covers often get are as off base as the idea that only doing originals is dumb and it seems to be a common thing I hear.
What works for you is great AFAIC and that's what you should do. But i don't think looking down on those of us that do covers for a living is ok either. I do covers AND I have a great time doing it.
I do songs however the hell I feel like doing them so really ..... what's the difference?
And would I rather play 17 originals over and over and over , oh and this month I wrote two new ones so now I can play 19 over and over and over? Hell, I play 5 and 6 nights a week very frequently ..... how boring is that gonna get?
I currently have a songlist of around 550 songs ...... I have a ball and I get better as I play.
And when I want to do an original I do.

So don't be feeling sorry for me or look down on the cover thing ..... I probably have more fun playing music than any of ya'll and I don't find playing covers a burden at all.
What I want to be the best player I can be before I croak and this is one of the very best ways to get there.
One song I gotta cop a super twangy country feel and the next I'm doing Miles Davis .... or Doctor John ....... or prog ..... or reggae .... demands a lot and that's what I want .... to be pushed.

And you guys can write some songs I wanna do!

Ok, that's all great, and just to reiterate...I've said many times in here, maybe in this very thread, that I know that you actually make a living at playing music and playing covers your own way and I respect you for that. You are the one and only example that I know of at this site that actually walks the walk every single day. The rest of us as far as I know are wannabes, weekend warriors, and basement hacks just banging out sounds. I get that. From my perspective, and keep in mind that my preferential genres have a different ethic than most, I couldn't care less about being the best player ever or giving a retarded drunken audience what they want to hear. To me gigging is an overrated necessary evil. Sure, it's fun sometimes, but I'd be just as, no, more happy just playing music with the fellas and never leaving the garage. I don't seek or want adoration or success from music. I never have. I realized very, very early in my musical life that I had no chance for any type of success. Anyone that's heard my music can probably understand this. I just like playing my kind of music because it's fun to me. I don't like playing any kind of music, I like playing my kind of music. I just enjoy the creative process and having an inkling of a riff or melody come to life as a complete song. It's like building something. Redoing someone else's song doesn't give me that satisfaction. I enjoy recording covers as a way to try out new tracking or mix techniques, but I'm not getting off the couch to play someone else's music live. The way I see it, there are only a few bands that I like enough to want to play their songs live, and I'll never do those songs justice, and I respect the originals too much to butcher them, so there's no point. God, there's nothing worse than hearing some hack band hack and butcher their way through a cover. Also, and this is where I get really out there, I have little to no respect for an audience. If you're at a venue to hear live music, you're going to listen to what I give you. Or simply leave. Or boo. Or throw something. I really don't care. I'm on the stage, you're down there. I can hold my own on the rock instruments. I have the balls to get on a stage with all eyes on me and do what I do. Shut the fuck up and take what I give you. If you want something different, learn how to play and do it yourself. Or go find another band to listen to. That's the way I see the division between band and listener. I'm not some kid just getting his feet wet. I've played a shit ton of gigs. I know that's a dick mentality, but I don't care. As a music listener I want to hear original material from bands. As the player, I want to play my own music or music I've had a hand in writing.

 

[Greg_L]

And going off on what Bob says....wouldn't 99% of orchestras in the world be cover bands? Would your holier than thou singer-songwriter look down on those guys? Really?

