Cover Bands: How closely should they copy the original version of the song to have...

[New Trail]

...the best chance of success? If all other things are equal, would a band do better:

1. Covering the original as closely as possible, including tones, solos, etc.

2. Just get the main parts down, maybe a key signature solo lick, and wing the rest.

3. Do your own version.

[jwlussow]

For us it really depends on the song. None of the options would work for all the songs. Zeppelin for the most part is pretty much exact. Hendrix & Stones have some leeway. We do a version of Mustang Sally (I know, I know. We have to, the crowd loves it) that is pretty much unrecognizable until the vox comes in and even then it is a weird timing thing we do until the chorus which is a straight I, IV, V thing back to the verse.

[RupertB]

- Close as possible is a good general rule, but there are exceptions.

- Tone chasing is for YOU, few people in the audience will care. That said, I'm sick of hearing guitar players cover moderate-OD leads with gobs of distortion (please stop).

- Some solos are "signature" and should be played as people hear them in their heads. Some are fine to use as jumping off points to cut loose. If you choose the later, make sure you have something to say. Remember that brevity is the soul of wit and good soloing.

- Do your own version: Yes, do it. Be creative. Make it entertaining, funny, badass, etc. Just don't use it as an excuse for laziness.

[mstreck]

I'm going with this: "people like what they know". I say the closer to the original, the more people will take to it and the more "professional" your band will be perceived by the audience.

 

That being said, we do what we can with what we have to work with. It seems to be working for us.

[New Trail]

 

..... I say the closer to the original, the more people will take to it and the more "professional" your band will be perceived by the audience......

 

 

I agree!

[SeniorBlues]

Not to berate you, but this is a good example of where links to music files would be far more useful than talking about music. . . . . one where you think you've pretty well nailed the popular version, and another song where you've clearly rearranged it.

 

I think most people try to do the first, but because of stylistic roots, instrumentation, and talent, end up closer to the latter . . . which is fine.

 

Consider that the thing people notice the most - vocals - well, it's not the same is it . . . . .

[mstreck]

 

Not to berate you, but this is a good example of where links to music files would be far more useful than talking about music. . . . . one where you think you've pretty well nailed the popular version, and another song where you've clearly rearranged it. I think most people try to do the first, but because of stylistic roots, instrumentation, and talent, end up closer to the latter . . . which is fine. Consider that the thing people notice the most - vocals - well, it's not the same is it . . . . .

 

 

No, but put the same singer/frontman with a band that nails the instrumentation and one that doesn't - all other things being equal, my money is on the band that nails it.

[kmart]

 

...the best chance of success? If all other things are equal, would a band do better: 1. Covering the original as closely as possible, including tones, solos, etc. 2. Just get the main parts down, maybe a key signature solo lick, and wing the rest. 3. Do your own version.

 

 

You forgot:

 

4. All of the above are potentially equally likely to generate success. It depends almost entirely on the band playing them and how they are delivered.

[rog951]

As close as possible without having to use any music stands on stage.

[TrickyBoy]

IDK, a large portion of the positive comments that we get revolve around the fact that we make the songs our own and don't even try to copy the record. I say deliver the songs with a high level of energy, technically play them well and creatively arrange them and you'll do far better than the "play it like the record" crowd. At least I'm hoping that's the case

[stratotastic]

As close as needed to keep the audience happy. Seriously. You get lots more leeway with some songs than others. Just depends on the song.

[trevcda]

 

...the best chance of success? If all other things are equal, would a band do better: 1. Covering the original as closely as possible, including tones, solos, etc. 2. Just get the main parts down, maybe a key signature solo lick, and wing the rest. 3. Do your own version.

 

 

The band that has no problem doing number one and does number three will far outshine the band that does number two and calls it number three.

[Tweeker50]

 

...the best chance of success? If all other things are equal, would a band do better: 1. Covering the original as closely as possible, including tones, solos, etc. 2. Just get the main parts down, maybe a key signature solo lick, and wing the rest. 3. Do your own version.

 

 

 

 

So, what is success? To play as much as possible or to play the gigs that let you do your thing? I believe these things are mutually exclusive.

If "success" means working as much as possible, then #1 is the answer. Those that sound like the recording have the most options for paying gigs. That's the way it is in Anytown USA.

TrickyBoy's advice "...high level of energy, technically play them well..." is necessary no matter what your approach to get people's attention.

But what about the gigs where "mediocre low energy" performances are what's needed. These are the gigs where you're not supposed to call too much attention to yourself. If you are playing as much as possible you WILL HAVE THIS GIG!

So I ask this question to those that believe success is playing as much as possible. What do you do when you've got the gig that calls for blending in and not standing out?

 

 

 

"what is success? is it doin your own thing.. or to join the rest?"

Alan Touissaint - Bonnie Raitt

[Cosmik de Bris]

When we do covers we do our own versions. We cop the signature riff and sometimes some hook in the leads, and we try to keep the verse chorus bridge ordering so that the audience can sing along but other than that the band members are free to improvise. I think doing them exactly like the original is very boring.

[bigboy78]

 

The band that has no problem doing number one and does number three will far outshine the band that does number two and calls it number three.

 

 

That

[lz4005]

I like covers to be either verbatim or totally different. None of the in-between.

