Effort needed for originals x covers

[wro]

For me it is much easier to do originals. I just need to play what I know, what I want. No need to rip off crazy leads, excentric chordings or reproduce someone else's tone.

 

I think the same is valid for the other instruments (I play guitar).

 

What u think ?

[slight-return]

I think it's solidly "it depends"

basically as to "what standard?"

 

I mean I can fart in a tuba and call it an "original work" but it probably won't be too well received critically, popularly, nor commercially

 

by the same token I can do a crappy cover, catching the basic cadence and enough of the melody to make it identifiable (actually, I don't even think it'd have to be even THAT much)- but then that's what you've got a crappy cover, it is neither faithful to the original nor a purposeful reinterpretation - it's just phoning it in

[wro]

Yes, it depends.

Considering that you wanna sound decent, originals are still easier for me.

[BATCAT]

It's an impossible comparison. There's WAY too meny variables.

 

I could write a decent song in less time than it would take me to learn to nail the drum part to "Tom Sawyer", but, by the same token, I could learn the guitar parts to many Green Day songs in about five minutes.

[Chicken Monkey]

It's the whole chef vs. farmer debate. Both jobs are hard for completely different reasons. They're both in the food-making realm, but otherwise there isn't a lot of overlap.

[slight-return]

Yes, it depends. Considering that you wanna sound decent, originals are still easier for me.

 

That can kind of come back 'to what standard' I suppose -- often, we aren't great editors/evaluators of our own material

"it's brilliant!" say we

"meh" says the audience

"you didn't follow the assignment" says client

 

[tim_7string]

What demands more effort?

 

I chose covers because for me, I can create an original song in no time flat. But I have to apply myself to learn a cover. Whether the cover is well-done or not is immaterial. The same for the original song. I can write originals easily. But writing *good* originals, well, that's the challenge.

 

It still takes more effort for me to learn a cover than to create something. But they both take some effort to do well.

[THBv2.0]

Covers are easier for me. First I have to write a good song, which isn't always a quick and easy task. Then come up with music for it and take it to the band. All the hooks and breaks and bridges etc that make a song really good are done for you when you learn a cover, but with original material all that has to be considered. Then there's arrangement. Is this for a recording or a barroom? Big difference.

 

 

[Austincowbell]

learning "every rose has it's thorn" - 2 1/2 minutes

writing "every rose has it's thorn" - 3 3/4 minutes.

 

takes more effort to do originals

 

[JailTime]

Learning a cover is a throwaway exercise. Learn it, play it, move on. An original, if I want to have any confidence in it at all, is a commitment.

[ggm1960]

 

It's an impossible comparison. There's WAY too meny variables. I could write a decent song in less time than it would take me to learn to nail the drum part to "Tom Sawyer", but, by the same token, I could learn the guitar parts to many Green Day songs in about five minutes.

 

 

It is apples and oranges in many ways. I have to go with covers though because a cover is typically a proven song that will be familiar to many people who will know when you're {censored}ing it up.

 

The great majority of original songs will be heard by few without radio airplay to generate recognition and generally widely ignored by most. If you never played your original song the same twice few would notice.

[THBv2.0]

learning "every rose has it's thorn" - 2 1/2 minutes writing "every rose has it's thorn" - 3 3/4 minutes.

 

:lol:

 

 

Pick an example with more than 4 chords.

 

 

[van5073]

you can {censored} up an original and no one would even know. '' hey, its supposed to sound like that".

[newmaxnew]

Having done both original and cover bands for many years, I always found original bands to be less work and I was usually the only song writer in the band.

 

For me playing a 30 - 45 minute set is not nearly as demanding as playing four 45 minute sets in one night. If you sing you will know what I mean.

 

In the originals bands I never had to worry about P.A. or lighting. Just show up with you guitar and amp play for 40 minutes and hang out, drink beer, and watch some other bands.

 

With covers I have to show up 2 hours before the show starts to set up P.A. and lighting and hang around for an hour afterwards to tear down. I don't get to hang out or even get time to anything other than use the bathroom and tune the guitars between sets.

 

Max

[BATCAT]

 

Having done both original and cover bands for many years, I always found original bands to be less work and I was usually the only song writer in the band. For me playing a 30 - 45 minute set is not nearly as demanding as playing four 45 minute sets in one night. If you sing you will know what I mean.

 

 

It's quite true that it's way easier to play one set as oppsed to four, but on the other hand, writing, arranging, demo-ing, recording, mixing, packaging, and promoting an album worth of a songs is, to say the least, a lot of work.

 

At least, it is for me.

[rhat]

I dont write ,, so even original songs are covers. The only real original music I have ever played was when the guy just handed me the finished CD and said learn it.

[TieDyedDevil]

 

For me it is much easier to do originals. I just need to play what I know, what I want.

 

 

Right. And if you're a musical genius then playing what you know and what you want just might capture the attention of your audience.

 

No offense intended, as I have absolutely no idea who you are or what your music sounds like. But I'll stand by my argument that a lot of original music just doesn't resonate with an audience. It's not a question of "good" vs. "bad" music. It's more a question of playing something that will be memorable to you your audience; something that will make people say "Hey, I want to hear that again!"

 

 

Of course covers were "originals" once, too. For every tune that gets heavy play by cover bands, there are hundreds of tunes that didn't make the cut. I'm not picking on original music by any stretch. It's what I prefer to spend my time playing. But "original" music and "covers" are in two completely different spaces. Unless you're in a cover band that goes out of its way to avoid the hits (which goes against the very reason for a cover band to exist), your song selection is exactly that which stayed in the majority of listeners' consciousness for some reason.

