Jump to content

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


New Trail

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Uh......so......is there a consensus on how closely a cover band should copy the original version of the songs they play to have the best crowd response?......
:confused:

 

It's doubtful that there is a consensus. IMO, I have to agree with wheresgrant3, Blackbird13, and others who have said that playing songs note-for-note has zero relationship with how popular or entertaining you are or how much money you are going to make.

 

Right now, my band is one of the best at playing songs very well. We play them closely to the recorded versions, but not note-for-note. But that focus on musicianship is only one piece of the puzzle. It has not resulted in packed houses, merely respect for our talent. The missing piece? FUN. You gotta have FUN onstage. Make it seem like THIS is the place to be (wherever your band is at that moment). Sometimes, that's going to result in flubs onstage, because you either stop playing for a few seconds while you're talking to some hot chick or play a wrong chord or two because you're working the crowd into a frenzy. We're working on that part. We're also working on better lights so people can actually SEE we are having fun, so they are inspired to have fun as well! :lol:

 

There are bands around here who are really good AND can do the fun aspect. Only when you have both (i.e. present yourselves as an ENTERTAINMENT package) will the large crowds follow and not before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, I don't see how it doesn't line up. .

 

And there you have it.

 

You give me this either/or paradigm: either I respect MM or I don't. Either I shut up when I think he sucks, or I obviously don't respect him. And if I dare to try and explain how my views are not so simplistic, then I'm "retreating into a middle ground".

 

Retreat is a bad word...move is better. And I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion or the right to say it. It's a forum right? The problem is what happens 'WHEN" you explain. Instead of dealing with the issue presented, you manipulate context to win the argument. That's what riles feathers. If you still don't understand, ask yourself why there are 10 pages of you 'explaining' yourself. You said your position, gave your reasons....then it becomes a matter of manipulation. Anyone who has ever taken a debate class understands. It's a form of double speak. From WIKI:

 

Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

 

The key word being strategic....win...manipulate...use context to win....and I am sure you don't see it this way, you are doing what comes naturally. But the effect it has is that the folks that back and forth with you feel like it is a waste of time cuz you are not going to concede anything, and therefore not truly considering there point of view.

 

Go back and read the back and forth between you and Lee. You don't disagree with his point...musicians deserve some form of respect....you disagree with his context (he's fat! he's old! he's pitchy! he is wearing a t shirt) an use it to beat his point down. The bottom line is you are not WILLING to give it to him in YOUR context. It doesn't make you right, but that is not HOW you argue it.

 

Truth is--I've always BEEN in the middle ground, never left it and never said I was in any other place. Why you feel the need to portray my opinions as being as somewhere other than in the middle ground just so you can later accuse me of retreating when I try to explain myself to someone who seems to have missed my original position....I don't get that.

I can see how you feel that portrayal....the point I am making is about your process....and the use of middle ground as a metaphor was poor useage on my part....context is just just the thing you use.

 

G: MM is pitchy and that sucks.

A: aww give him a pass.

 

....and 10 pages ensue about why and the defense of why. Never how....I and others brought up the idea of "how" and you go back to "why" cuz that is where your context lies. You really can't admit that you don't know what it is like to be black? Or Old. Or overweight. Or on tour for 30 years. Or a star. Your assertions are usually valid and well thought out....but none of these points are valid to you cuz your reproach in this case comes from YOUR context. And you won't let go of that.

 

But I'm glad you really respect my posts...

 

And while I can feel your oozing interweb sarcasm, I really do feel that way. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And there you have it.


 

I'll consider your points and try to develop a more consistant debating style in the future.

 

In the meantime, I'm outta here for awhile. Give all you guys a break from me and my relentless posting while the wife and I are using a gig on Friday in Monterey as a chance to take in some seaside R&R for a few days. You've given me something to think about while I've got my toes in the sand.

 

See ya all next week! :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'll consider your points and try to develop a more consistant debating style in the future.


In the meantime, I'm outta here for awhile. Give all you guys a break from me and my relentless posting while the wife and I are using a gig on Friday in Monterey as a chance to take in some seaside R&R for a few days. You've given me something to think about while I've got my toes in the sand.

 

 

Bet I know what song will be running through your head on the beach...

 

 

[video=youtube;U-xetxYwyak]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'll consider your points and try to develop a more consistant debating style in the future.


In the meantime, I'm outta here for awhile. Give all you guys a break from me and my relentless posting while the wife and I are using a gig on Friday in Monterey as a chance to take in some seaside R&R for a few days. You've given me something to think about while I've got my toes in the sand.


See ya all next week!
:wave:

 

Have a good one! It's always interesting discussing issues with you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

What the hell does any of this have to do with Dan Ackroyd?

 

Don't be silly, everyone knows that Michael McDonald and Dan Aykroyd were both featured in the mockumentary Yacht Rock. (along with Kevin Bacon which makes them mock degrees of Kevin Bacon) We are all one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Uh......so......is there a consensus on how closely a cover band should copy the original version of the songs they play to have the best crowd response?......
:confused:

 

Well, I know I have The Correct Answer [TM]! BTW, that "...best crowd response" clause wasn't in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

LOL... I remember that movie! Failed buddy cop films!
:D

 

The building the end shootout takes place in (originally known as the State of IL Center) was still not completely finished/opened when filming took place. I remember visiting my Dad as a kid and he took us to see the interior several months after it opened (The architecture/design was very forward for the time, especially in the heart of Chicago).

Later that weekend, we also went to see the just opened movie...

I recall wondering how they were able to turn the film around so quickly, not realizing they'd had access before the building was finished, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

Don't be silly, everyone knows that Michael McDonald and Dan Aykroyd were both featured in the mockumentary Yacht Rock. (along with Kevin Bacon which makes them mock degrees of Kevin Bacon)
We are all one
.

 

 

" We are all one." Until you get that funny heaircut... then I want nothing to do with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Incompetent people will:

 

1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;

2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;

3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;

4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve

 

 

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
More or less. The story as I've heard it goes something like this:


Baxter joined the band prior to any issues with Johnston simply to add some extra spark to the lead playing. Johnston has to bow out of the "Stampede" tour due to severe stomach ulcers (brought on at least in part by drug use) and Baxter suggested McDonald as a fill in. The management was looking to Pat Simmons as the obvious choice to take control of the band, but Simmons--while a great musician--isn't band-leader material. He's a really nice guy and a big stoner. (or was back then at least.) Baxter had eyes on taking over the leadership role of the band and thought bringing in his old buddy McDonald would help him towards that goal. McDonald, at that point in his career, was living off of baloney sandwiches in a friend's over-the-garage apartment in LA and jumped at the chance.


After the tour they were struggling to find enough material to fill out the next LP, asked McDonald what he had, and one of the songs he had lying around was "Takin' It To The Streets". They soon asked him to be a full-time member.


The irony of the Baxter power-grab story is that McDonald, another real nice guy although not necessarily "leader" material, ended up forming a bigger bond with Simmons than with Baxter and as a result, Baxter leaves the band a couple of years later as McDonald and Simmons end up basically co-leading the band.


At least that's the story I heard from a studio engineer I worked with years ago who had been an assistant engineer on "Fault Line" and "Minute by Minute".


So no, McDonald didn't ruin that band as much as he saved their asses. They'd have been dead in the water trying to forge ahead with a useless Johnston. As it was (although it's one of favorite albums of theirs) "Stampede" wasn't a huge commercial success for them.

That's kinda what I meant. He killed "The Doobie Brothers" but saved a band called the Doobie Brothers from sinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...