Members wheresgrant3 Posted December 18, 2009 Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 There's endless debate on this board about style, setlist, stage prescence ... etc. So I figured I'd post a few links from this cover band from Croatia. A bunch of early 20-somethings that play at near tribute level. Obviously they have some serious post recording effects going through the audio feed. Still, these guys are pretty impressive for playing in some makeshift bombshelter. Or maybe that's how nightclubs look in Croatia. The guitarist looks maybe 19. [YOUTUBE]pWUADLNAc-g[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]vsdYSYPilN0[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]4Z012d1hsHA[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flanc Posted December 18, 2009 Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 Them dudes are good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dk123123dk Posted December 18, 2009 Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 Those guys are very tight, but would that style of music really go over well in a bar? I know I used to play two out of three of those songs, and they were a big hit with the dudes, but not really so much with the ladies... dk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JoeDirt Posted December 18, 2009 Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 My vote is for serious post processing to get that sound that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wheresgrant3 Posted December 18, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 I'll bet to play at that level... you're going to draw a crowd no matter what. Dancing really is irrelevant if you're drawing an audinece in. I don't know of any bands in my area that could perform those tunes at that level. Some could maybe come close, but these guys really nailed it (esp the Joe Cocker). If they did, they would certainly have a great name and rep and probably draw... regardless of how many people were really up and dancing. Again... it's not always about 'the setlist'. Performance and presentation is the other 50% of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted December 18, 2009 Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 I like the way the singer checks his watch at about 1:20 on 'Time'. They sound really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted December 18, 2009 Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 What these videos illustrate is that most cover bands, or the cover bands that I hear around here anyway, just do half-assed covers of songs. These guys have worked hard (unless it just comes easy to them) on at least these three songs to get the nuances, dynamics, tones, depth and feel in these covers that most cover groups can't or won't do. I wonder how these guys would sound on Mustang Sally and Brown Eyed Girl? :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChordGirl Posted December 18, 2009 Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 Somebody tell these kids they don't have to play in the basement anymore! They're really good. Extra props to the singer and guitarist. Excellent. It's not just live, it's live plus. Great performances, nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flanc Posted December 18, 2009 Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 Looks like they found their way out of the basement.... http://www.gruhak.com/video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevilRaysFan Posted December 18, 2009 Members Share Posted December 18, 2009 They are very very good......however, theres more genres in being a cover band than just playing Classic Rock............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeff42 Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TrickyBoy Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 That singer NAILS Robert Plant - very impressive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cooterbrown Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MusicalSchizo Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 I just spent about 45 minutes watching their videos. Holy crap...they're not perfect, but they're damn good, and they really have a lot of heart - they really SELL the songs. I'm guessing they rehearse all the time - that's the only way they could be that good. Makes me feel like a total lame-o because we never rehearse. But I bet we make more money than them for our shows...ah, sad injustice! Brian V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scafeets Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 Great band.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteinbergerHack Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 What these videos illustrate is that most cover bands, or the cover bands that I hear around here anyway, just do half-assed covers of songs. + 10,000. The guitarist's lead tone on Time is really, really, good, and a really close approximation of the original. He's changed up the line just enough to give it his own flavor, while keeping the signature sound. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 Great band.... What everyone is saying is that you're considered 'good' if you can do a cover song as close as possible to the original recording, and this is coming from a forum of musicians. Just imagine what it would be like as a 'civilian' hearing them. Now if you pay attention there are really no stand-out musicians in that band. In other words they're not awesome players playing originals at a high level, they're doing covers pretty darn close to the originals. And doing them well, and WE'RE all saying they're great. Are they really 'great' are just really really good at copying songs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteinbergerHack Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 Are they really 'great' are just really really good at copying songs? They are doing a very good job at what they are trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mineame Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 What everyone is saying is that you're considered 'good' if you can do a cover song as close as possible to the original recording, and this is coming from a forum of musicians. Just imagine what it would be like as a 'civilian' hearing them. Now if you pay attention there are really no stand-out musicians in that band. In other words they're not awesome players playing