Effort needed for originals x covers

[rhat]

Nope. I write lyrics and sing. Sometimes after a melody or rhythm I've written first or maybe off a riff or melody my guitarist brought in. I never said learning a cover was easy. It's not. Certainly not to do it well. What I meant was, and in response to the original post, was that it requires more effort to create an original song than it does to copy one. I don't know Chet Atkins stuff, but yeah, there are a lot of very difficult songs to learn out there. Still, I think that trying to create something entirely new has to require more effort. Maybe it'll be an easier song to play in the end, but the effort expended if you're serious about the craft is going to be more by the very act of having to produce the construction of the piece on your own.

 

 

 

Here is a little bit of chet just jammin around with jerry.

 

Ask your guitar player to work it up over the weekend.

 

http://westtnliving.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/i-like-this-youtube-video-from-1975-chet-atkins-and-jerry-reed-jamming-jerrys-breakdown/

[faileddrummer]

Go youtube some chet atkins stuff ... you come back and tell us how easy it is to cover. The guy is one of the worlds best guitar players ,, and specialized ic a style called chet atkins style. they dont call it that because everyone can cover it. Its real nitch stuff ,,, for real guitar wonks of the highest ability level. few ever master it. The ones who do spend years not days or hours. You could get through med school faster than you can learn to play like chet.

 

 

That's cool, but not what I was asking. When questioned which was harder to pull off, cover or original, you are (I'm assuming) taking the side of cover. No problem, we differ in views. Now, you claim Chet is an amazing guitar player, etc...

 

So, you're saying that it's harder to cover Chet's stuff than Chet to actually write it? This is my one and only question. It's a yes or no, and not an attack in anyway.

[faileddrummer]

Here is a little bit of chet just jammin around with jerry. Ask your guitar player to work it up over the weekend. http://westtnliving.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/i-like-this-youtube-video-from-1975-chet-atkins-and-jerry-reed-jamming-jerrys-breakdown/

 

 

We play hardcore punk. We need no more than three chords and 30 seconds.

[rhat]

That's cool, but not what I was asking. When questioned which was harder to pull off, cover or original, you are (I'm assuming) taking the side of cover. No problem, we differ in views. Now, you claim Chet is an amazing guitar player, etc... So, you're saying that it's harder to cover Chet's stuff than Chet to actually write it? This is my one and only question. It's a yes or no, and not an attack in anyway.

 

 

 

The chet clip i posted was of him just jammin with another guy,, They were winging that stuff. Trust me chet could write faster than the vast majority of guys can copy him. If you didnt notice ,, he gets around on that geeter pretty well.

[Special J]

This is a pretty vague topic which could be argued forever.

It totally depends on the musician and the song.

There are super creative people who can write hits in their sleep. For these people, it would require less effort for them to write a simple pop song then it would to learn, say, a Mahavisnu Orchestra song.

On the other hand, it would be easier for just about anyone to learn and pull off a Rolling Stones tune than it would be to write a 10 minute classical peice.

All things being equal, say writing a 3 minute blues rock tune versus learning one, I'd say the cover would require less effort, but writing the original would be more rewarding based only on my abilities and preferences.

[SunRaFan]

The chet clip i posted was of him just jammin with another guy,, They were winging that stuff. Trust me chet could write faster than the vast majority of guys can copy him. If you didnt notice ,, he gets around on that geeter pretty well.

 

 

Actually they weren't winging that. It's a track they did a studio recording of. The performance was close to identical. They were probably using the same backing track.

[wades_keys]

I always like to point out in these discussons that at some level, learning an original is no different than a cover.

When I joined an original band a few years back, I was given a CD of their originals and I worked up arrangements and solos to them at home, pretty similar to what I would do for a cover, except of course I had to hear my parts and sounds first.

Still, the process really ain't any different....How many band members are songwriters?

Usually one or 2: the rest of em are going to have to learn to create something within the framework of your tune.

That's where having some prior experience with tunes can come in real handy.

[rhat]

I always like to point out in these discussons that at some level, learning an original is no different than a cover. When I joined an original band a few years back, I was given a CD of their originals and I worked up arrangements and solos to them at home, pretty similar to what I would do for a cover, except of course I had to hear my parts and sounds first. Still, the process really ain't any different....How many band members are songwriters? Usually one or 2: the rest of em are going to have to learn to create something within the framework of your tune. That's where having some prior experience with tunes can come in real handy.