[mstreck]

 

I like covers to be either verbatim or totally different. None of the in-between.

 

 

I'm the same way. However, I don't like bands that are so "perfect" that they are boring.

 

What I've found is that the audience can be very forgiving on certain songs and not others. On Rebel Yell, we play some of the keyboard parts on guitar and it has become one of our strongest songs (note-wise, we play it just like the record). On Don't Stop Believin', we ended up using a keyboard track for the intro. The keys didn't translate well to guitar and it sounded half-assed (although it was note-for-note) - and the audience noticed!

 

That's an extreme example, but I'm sure that you get my point.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Ku'Yleh]

Depends on what you are playing and who you are playing it for.

 

Most of my experience is with bands doing the same classic rawk BS from 40 years ago that everyone else and their dog is doing, and with that you get some room to interpret.

 

Lately I have been playing with a more modern, dance/party type band (which is WAY more fun) and we tend to go stright for the "radio" (read: beast known version... since radio itself is largely irrelevant now) versions of songs verbatim. Most newer stuff is dead easy to replicate 100%, and that's how the dance crowd likes it, from my experience. They expect the verses, choruses, changes, etc to be where they are "supposed" to be, and they like when you replicate solos/key parts (any that exist anyway) exactly.

[MusicalSchizo]

Energy is more important than accuracy. Energy fires up a crowd and hooks them in. I've known MANY bands who sound like complete {censored} to me and play things completely wrong (but not intentionally - they just don't care to get it right), but have a lot of energy and get a lot of attention as a result. As long as people can sing along, you're good. Everything else can pretty much suck with a large majority of audiences.

 

It's sad, but completely true in my experience. And I'm a guy who likes to play things RIGHT. I just feel sometimes like it's a fool's errand to be as anal-retentive as I tend to be about stuff.

Brian V.

[lz4005]

 

I'm the same way. However, I don't like bands that are so "perfect" that they are boring. ... That's an extreme example, but I'm sure that you get my point.

 

 

I get what you're saying, sure. But there's also doing things so "perfect" that its obvious you're making fun of the original song. Like a metal band doing a note perfect version of "My Humps".

[Vito Corleone]

 

I just feel sometimes like it's a fool's errand to be as anal-retentive as I tend to be about stuff.

 

 

I gave up on being such a stickler years ago. There are certainly times and places to place things as 'right' as possible, and that all depends on the band, the audience and all the other usual etc etc etcs.

 

But energy and delivery trumps "playing it like the record" every time.

[JohnMCA72]

Back when I was a kid, trying to learn some songs seemed impossible because of some of the "studio tricks" on the record. So, we started studying live recordings of the same songs. We realized that even the original bands seldom played live, the exact same way they did in the studio. It was just as impossible for them as it was for us! It was a moment of epiphany for me, when I realized that recording & live performance are 2 distinctly different art forms.

 

So, when I realized that it's fair game even for the original artists, to rearrange their songs for a live performance, I guess it's OK for me to do the same thing!

[WynnD]

There's a local Denver trio named Olachi and the first night I saw them, they started playing this nice slow funk that morphed into one the nicest arraignments of "love the one you're with" that I've ever heard. Not close to the original, but recognizable and very entertaining. I loved it. http://www.olachiband.com/home.html I think that's one of their samples. Plus for anyone who cares about such things, two of their members are southpaws.

[GCDEF]

We go out of our way not to sound like the original and it works for us. What you come up with has to be good though and you have to present it well. You need to play good music well, have a good time doing it and make sure people have a good time listening to it. What you actually play isn't quite as important as you may think.

[tim_7string]

...the best chance of success? If all other things are equal, would a band do better: 1. Covering the original as closely as possible, including tones, solos, etc. 2. Just get the main parts down, maybe a key signature solo lick, and wing the rest. 3. Do your own version.

 

Cover bands used to be called "copy bands," so I'm thinking at one time, there was a strong feeling of playing a song closely enough where you could tell what song it was, but it didn't have to necessarily be an exact duplicate.

 

To me, if you want to do number 1, you might as well go all the way and focus on one band, buy the same instruments and amps they do, dress like them, talk like them, wear wigs if you have to and call yourselves a tribute band. Nothing wrong with that. I think bands that tackle the tribute band have a hard road ahead of them. The ones that pull it off really well are also the ones that usually make the most money doing it.

 

As for number 3, well, there are many examples of that in the recording business. Van Halen's versions of "You Really Got Me," "Dancing In The Streets," and "(Oh) Pretty Woman" are all quite different from the original, yet somewhat recognizable even in their redone state. I remember a band in Fargo played their own version of Concrete Blonde's "God Is A Bullet" that sounded more like "Welcome To The Jungle." This is cool to do if your band is talented enough and people really love your version of a song. But it won't work for every band.

 

I consider my band number 2 (and no, not THAT kind of number 2, ha!): we get the main parts of the songs down, including specific hooks, melodies or guitar solos if we feel it is important to the song. If it's more of a jam kind of song (Hendrix, SRV), it's fair game. Play whatever as long as we're all in the same key. But if it's more tightly-arranged (The Cars, Tom Petty, Johnny Rivers' "Memphis"), then I feel we owe it to our audience to get the song to sound pretty close to what people remember.

 

It's working for us anyway.