Members Bajazz Posted July 20, 2012 Members Share Posted July 20, 2012 Anybody else than me that get bored out of rock songs that gets destroyed playing very slow on acoustic guitar? Example: [video=youtube;Ij3gIjTxNEE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij3gIjTxNEE&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLE7DF91A98D72DFFE It's well played, but lacks the kick butt power of the original. I search youtube a lot for getting inspiration and tips for playing rock songs on acoustic. Maybe some of you have examples of how it can be done while delivering the originals energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AVisme Posted July 20, 2012 Members Share Posted July 20, 2012 No, I like hearing a different take on the song. It's kind of pointless to do another fast version of the song. When covering a song, a musician should put his own twist on it. For example, Ryan Adams covered Iron Maiden's "Wasted Years". Even though it's a fast song, there is a melancholy undertone to the lyrics that comes out even more in his acoustic version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bajazz Posted July 20, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 20, 2012 Yes, once in a while it would be nice as a variation, and vice verca. But the rule is that any acoustic cover tends to be a slowed down boring version.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chaff67 Posted July 20, 2012 Members Share Posted July 20, 2012 But the rule is that any acoustic cover tends to be a slowed down boring version.... My old acoustic trio did a remake of Stairway to Heaven that was upbeat and danceable. The crowds loved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members steve mac Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 I think some work and others don't - to save me time working out which is which for me rather than learning the song and deciding on a treatment then after all that not liking it, I tend to search youtube to see if anyone else has had the same idea and can usually tell within a couple of seconds if its worth the effort. Often I will look if Boyce Avenue has had a go first. There is a pop song out at the moment "Thats what makes you beautiful" (I appreciate its not a rock song, in fact the opposite) by a boy band called One Direction (Wand Erection?) I have never paid it any attention cos its just not my thing, but Boyce Avenue had a version of it the caught my ear, I reworked it and it goes down a treat with young and old alike. I do a cover of Dead or Alive and the Chillies Under a Bridge, Stone Roses "she bangs the drum" and a couple of The Smiths (Morrissey). Have to say not that keen on the version of the Kiss song posted but do appreciate the effort put in All the best Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Voltan Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Yes, once in a while it would be nice as a variation, and vice verca. But the rule is that any acoustic cover tends to be a slowed down boring version.... i threw away the rule book years ago... what edition do you have to follow and who enforces it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pogo97 Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 There is only one rule book. There is only one edition. There is no other authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Potts Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 More importantly..why is that dude staring the camera down? Creepy. Very Creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Voltan Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 i think ima do my hair like that for todays gig... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fingerpicker Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 The tempo of the original song and this cover are very close. It's the way he's playing it that you probably don't like, not the tempo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 It's well played, but lacks the kick butt power of the original. I search youtube a lot for getting inspiration and tips for playing rock songs on acoustic. Maybe some of you have examples of how it can be done while delivering the originals energy?To me, this one seems faster than the original, and is far more interesting. It actually has a kind of mezmerizing feel to it, as opposed to the original, which is more nauseating. I do ROCK AND ROLL ALL NIGHT in Toad the Wet Sprocket's style. [video=youtube;Jqzs_8lRW0M] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Potts Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Thanks for reminding me about the "Toad" version. I did it years ago and forgot about it. Maybe I shouldn't let the secret out, but I just grabbed the lyrics and plopped them in my IPad for tonight. I know I know..I'm not a real musician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Thanks for reminding me about the "Toad" version. I did it years ago and forgot about it. Maybe I shouldn't let the secret out, but I just grabbed the lyrics and plopped them in my IPad for tonight. I know I know..I'm not a real musician. but you're still getting paid, right??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Potts Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 but you're still getting paid, right??? +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MDLMUSIC Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 but you're still getting paid, right??? Reminds me of the guy who came up to me on break while I was working in the band for open mic night. He said he really wanted to play something onstage with us and it didn't matter what kind of music it was because he was a music whore. I reminded him that I was getting paid and he wasn't. That made me the music whore. He was just a music slut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EightString Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 How much "kick butt power" you're going to get out of a nylon string is debatable, hence the reinterpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members leftyjay Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 what about all those mtv unplugged shows. all those older rock stars restructuring their hit songs so they can play them acousticly. and there is also eric clapton and layla. how many of you play the acoustic version? how many of you play the original version? i think there is a market for re-arranging 70s-80s rocking songs so you can play them softer at different venues to fit the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 My take: If they wanted to hear the song played like it is on the radio, why would they hire you? They could just slip a buck into the juke box. It is your job to entertain, to bring something different to the table. If doing a cover, you need to make it your own song... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 To me, this one seems faster than the original, and is far more interesting. It actually has a kind of mezmerizing feel to it, as opposed to the original, which is more nauseating. Faster? No, it's quite a bit slower. More interesting? Well, that's a pretty low bar. The original song wasn't very interesting. I'm not thrilled with this version---I didn't want to play the whole thing---but it's kinda cool. What's interesting and somewhat mezmerizing about it is turning it into a 6/8 waltz. But I think that only is interesting when your brain compares it to the original. I wonder how it plays for people who don't know the song. But I could see it going over well with people who know the Kiss version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terry Allan Hall Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 My take: If they wanted to hear the song played like it is on the radio, why would they hire you? They could just slip a buck into the juke box. It is your job to entertain, to bring something different to the table. If doing a cover, you need to make it your own song... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 Faster? No, it's quite a bit slower. More interesting? Well, that's a pretty low bar. The original song wasn't very interesting. I'm not thrilled with this version---I didn't want to play the whole thing---but it's kinda cool. What's interesting and somewhat mezmerizing about it is turning it into a 6/8 waltz. But I think that only is interesting when your brain compares it to the original. I wonder how it plays for people who don't know the song. But I could see it going over well with people who know the Kiss version.I'd like to see a BPM comparison on this. I really don't think it is noticeably slower but then I haven't exactly seeked out the original since..... ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pogo97 Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 Some of this comes down to "what is a song?" Some songs can be done in radically different ways and survive; other songs have to be treated more gently. Older songs--which were less tied to specific performances--might be successfully played at a tempo range of 2 to 1 (something like "Tea for Two" or "After You've Gone"). These songs exist as entities without a strong tie to a single version. "Smoke on the Water" on the other hand.... I think that, if you're doing a song, it behooves you to be familiar with as many versions as you reasonably can. [video=youtube;zU4i5gyFK1s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU4i5gyFK1s [video=youtube;wZRaK0j8DMs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZRaK0j8DMs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EightString Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 Related to pogo's post, I have more than one arrangement of certain classic songs worked up. For instance, depending on he crowd's mood, I might do "All the Things You Are" as either a crooning ballad, or as an up-tempo bebop tune. I also do Dio's "Rainbow in the Dark" in the original metal interpretation, but I also have an acoustic ballad version I've worked up that people seem to like as a tribute to RJD. In fact, on average, the ballad interpretation gets better response than the "rawk" version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fingerpicker Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'd like to see a BPM comparison on this Its definately not quite a bit slower. I youtube'd them both side by side the tempo is fairly close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kevinlane Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 It is very close in tempo. One should think about the melody . . . because the melody IS the song.Everything else is ornamentation. Nice job on the arrangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.