Members TIMKEYS Posted June 29, 2011 Members Share Posted June 29, 2011 It's not really an answeable questions; it raises many others and there aren't really good standards for comparison. Learning a song you're going to cover and and writing a song are two totally different things. And if you're in an original band but don't write the songs, it's not much different from learning a cover.Boy, I wish that was the case. I will go with this. I play for an original songwriter. he has 4 cds out. the two were solo acoustic songs with drums. The third and fourth were with a full band. Its just as easy to play his stuff as it is covers. We never do note for note covers of anything. All the songs we do as a band have the flavor of our band,, and are just basic bar covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted June 29, 2011 Author Members Share Posted June 29, 2011 I will go with this. I play for an original songwriter. he has 4 cds out. the two were solo acoustic songs with drums. The third and fourth were with a full band. Its just as easy to play his stuff as it is covers.... Learning his songs off his existing CD's is totally different than the whole band writing the songs together and spending the time to get them right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators BATCAT Posted June 29, 2011 Moderators Share Posted June 29, 2011 Learning his songs off his existing CD's is totally different than the whole band writing the songs together and spending the time to get them right. I think that is kind of the point. "Being in an original band" doesn't mean you're necesarily writing songs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members b_f_c_99 Posted June 29, 2011 Members Share Posted June 29, 2011 It's awesome being on MTV in '83 in low rotation. It's sucks it only lasted 4 weeks. What band? What song? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted June 29, 2011 Members Share Posted June 29, 2011 Being a Cover Band is EASIER than being an all original band...agree or disagree? As to your thread title... Yes. and No. As has been mentioned numerous times, it all depends on the situation.Hell, it all depends on what you mean by 'easier'. As to the concept of it taking less time to learn a cover as opposed to developing and learning an original song...well of course: it takes longer to create a meal from scratch than to simply heat up something that's already been made for you, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 29, 2011 Members Share Posted June 29, 2011 That is how nearly every famous band from The Beatles to Van Halen and on and on did it. They played their covers and snuck in an original here and there until the originals overtook the covers. Newer bands not so much... Yes, and no. I'm not so sure about VH, but I'm pretty sure The Beatles didn't have much of a following for their originals until AFTER they got a record deal with them. Yeah, they were probably sneaking in a few at gigs, but doing so didn't really help their career much. Nor did playing covers probably play THAT great a role in getting a record deal for their originals. Bands trying to make a living playing covers while honing their originals do so more along the lines of keeping two-separate-career paths going simultaneously. Yeah, you sneak in an original here or there, but it never really "overtakes" the cover gig. Those bands simply are able to get a record deal on the side, then they now are an original band and drop all the covers. It's much more of a stark division than a slow evolution from cover band to original band. Back when I was trying to do that stuff, I always envied the "all original" bands to a certain degree. Yeah, they were starving to death and living off their parents or girlfriends while I was making a decent living playing covers, but they had much more time to devote to honing their original material while I had to spend the majority of time keeping the cover gig going. Not to mention that our originals were probably negatively affected by the covers we were doing. I think we were less "original" sounding than we would have been had we not been playing the latest hit covers every night and having those sounds and ideas seep into our own songwriting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 29, 2011 Members Share Posted June 29, 2011 Learning his songs off his existing CD's is totally different than the whole band writing the songs together and spending the time to get them right. Curious...why are you guys doing originals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rodclement Posted June 29, 2011 Members Share Posted June 29, 2011 The Beatles and Hallen got signed because they had a following and had good stage shows...not because thery snuck in originals in their sets...it took Van Hallen years before they could release their own songs, oh...and the songs were good! I am one of those people who played and recorder "originals" as a singer in a band, all the songs were written and produced by other band memebers so for me it was just like cover work, here is the song, this is how it goes, go sing...just like cover work...songwriters are different! First time I got asked to sign a recording contract, the band had one original song and it hit so we needed another 11 to release an albun, they all came from producers so for all of us us, it was like covering material even if it came out under our name... Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIMKEYS Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 That is how nearly every famous band from The Beatles to Van Halen and on and on did it. They played their covers and snuck in an original here and there until the originals overtook the covers. Newer bands not so much...Learning his songs off his existing CD's is totally different than the whole band writing the songs together and spending the time to get them right. I dont even own the first two CDs. everything we play off of those the band learned in a live setting. We dont write as a group, ,since we play for a songwriter. This band is pretty fast on the uptake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bigboy78 Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 What band? What song? Bored at work so went a bit Veronica Mars on the old Google-atron Joey Harris and The Speedsters had record in the eraly eighties with a Lee Knight on bass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassred Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 I think it pretty much evens itself out. For all the toiling and time that goes into writing and arranging and recording an original song, a cover band spends rehearsing and mastering the nuances of pre-recorded material, playing 4 sets a night, hauling their own PA gear, and putting up with originals guys who think they have it so much harder... As for older bands, they all got signed because they had a sound, that may have come from adapting covers or from originals, but either way back in the day meant recording other peoples tunes (covers) and having your original on the other side of the album. That's kind of like playing a covers gig and doing 2 or 3 originals, if you ask me. If the crowd goes bat-{censored} crazy over your original tunes, you know you've got them hooked, sell them an album and have them friend your FB page... If the crowd is not so into your material, at least they have heard your version of an existing song they like. They might still like your FB page, and may or may not buy your CD... I slip originals in. It's a great test market for the songs. It doesn't hurt anyone, and if the crowd doesn't react or reacts badly, you can have a strong crowd favorite at the ready and everyone forgets it happened. If you are an original act with bad music, people leave the show. So I don't think its really all that bad of an idea for a cover band to try some new ones out (plus, since our originals are written with the covers as inspiration, they match style of covers we play and the band still keeps 'the sound' the people know, we've had nothing but great responses to the new stuff, so why wouldn't I keep doing it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIMKEYS Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 I think it pretty much evens itself out. For all the toiling and time that goes into writing and arranging and recording an original song, a cover band spends rehearsing and mastering the nuances of pre-recorded material, playing 4 sets a night, hauling their own PA gear, and putting up with originals guys who think they have it so much harder... As for older bands, they all got signed because they had a sound, that may have come from adapting covers or from originals, but either way back in the day meant recording other peoples tunes (covers) and having your original on the other side of the album. That's kind of like playing a covers gig and doing 2 or 3 originals, if you ask me. If the crowd goes bat-{censored} crazy over your original tunes, you know you've got them hooked, sell them an album and have them friend your FB page... If the crowd is not so into your material, at least they have heard your version of an existing song they like. They might still like your FB page, and may or may not buy your CD... I slip originals in. It's a great test market for the songs. It doesn't hurt anyone, and if the crowd doesn't react or reacts badly, you can have a strong crowd favorite at the ready and everyone forgets it happened. If you are an original act with bad music, people leave the show. So I don't think its really all that bad of an idea for a cover band to try some new ones out (plus, since our originals are written with the covers as inspiration, they match style of covers we play and the band still keeps 'the sound' the people know, we've had nothing but great responses to the new stuff, so why wouldn't I keep doing it?) cover or original ,, the bottom line is that the band has to play the song live. both take effort. One bands cover is another bands original. I really dont see it as all that different. Its all music If a band writes as a group ,, and they need a keyboard part ,, typically the keyboard guys whips one up for the song and thats the keyboard part. If they dont have a keyboard guy ,, the studio guy whips up the part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members js1 Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 Look, it depends. Depends on the material, depends on the individuals, depends on the genre. Original band playing Ramones level material vs. cover band doing, say, Dream Theater. Original band playing Dream Theater level material vs. cover band playing