originals at a high level, they're doing covers pretty darn close to the originals. And doing them well, and WE'RE all saying they're great. Are they really 'great' are just really really good at copying songs? If you took probably half the time going to their website as you did scouring this thread and getting all them quotes. You would have seen they have moved into doing originals.... http://www.gruhak.com/audio Now you can answer that question for yourself. That isn't to imply that I think it's a fair question to begin with. Covers? Originals? It takes dedicated good musicians to be able to do either type as well as these guys have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChordGirl Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 What everyone is saying is that you're considered 'good' if you can do a cover song as close as possible to the original recording, and this is coming from a forum of musicians. Just imagine what it would be like as a 'civilian' hearing them. Now if you pay attention there are really no stand-out musicians in that band. In other words they're not awesome players playing originals at a high level, they're doing covers pretty darn close to the originals. And doing them well, and WE'RE all saying they're great. Are they really 'great' are just really really good at copying songs? No. They're really tight (not perfect--for example: backup vocals are off in places on the JC song, bass seems slightly out of tune to me on that intro), but the performance is good enough on the rest of it that as a live listener who can't rewind (can we still say rewind in 2009? ) is left with a feeling of excellence, anyway. They're in tune/gelling with each other the entire time, not just going through the motions. It has more to do with the latter than anything. Paying close attention to intimate details, but making music together present in the moment. I also disagree that there are no stand out musicians in that band. I was impressed by the vocalist, for sure. In fact, I'd LOVE to do backup vocals for that guy. His voice is powerful, soulful, and on pitch. I also felt the guitarist carried some real emotion in his playing. Then again, I prefer guitarists like David Gilmour to Ywangie or some of the other 'fret masters.' YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 BTW & FWIW I'm not criticizing this band...far from it. I'm just pointing out that what we, or most people, think of as really good in a cover band, since I admittedly have not listened to this bands originals, is the ability to accurately recreate the original recording. Sometimes threads here compare original bands vs. cover bands or even "should we try to sound like the original" cover bands vs. "we're doing covers our own way" bands. While there's certainly room for everyone, what I'm doing is pointing out that most people, as witnessed by the musicians' comments, want to hear covers done as accurately as possible, and indeed see that ability as awesome, great, near tribute, etc. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cooterbrown Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 BTW & FWIW I'm not criticizing this band...far from it. I'm just pointing out that what we, or most people, think of as really good in a cover band, since I admittedly have not listened to this bands originals, is the ability to accurately recreate the original recording. Sometimes threads here compare original bands vs. cover bands or even "should we try to sound like the original" cover bands vs. "we're doing covers our own way" bands. While there's certainly room for everyone, what I'm doing is pointing out that most people, as witnessed by the musicians' comments, want to hear covers done as accurately as possible, and indeed see that ability as awesome, great, near tribute, etc. That's all. I know what you're saying. But there's "parroting" done by people that really can't do anything else...ask them to improvise a completely different solo, or whatever they are useless.Then there is cover music performed by people where you can hear the natural talent coming through. These guys all obviously have that.They are covering the songs, but I hear their individual personalities, too.I have no doubt these guys can do more than just playing covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SunRaFan Posted December 19, 2009 Members Share Posted December 19, 2009 BTW & FWIW I'm not criticizing this band...far from it. I'm just pointing out that what we, or most people, think of as really good in a cover band, since I admittedly have not listened to this bands originals, is the ability to accurately recreate the original recording. Sometimes threads here compare original bands vs. cover bands or even "should we try to sound like the original" cover bands vs. "we're doing covers our own way" bands. While there's certainly room for everyone, what I'm doing is pointing out that most people, as witnessed by the musicians' comments, want to hear covers done as accurately as possible, and indeed see that ability as awesome, great, near tribute, etc. That's all. This really only applies to most of the people who hang out in this forum, and decided to post in this thread. I listened to about 30 seconds of Immigrant Song. It was fine, but nothing I was interested in hearing. It's also certainly nothing I'd ever go out to a bar to see. I don't think you can really generalize from the responses in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chadd Posted December 20, 2009 Members Share Posted December 20, 2009 If you took probably half the time going to their website as you did scouring this thread and getting all them quotes. You would have seen they have moved into doing originals....http://www.gruhak.com/audioNow you can answer that question for yourself. That isn't to imply that I think it's a fair question to begin with. Covers? Originals? It takes dedicated good musicians to be able to do either type as well as these guys have. Good stuff, I'd buy their disc and I'd pay to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted December 20, 2009 Members Share Posted December 20, 2009 Are they really 'great' are just really really good at copying songs? Personally, I disagree with the premise of the question. What is this "just really good at copying songs"? As if playing a song someone else wrote is not great musicianship? Pfff... GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.