 

 

 

Yea that pretty much says it.

[TieDyedDevil]

I will assume you play guitar. Go learn a couple chet atkins covers and get back to me on how easy it is,, because all you got to do is copy it. It all depends on what you are trying to cover. Sure you can throw some covers together pretty fast ,, but odds are good that you are gonna have semi winged solos... missing vocal parts and alot of stuff that aint just like the record as they say.

 

 

Nonsense. If you're playing at that level, it's still more difficult to write the piece in the first place than it is to learn it after someone else has already gone to the effort of crafting the tune.

 

This is a strawman argument: "It's harder to learn a difficult tune than an easy tune." Well no kidding!

 

Level the playing field. There are a lot of absolutely heinous three-chord tunes created by amateur "originals" artists and a relative handful of hits. It's not the difficulty of performance, it's what goes into crafting a memorable tune that people want to hear over and over again.

 

Do you really think that someone with the skill of a Chet Atkins can't write a clunker of a tune?

[rhat]

Nonsense. If you're playing at that level, it's still more difficult to write the piece in the first place than it is to learn it after someone else has already gone to the effort of crafting the tune. This is a strawman argument: "It's harder to learn a difficult tune than an easy tune." Well no kidding! Level the playing field. There are a lot of absolutely heinous three-chord tunes created by amateur "originals" artists and a relative handful of hits. It's not the difficulty of performance, it's what goes into crafting a memorable tune that people want to hear over and over again. Do you really think that someone with the skill of a Chet Atkins can't write a clunker of a tune?

 

 

 

Actually I think chet is more of a cover guy. His thing is being a hot rod guitar player. You may not like his covers ,, but i am sure you could write a song faster than you could ape him note for note. the guy is a guitar icon.

[faileddrummer]

The chet clip i posted was of him just jammin with another guy,, They were winging that stuff. Trust me chet could write faster than the vast majority of guys can copy him. If you didnt notice ,, he gets around on that geeter pretty well.

 

 

You keep avoiding the question: Are you saying that is is easier for Chet to write his amazing original songs, than it is for you to cover them? This is the only question/debate/etc I am using. No doubt, you cover guys are very talented... That doesn't change the fact that trying to craft a song that's worth covering is much harder.

[rhat]

You keep avoiding the question: Are you saying that is is easier for Chet to write his amazing original songs, than it is for you to cover them? This is the only question/debate/etc I am using. No doubt, you cover guys are very talented... That doesn't change the fact that trying to craft a song that's worth covering is much harder.

 

 

 

Whatever ,,, you wanna be a artist, go ahead and be one. I sure just about everything you do ,, is harder.

[TieDyedDevil]

Snark much?

[Lee Flier]

Bizarre topic, and as others have said, mostly apples and oranges.

 

But to ME anyway (having done both), there's no comparison. Originals require more effort because the cover song has already been honed to a fine edge and you're just learning what someone else has already perfected. Of course, if your musicianship isn't on par with the song you're trying to learn, then it's going to take you a long time to learn the song. But the same could be true if you conceive of an original song that's beyond your current playing skills.

 

Bottom line though - most cover songs that are popular with typical bar audiences are not too technically challenging. And the process of writing a song and arranging it properly is often arduous, even if (and sometimes especially if) the song itself is simple.

 

I also disagree with the notion that if you're in an original band and you're not the songwriter, it's just like playing in a cover band. It isn't if you're worth your salt as a creative musician. In my band, everybody contributes to the arrangement whether or not they wrote the song, and very often a song really comes together because of input from someone who didn't write the song. Many songs become hits because of a particular beat or signature riff that really makes it, and a good original band member knows how to come up with parts that really serve and enhance the song, not just learn chord changes off a demo.

 

I think it does help someone become a better songwriter and arranger to play in cover bands first, because you learn all about what makes a successful song and how to really draw the listener in. The more music you play, the more it helps you write and arrange. So I'm in no way prejudiced against covers, and I agree that with an actual live performance it's generally more "work" to play a 4 set night of covers than a short set of originals. But when you factor in the amount of time spent writing, discarding the crap, arranging, rehearsing, recording, promoting, etc. being in an original band is a lot more work overall.