Ramones. NOTE: THIS ISN"T A KNOCK AGAINST RAMONES. Rather, with the Ramones, you know the chords, there isn't much more to arrange. As far as the individuals go - if you have guys that have a good memory, strong ears, and reasonable technique, covers are easy. I'm fortunate enough to be playing with guys that can pull this off - we play songs live without having rehearsed them. So, in this case, covers are definitely easier. Play with guys that are missing one of the three, but can get it down with help and rehearsal, then covers can be tougher. And if they can't get it down because they have narrow areas of skill/comfort, then it can be downright painful. Oddly enough, some of those guys have an original voice that can work well for originals. Not everybody can create good original parts. However, if you have people that CAN create parts and one guy that can really write, then originals can flow easily. There was one guy that I knew about 15 years ago that could barely communicate, but if you played him the bare bones of a song, he came up with magic. js Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KeysBear Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 Do you mean YOUR original songs? Ours have taken WAY WAY longer than that! Sometimes months to get one song to where we were happy with it. Not referring to you at all, I don't know a thing about your sound, just referring to the local no talent bands who think it's cool to play their own material no matter how mediocre it sounds. Honestly of the 50 or so songs I have written if any one of them took more than twenty minutes to flesh out musically from start to finish that meant there was a major hangup with the song and it should be trashed. But I write in my head and even sometimes in my dreams. The actual playing part is just for minor tweaking. I don't write lyrics, that's for the singers to interpret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators davie Posted June 30, 2011 Moderators Share Posted June 30, 2011 Look, it depends. Depends on the material, depends on the individuals, depends on the genre.Original band playing Ramones level material vs. cover band doing, say, Dream Theater.Original band playing Dream Theater level material vs. cover band playing Ramones.NOTE: THIS ISN"T A KNOCK AGAINST RAMONES. Rather, with the Ramones, you know the chords, there isn't much more to arrange.As far as the individuals go - if you have guys that have a good memory, strong ears, and reasonable technique, covers are easy. I'm fortunate enough to be playing with guys that can pull this off - we play songs live without having rehearsed them. So, in this case, covers are definitely easier.Play with guys that are missing one of the three, but can get it down with help and rehearsal, then covers can be tougher. And if they can't get it down because they have narrow areas of skill/comfort, then it can be downright painful. Oddly enough, some of those guys have an original voice that can work well for originals.Not everybody can create good original parts. However, if you have people that CAN create parts and one guy that can really write, then originals can flow easily. There was one guy that I knew about 15 years ago that could barely communicate, but if you played him the bare bones of a song, he came up with magic. js I'm agreeing with this! +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 Agree if you are good. For me it takes way less effort to pull off covers but since my songs are mine, I take them very seriously and as a consequence every nuance has to be right. I can play any cover on auto pilot...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tim_7string Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 In the context of the environment the OP is presenting the question, it would depend on how talented the members are in the band. If they are naturally attuned to writing songs and coming up with parts for them, but can't reproduce somebody else's song to save their life, it might be easier for them to be in an all-original band. Is it easy to write songs? For some people, sure. Ric Ocasek usually writes around 25-30 songs for every album he records, with The Cars and solo. Some people, like Rush, are still not finished with their latest album, even though they have released two singles (one last year and one recently). Is it easy to come up with parts for those songs? This is not a skill everyone possesses. Believe me, as a singer-songwriter, I have tried to find people who had ideas they could add to my songs and it has been very difficult. As a musician that does have this ability (arranging), I can tell you that it isn't in plentiful supply. But is it easier to just play songs people all know? I would say yes, because you're dealing with common ground. My cover band plays songs from different eras, different artists, different styles, but they are all songs that were once popular (some very popular). We have all heard them before on the radio, on MTV, in people's houses. Like 3shiftgtr said, all that work has to be done by the originals band BEFORE the mainstream at large (and therefore, the subsequent cover bands) has heard about the songs. In that context alone, yes, it's a lot easier to be in a cover band than an original band. But as Lee Knight said, it sucks hearing "FREEBIRD!!" when