Members MikeyParent Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 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. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted September 28, 2011 Author Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 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. Again, refer back to "all other things being equal." Same energy, same detail to clothing, same talent level, same lighting, same no music stands, same soundman, same everything else, the better you 'copy' a song the better the crowd will think of your band as good or professional. IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KeysBear Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 a lot of the songs have been covered already by well known acts so then we get into the Wayne Cochran vs. Pearl Jam version discussions. Dylan, Marley, or Guns N' Roses? We hit the signature licks and come pretty close but songs like Come Together we blow outta the park not even close to the more laid back style of the original. If we can crank the arrangement up a notch or two from the original we do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dan88z Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 It totally depends on the song for us. Some songs we'll do just like the record down to recreating tones as close as possible. Other songs we'll follow the arrangement on the record but don't capture everything about the recording. Others we do our own thing to. Others we do some of the song as it is on the record and then do our own thing in other parts. There is no one size fits all. I completely disagree with this quote "Most newer stuff is dead easy to replicate 100%, and that's how the dance crowd likes it, from my experience.", because any keyboard heavy new dance stuff is not real easy to replicate live unless you are flying in a lot of tracks. Can you do the songs? Of course, musically they are not that hard, but production wise, there are often more parts than can be covered by the instrumentation in the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted September 28, 2011 Moderators Share Posted September 28, 2011 The better you are as a band, the less accurate you have to be. Accurate renditions are fairly simple. It's all mapped out for you. Nothing wrong with that. That guy singing for Journey now? Amazing. But, you know... so what? Making the tune your own and having an audience respond to your take on it? Not so easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wheresgrant3 Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 ...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. We've used all three approaches depending on the song and it's ability to be covered. Why does a band have to take door #1, 2 or 3? Any of those approaches will be successful. It really depends on that band's ability to 'sell' that song no matter which approach they use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tucktronix Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 I completely disagree with this quote "Most newer stuff is dead easy to replicate 100%, and that's how the dance crowd likes it, from my experience.", because any keyboard heavy new dance stuff is not real easy to replicate live unless you are flying in a lot of tracks. Can you do the songs? Of course, musically they are not that hard, but production wise, there are often more parts than can be covered by the instrumentation in the band. Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wheresgrant3 Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 Again, refer back to "all other things being equal." Same energy, same detail to clothing, same talent level, same lighting, same no music stands, same soundman, same everything else, the better you 'copy' a song the better the crowd will think of your band as good or professional. IMO... LOL... I'm not sure what you are striving for here. Bands are like snowflakes... there are no two a like. And there are many ways to approach a song. Just the mere fact that we deliver songs in medley fashion many times prevents us from covering the song note for note. Many times we have to deconstruct the song and/or strip pieces out to make them fit with other songs. Yet we draw people in every night. I don't think people ever say "Um, they aren't playing that song the right way". They either buy the delivery or they don't. Bands have made entire careers of doing things differen'tly with music. Dread Zepplin, Me First & The Gimmee Gimmees. I'm not certain I understand the point you are trying to make. Yes, if your band sucks and can't cover a song note for note an audience may notice. If you have talented muso's in your band with an amazing emulation ability that can cover every song they play, note for note, but are boring as hell to watch, the audience may notice that as well. A more talented band may be considered 'more professional' but an enetertaining band will undoubtedly be 'popular'. And 'professional' and 'popular' are two separate things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MusicalSchizo Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 Again, refer back to "all other things being equal." Same energy, same detail to clothing, same talent level, same lighting, same no music stands, same soundman, same everything else, the better you 'copy' a song the better the crowd will think of your band as good or professional. IMO... If all other things are equal (energy level, etc.), then the vast majority of people will dig the most familiar rendition of the song. BY FAR. So the answer, unequivocally, with most audiences, will be #1. With avant-garde, genre-specific, or "own-fart-huffing" audiences, the rendition that best fits their musical preference will be the biggest winner, so in that rare situation, it'll be #3. It will NEVER be #2, all other things being equal. Because that's just a half-assed version of #1. Just my opinion.Brian V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wheresgrant3 Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 There is no one size fits all. I completely disagree with this quote "Most newer stuff is dead easy to replicate 100%, and that's how the dance crowd likes it, from my experience.", because any keyboard heavy new dance stuff is not real easy to replicate live unless you are flying in a lot of tracks. Can you do the songs? Of course, musically they are not that hard, but production wise, there are often more parts than can be covered by the instrumentation in the band. Exactly. This thread is another example of someone thinking of something pretty specific, like covering Eric Clapton tunes and applying it in broad fashion across every musical situation. It's just not possible. The reason we added two keyboard players was to tackle some of the modern dance tunes with heavier production. Could we stab at it with just one keyboard player, well sure. But having two synth players offers us the ability to tackle most of the instrumentation behind the song. That still doesn't mean it's note for note or played exactly like the recording. Having a live rhythm section instead of a drum track gives it a human flair that wasn't captured in the studio. Do we stand out from every other band in our market covering the same material using either backing tracks or limited keys. Yes, absolutely. But we really stand out to people in the way we deliver the songs, not because we're covering the song more accurately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ned911 Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 What I've found is to learn the song as close as possible to the original recording then modify as a group. By having everyone learn the recorded version it's easier to work up then make adjustments to fit the bands personality or instrumentation. Of course this doesn't apply to all songs as some just need to be modded right from the start. You also learn more by figuring out the original composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wardjames Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 It will NEVER be #2, all other things being equal. Because that's just a half-assed version of #1.QUOTE]I agree with this 100%. You can do the half assed version of #1, but you're going to have to be a HELL of a band to make people like it more than the good band who does #1.My feeling is that all things being equal, you're better off with #1, as far as the audience goes. The closer you get to the original, the better you'll do. But there's a level of diminishing returns, so I think you need to learn parts, agree as to what constitutes signature licks, etc., and what elements of the song are key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members astone923 Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 Most audiences don't care or know if a song sounds "exactly" like the original, but they do know when they like it, and they know when you suck... I guess the approach my bands have always taken is to play to your strengths, and be entertaining. If you can find a way to dust off a boring old tune and make it sound fresh, that can go over much better than covering it note for note.... or it will sound like balls to the audience. Trial and error... and stick with what works. Is it more of a compliment to play to a dead room and the bartender says you sounded just like the original, or every night you play, people are into it, and say they had a great time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tucktronix Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 'professional' and 'popular' are two separate things. This isn't necessarily true. From my definition, part of being "professional" is about delivering what the club owners and patrons want. With that being said, entertaining the audience is being professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 This isn't necessarily true. From my definition, part of being "professional" is about delivering what the club owners and patrons want. With that being said, entertaining the audience is being professional. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry_L Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 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! Good point. I always try to find a live version by the original artist if available as a more accurate model of how a song can be performed live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wardjames Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 Most audiences don't care or know if a song sounds "exactly" like the original, but they do know when they like it, and they know when you suck... I guess the approach my bands have always taken is to play to your strengths, and be entertaining. If you can find a way to dust off a boring old tune and make it sound fresh, that can go over much better than covering it note for note.... or it will sound like balls to the audience. Trial and error... and stick with what works. Is it more of a compliment to play to a dead room and the bartender says you sounded just like the original, or every night you play, people are into it, and say they had a great time? If you can find a great way to dust off an old tune, then I think you're in the realm of #3, and that can work great. Big difference from learning the chords, slapping in a half assed intro, and calling it a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wardjames Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 Good point. I always try to find a live version by the original artist if available as a more accurate model of how a song can be performed live. Good call. Youtube is such a great tool for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted September 28, 2011 Moderators Share Posted September 28, 2011 Good point. I always try to find a live version by the original artist if available as a more accurate model of how a song can be performed live. Sure... but doesn't that rob you of the challenge and enjoyment of figuring out a way yourself? Part of the downside of being in a cover band is that you can easily not learn some valuable skills. Aping a recording is fine. But learning how to arrange... the opportunity is there every day for a cover band. Why not take advantage of the opportunity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIMKEYS Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 we cover things close enough for rock and roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted September 28, 2011 Author Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 Good point. I always try to find a live version by the original artist if available as a more accurate model of how a song can be performed live. You can do that but the problem with that is that most audience members will be familiar with the studio (hit) version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wheresgrant3 Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 This isn't necessarily true. From my definition, part of being "professional" is about delivering what the club owners and patrons want. With that being said, entertaining the audience is being professional. Very hard to argue with that and a good point to remember. Which means for many on this board, the popular bands you may admire, envy or despise are no doubt operating professionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SeniorBlues Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 You can do that but the problem with that is that most audience members will be familiar with the studio (hit) version. This has been my guitar player's argument, but I think most bands, including "good", successful" ones will sound more like themselves than either the original studio recording, a live version, or, for some songs that have been mentioned, well know cover "hits". I've never played "Do It Again", but if I did, I wonder how folks would react to this version . . . assuming they're familiar with the studio hit. [video=youtube;3EWIn-GFOto]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EWIn-GFOto&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators BATCAT Posted September 28, 2011 Moderators Share Posted September 28, 2011 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's worth noting, though, that not every band does/did an especially good job of getting their own stuff across live. It's interesting to see what they do, but sometimes... it kind of sucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mstreck Posted September 28, 2011 Members Share Posted September 28, 2011 It's worth noting, though, that not every band does/did an especially good job of getting their own stuff across live. It's interesting to see what they do, but sometimes... it kind of sucks! That is so true! I've been disappointed more than a few times after paying some high ticket prices. However, Aerosmiith = just like the recording to the point of making my mouth drop!!!! For all I know, they were using backing tracks - but it was awesome!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.