 

 

IME it's much more difficult to craft and arrange a good original tune than it is to bang out a cover. When I get together with a group of musicians to jam, we can play a recognizable version of a well-known cover tune on the first try, then fix up the rough parts through a bit of discussion and one more run-through.

 

Original tunes require a lot of work. You need to play two roles: you create new material and then try to objectively analyze and improve your work. Lather, rinse, repeat. That's a completely different set of skills than acquiring and reproducing the essential details of an already-finished tune. It's even more difficult if you're trying to put together a few hours of original material: all of the creativity is coming from the same source, so you have to be especially careful to not repeat yourself too much. It can be done, of course, but copping cover songs is so much easier...

[rhat]

 

Right. And if you're a musical genius then playing what you know and what you want just might capture the attention of your audience. No offense intended, as I have absolutely no idea who you are or what your music sounds like. But I'll stand by my argument that a lot of original music just doesn't resonate with an audience. It's not a question of "good" vs. "bad" music. It's more a question of playing something that will be memorable to you your audience; something that will make people say "Hey, I want to hear that again!" Of course covers were "originals" once, too. For every tune that gets heavy play by cover bands, there are hundreds of tunes that didn't make the cut. I'm not picking on original music by any stretch. It's what I prefer to spend my time playing. But "original" music and "covers" are in two completely different spaces. Unless you're in a cover band that goes out of its way to avoid the hits (which goes against the very reason for a cover band to exist), your song selection is exactly that which stayed in the majority of listeners' consciousness for some reason. IME it's much more difficult to craft and arrange a good original tune than it is to bang out a cover. When I get together with a group of musicians to jam, we can play a recognizable version of a well-known cover tune on the first try, then fix up the rough parts through a bit of discussion and one more run-through. Original tunes require a lot of work. You need to play two roles: you create new material and then try to objectively analyze and improve your work. Lather, rinse, repeat. That's a completely different set of skills than acquiring and reproducing the essential details of an already-finished tune. It's even more difficult if you're trying to put together a few hours of original material: all of the creativity is coming from the same source, so you have to be especially careful to not repeat yourself too much. It can be done, of course, but copping cover songs is so much easier...

 

 

 

Yup but then most covers end up with a little bit on the cutting room floor. Any song a band does takes a little arrangment. I am lucky ,, the only originals I ever played were all done by a guy who ended up getting regular airplay on his CD. His stuff gets a great reaction. Its trop rock.. and goes over very well in the beach resort town he lives in. Most of the themes of the songs are local to the area. Tropical rock texas style.

[JailTime]

 

Original tunes require a lot of work. You need to play two roles: you create new material and then try to objectively analyze and improve your work. Lather, rinse, repeat. That's a completely different set of skills than acquiring and reproducing the essential details of an already-finished tune. It's even more difficult if you're trying to put together a few hours of original material: all of the creativity is coming from the same source, so you have to be especially careful to not repeat yourself too much. It can be done, of course, but copping cover songs is so much easier...

 

 

+1 - not only do you have to try to come up with a great song, and impart it to mates, but once you figure out what you want to do with the song, you have to learn to play and sing it without the luxury of having a recording to mimic. And usually, the first few run throughs won't be anything like the finished product.

 

And - playing one 40 minute set, to 4 45 minute sets isn't really the question. Obviously the longer night is more effort.

[TieDyedDevil]

 

Yup but then most covers end up with a little bit on the cutting room floor. Any song a band does takes a little arrangment.

 

 

"... then fix up the rough parts through a bit of discussion and one more run-through."

 

That, of course, includes deciding to leave bits "on the cutting room floor".

[BATCAT]

Yup but then most covers end up with a little bit on the cutting room floor.

 

I scrap about 90% of the lyrics I write, about 50% of my song ideas, and about 25% of my actual songs.

 

[slight-return]

I live in Seattle too and make a pretty good living recovering Squid's scrapped music and selling it to CMT for use in their reality programming - which is probably how I don't get caught

 

 

OK - back to real-ish (actually house) work

[rhat]

I scrap about 90% of the lyrics I write, about 50% of my song ideas, and about 25% of my actual songs.

 

 

That is exactly why i find original music only bands such a turn off. Even the big league guys go a whole career and only write a few really top songs. Its way better to be a cover band and do your writing on the side. When you get a good one ,, thow it on the set list.

[TieDyedDevil]

 

+1 - not only do you have to try to come up with a great song, and impart it to mates, but once you figure out what you want to do with the song, you have to learn to play and sing it without the luxury of having a recording to mimic. And usually, the first few run throughs won't be anything like the finished product.

 

 

Right. And there's also the issue of how effectively you're able to communicate musical ideas to your band mates. IME it's a lot easier when everyone has had the luxury of learning their part from some reference recording.

[BATCAT]

That is exactly why i find original music only bands such a turn off. Even the big league guys go a whole career and only write a few really top songs. Its way better to be a cover band and do your writing on the side. When you get a good one ,, thow it on the set list.

 

There's another side to it, though- the experience of seeing something begin as a few lyrics you scratch down and a couple chords go through everything it takes to be a properly arranged/recorded/produced song is very gratifying, if exhausting.

 

An sometimes you even hear yourself on the radio, which aint' so bad either!

 

Having said all that, I love playing covers too, as long I as I like the music.