They're professional paid musicians paid to play that music. That's how they make their living. It's their job. They're like actors. Here's your script. Stick to it, or if you start to improvise, it better be good. I'm fine with that. If playing covers is what you choose to do to rake in cash, then have at it. I got no issue with that. There's no debate that covers pay. I think that's inherently ass fucking backwards, but it is what it is. See my other post above for more if you want to know where I'm coming from.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Ok, that's all great, and just to reiterate...I've said many times in here, maybe in this very thread, that I know that you actually make a living at playing music and playing covers your own way and I respect you for that. You are the one and only example that I know of at this site that actually walks the walk every single day. The rest of us as far as I know are wannabes, weekend warriors, and basement hacks just banging out sounds. I get that. From my perspective, and keep in mind that my preferential genres have a different ethic than most, I couldn't care less about being the best player ever or giving a retarded drunken audience what they want to hear. To me gigging is an overrated necessary evil. Sure, it's fun sometimes, but I'd be just as, no, more happy just playing music with the fellas and never leaving the garage. I don't seek or want adoration or success from music. I never have. I realized very, very early in my musical life that I had no chance for any type of success. Anyone that's heard my music can probably understand this. I just like playing my kind of music because it's fun to me. I don't like playing any kind of music, I like playing my kind of music. I just enjoy the creative process and having an inkling of a riff or melody come to life as a complete song. It's like building something. Redoing someone else's song doesn't give me that satisfaction. I enjoy recording covers as a way to try out new tracking or mix techniques, but I'm not getting off the couch to play someone else's music live. The way I see it, there are only a few bands that I like enough to want to play their songs live, and I'll never do those songs justice, and I respect the originals too much to butcher them, so there's no point. God, there's nothing worse than hearing some hack band hack and butcher their way through a cover. Also, and this is where I get really out there, I have little to no respect for an audience. If you're at a venue to hear live music, you're going to listen to what I give you. Or simply leave. Or boo. Or throw something. I really don't care. I'm on the stage, you're down there. I can hold my own on the rock instruments. I have the balls to get on a stage with all eyes on me and do what I do. Shut the fuck up and take what I give you. If you want something different, learn how to play and do it yourself. Or go find another band to listen to. That's the way I see the division between band and listener. I'm not some kid just getting his feet wet. I've played a shit ton of gigs. I know that's a dick mentality, but I don't care. As a music listener I want to hear original material from bands. As the player, I want to play my own music or music I've had a hand in writing.

just to be clear here ..... my long post was not directed at you at all and, in fact, I almost made a statement about the fact that greg doesn't put down on people who do covers even though he's not interested in doing them himself. I've never seen you put down on covers or playing covers ..... you've always said that it's cool but not what you want to do.

And I'll hand the respect right back to ya'. You do music the way it feels right to you with no compromises ..... I think that's awesome and I mean that.
No one can throw down an original like you do with an identifiable style and excellent playing and recording skillz.
I'll prolly never be able to do that like you do and don't kid yourself ..... I envy that and sometimes wish I didn't gig like I do so I could pursue that side of music more. And though you often belittle your own playing skillz the fact is you're an excellent player and I never give that away unless it's earned.
Yeah, I do write and record it but not like you and it's because so much time gigging. But that doesn't mean I don't have fun doing what I do .... I guess I just wish I could do more

And that's basically what I'm saying ..... I'm actually not really talking about covers versus originals here.
I'm saying everyone should do it the way that feels right to them ....... whatever it is ....... and be true to yourself. But understand that others have their own path and it's just as valid.

And once again .. teh gerg already knows this and says so. Hell man, I've seen you give feedback to tunage that I know for sure you hate and yet you give good advice with nary a clue that it's a style that makes you wanna puke. That's pretty damned objective.
So I'm talking to everyone else here.

If playing covers doesn't interest you then you shouldn't play covers.
How is that gonna be inspiring? Doing something you hate is just gonna make the whole thing suck.
Leaving aside the money issue ..... I truly feel everyone should follow their own path. I just sometimes wish that folks would understand there are different ways to go about this music thing and all of them are valid.

 

[Greg_L]

just to be clear here ..... my long post was not directed at you at all .

No, I got that. I quoted your post and was initially talking to you right at first but then I spun off and the rest of my rambling was just in general terms. Not directed at anyone. And thanks for the kind words and compliments.