you are playing cover songs for an audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted June 30, 2011 Moderators Share Posted June 30, 2011 What band? What song? Bored at work so went a bit Veronica Mars on the old Google-atron Joey Harris and The Speedsters had record in the eraly eighties with a Lee Knight on bass. There you go! We were never heard from again! [video=youtube;J8VwlAvrjFg] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted June 30, 2011 Moderators Share Posted June 30, 2011 But is it easier to just play songs people all know?I would say yes, because you're dealing with common ground. ^ I agree. I mean, yes, they both have their own sets of challenges. But, providing you have a certain level of competency on your instrument, have ensemble chops, and you know how to perform... selling a hit is fairly simple. Play what that guy played. no brainer. It already works. It's POKER FACE TIME PEOPLE whoo! don't forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses. Let's ROCK! Shooters! Not real difficult but a lot fun and used to pay pretty good. Selling your music is different. I've played in original bands with some very good writers and material. Could have been hits. But they weren't yet... an that can be a challenging gig. Fun, worthwhile, what we all dream about... but a real challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted June 30, 2011 Author Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 ...But as Lee Knight said, it sucks hearing "FREEBIRD!!" when you are playing cover songs for an audience. It sure does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KeysBear Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 I guess my theory for music is minimalist in nature. Simpler songs to me means catchy songs and the more complicated it becomes I think it's just personal wankery that has little hope of connecting with an audience. Some audiences thrive on personal wankery like the 70's fusion snobs which I'm sure still exist today in some genre who need a lot of notes and intricate arrangements. I marvel at the the ascending and descending harmony arrangement under a song like "Yesterday" which is deceptively simple to the ear but screams a genius similar to Bach's Bouree, or "Every Breath You Take" which lays down an elegant guitar riff over a bass line of droning quarter notes. To me simplicity is the shortest distance to a classic chart topper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hero Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 I used to fall on one side or the other back before I realized that most "original" bands are basically cover bands. Once the song has been put together in practice or made into a demo, you're basically covering the song every time after that. Elvis was a cover artist. Van Halen still does covers. Older bands not producing new material are nothing more than tribute bands for to their classic selves. Journey is a Journey tribute band. Most major acts still throw covers made famous by other artists into their acts. Just went to a Bon Jovi concert that had a few new originals, almost all the classics (basically covering themselves) and then they threw in Old Time Rock N Roll and one other classic song I can't remember. Even major acts will play the best songs they can and if that means playing covers with their standards that got them there instead of an ok original, they'll do it. Songwriting is separate from the band but may be done by the band. Songwriting for some songs is easy and others it's hard. But give a decent band the chords, melody, lyrics and basic theme and they're good to go. For covers, if you've got a demo/cd/whatever for the band to hear first, it makes it easier to know what they're supposed to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted June 30, 2011 Author Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 .... Once the song has been put together in practice or made into a demo, you're basically covering the song every time after that..... That's true. Lynyrd Skynyrd is a cover band. Allmans, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted June 30, 2011 Moderators Share Posted June 30, 2011 But give a decent band the chords, melody, lyrics and basic theme and they're good to go. Well... that's possible. But that thnking accounts for all the lame bands. The idea is to write great parts that further the song. McCartney, as strictly as bassist, though really pretty good technically, well, he wasn't Jack Bruce. But, he wrote the best bass parts ever. EVER! He is a great bass player and has written the book on how it's done. Genre to genre. So yeah, give me chords and I'm good to go. And sound like all the other shallowness. Or... be a writer of parts, not just a drummer, or a guitarist, but a contributer to the arrangement. That's what being in an "original band" is about. Not posing, showing off your street cred and hairdo, or copying the demo CD, though I certainly did that too, but it's about the music and your contribution to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 30, 2011 Members Share Posted June 30, 2011 But as Lee Knight said, it sucks hearing "FREEBIRD!!" when you are playing cover songs for an audience. Not as much as it does hearing it when you're playing originals.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.