 

[grimtraveller]

Essentially, what I am saying, is the whole original/cover argument is dumb. If you're a musician, it shouldn't matter. And even if you care, unless you yourself wrote the song, its not an original to you. So if you only get feeling from playing originals, then you should get any feeling from anything unless you explicitly wrote it. Which is dumb.

It's neither dumb.....nor true. If you play in a band that has writers of songs you personally didn't write, they are originals. Because they emanate from within the band.
If a mate of yours that isn't in the band writes a song and your band is the only outfit to record it or even just the first to release it, you could argue that it's an original.
I'm interested that some people feel so strongly about those that don't want to do cover versions. I don't think anyone should be criticized for not wanting to do them and they shouldn't be criticized for doing them. I personally won't do them. I love the songs, I like listening to and grooving {ie, singing or playing air instruments !}to them. I don't want to play or record them. If I was in Lt Bob's situation, that would be entirely different. Anyone that's followed this thread can see his scenario is kind of unique to this particular thread.
But the one thing you said that I'd really pick you up on is

If you're a musician, it shouldn't matter.

It should and it does but there is an underlying assumption that one position is intrinsically right and one is inherently wrong. Not so. Some want to do it, some don't.
Both sides have their reasons. Because it's not about right and wrong.

 

[DM60]

I truly feel everyone should follow their own path. I just sometimes wish that folks would understand there are different ways to go about this music thing and all of them are valid.

This is the very valid statement and anyone's preference is the right path. After all, if you start to define the "rules" then you kind of lost the whole point in getting involved with music to begin with. Playing covers, not playing covers, how you play them, the point is, you're playing and hopefully enjoying. I know for me, I am writing music and most likely will not get listened to, liked, etc. I don't care, this is what I want to do, want it to be the best I can make it (hence joining the board), but I also like to hear others POVs. Not that I would do it, or even agree that is for me, but I still like to hear them.

Same with music. For the longest time I was stuck in the late 60's and 70's rock music. I wouldn't even consider other types of music. Then I got back into music and purchased Ableton Live to help my daughter learn the software. Ableton is geared towards a "different" type of artist. I learned about Dubstep, Trance, House, more about Hip Hop, etc. Many of the songs were 15-20 years ago (Pump Up The Volume, 1986 for example). My narrow mind kept me from experiencing so much more. Even electronic dance music is an art form.

So, point is, if you have a preference, great. But there are other POVs that should at lest be open minded to at least respect. However you are doing is the right way, unless you want to do it different. For me, I am just "chasing the sound" (great title of the documentary by the way on Les Paul, that guy was really innovative).

 

[grimtraveller]

wouldn't 99% of orchestras in the world be cover bands?

No, 99% of them wouldn't be. 100% of them are. But orchestras aren't really germain to this conversation because they don't in any way deviate from the printed score. They have to play according to what is written. If you have 17 recordings of Strauss' Also sprach Zarathustra {2001's iconic theme} by different orchestras recorded over the last 45 years, you'll be hard pressed to take your pick of the one to keep on your ipod because they all really do sound the same. One thing you can always say for groups/artists that do covers is that rarely do you hear two identical versions of a song.

 

[Lt. Bob]

there is an underlying assumption that one position is intrinsically right and one is inherently wrong. Not so. Some want to do it, some don't.
Both sides have their reasons. Because it's not about right and wrong.

So, point is, if you have a preference, great. But there are other POVs that should at lest be open minded to at least respect. However you are doing is the right way, unless you want to do it different.

^^^^ these ^^^^^

that covers it IMO.
Music is a very personal thing and no one other than you can tell you what the right way to go about it is.
Sure ..... we can suggest that always having your gain on 11 with all the mids scooped out might not be the best sound but as far as the music someone chooses to play or not play ...... how can anyone other than the person involved have any valid viewpoint on that?

So in a perfect world I think we should all respect anyone's choices in music even if we don't like those choices. That doesn't mean you can't say what your own likes and dislikes are ..... but you liking or not liking something doesn't make it right or wrong. It only applies to you.