 

Of course, anybody can be lazy and write a song in a few minutes, have it be a 3 chord song that everyone can play, and not spend any time coming up with an optimal arrangement. But no original band has ever succeeded with that attitude. Even if it is a 3 chord song that sounds like they just rolled out of bed and played the first thing that came to mind, by the time you hear their hit record, that is not the case. I can't tell you how many young original bands who write "simple" songs don't understand the amount of effort involved to really put one over.

[faileddrummer]

Whatever ,,, you wanna be a artist, go ahead and be one. I sure just about everything you do ,, is harder.

Not at all. There's meaning behind my screen name . But, I find creating a quality song to be much harder than copying one that has already been done and proven.

[faileddrummer]

Whatever ,,, you wanna be a artist, go ahead and be one. I sure just about everything you do ,, is harder.

 

 

And, by the way... That STILL didn't answer the question. :poke:

[wades_keys]

I also disagree with the notion that if you're in an original band and you're not the songwriter, it's just like playing in a cover band. It isn't if you're worth your salt as a creative musician.

 

Right - of course, and that part is fun and fulfilling.

 

I would spend a saturday with the raw tracks on my mp3 player, totally away from any musical instruments, until I could hear and hum the parts. Sometimes I'd hear a riff, and then after playing it on the keys for a while, I'd think "no, it needs something else", then back to the mp3, etc.

 

So yeah, that's fun and different from the traditional cover band approach.

 

But in all honesty Lee, that's not that different from how I learn a cover: I make sure that I can hum the lines before I ever touch an instrument....

 

Sure, it's a line that's actually playing but I still hear it the same way (in my head, where things get lost and added in translation), if that makes any sense.

 

 

I remember coming up with a rhodes line for a friends original track a few years back; I was at the drummer's appartment and actually sung him the line I was hearing - then I powered up the keys and played it....

 

That was fun for sure - but I always felt that track needed a bridge and another verse (I actually "wrote" a verse but it didn't make the cut or he just didn't feel like changing the tune....)

 

When playing covers I try to get a taste of that same kind of freedom by taking chances and improvising fills and phrases; we also have a tendency to extend or cut short arrangements on the fly, so that gives a little "freedom" too.

 

Still the freedom of expression in an original setting is pretty cool, I'll admit that.

[rhat]

And, by the way... That STILL didn't answer the question. :poke:

 

 

You will have that. Its just going to have to be one of lifes big disappointments

[slight-return]

I guess for me it's stll just "it just depends" - maybe b/c what I'm working on is different (Perspective note : I come from a classic[al] guit background and some very poor gamba, so my view of "cover" is from that)

 

One of the challenges I find with playing a precomposed piece I find myself having to generate the interpretation, to understand the intent of the composer, decide on my take on it, apply bon gout ("good tatse") and bring that to the audience.

So the effort there isn't so much "the notes" there as it is the expression

 

much like an actor performing a part - in a sense it's 'negotiating' a piece by 'negotiating' with the authorship of it

 

(I think a good example is some of the Bach fugues. I often hear organists play these "vertically" and not effectively [my interpretation, they may have another, but then again, they didn't make their case to me] call attention to the individual lines and how they form a fugue - but at the same time, post, exposition, you want to retain those individual lines, but still suggest how they can also be seen harmonically. It can be a delicate dance with a bunch of subtlety)

 

guess that's what I find about "great" compositions...just as they may be difficult to generate great musical mind did it, so I find the interpretation of the intention and taste of that -- a sense for what the "invention" really is to borrow a patent concept - challenging as I am "chasing" another, often very sly, mind.

i mean I can apply Fux, but that's mechanics and that's one of the thngs for me.

There have been pieces I could execute, but it took a long time for me to "get" and her are still levels of that to unpeel - I still find new things in the same ole notes

[SunRaFan]

This seems like a fairly silly topic, but I will say I think achieving more than mediocrity with an originals project takes a lot more effort. Very few originals bands are ever going to get to that point, both due to a lack of talent and a lack of effort.

 

My best musical memories are all from playing originals in a band the first time that I felt like they clicked as a song. This hasn't happened on all that many songs, and in retrospect they weren't even all songs that were actually good. It's just that it's a great feeling at the time if you think you've managed to come up with something great.

[wades_keys]

One of the challenges I find with playing a precomposed piece I find myself having to generate the interpretation, to understand the intent of the composer, decide on my take on it, apply bon gout ("good tatse") and bring that to the audience. So the effort there isn't so much "the notes" there as it is the expression

[rccCrawler]

Apples and oranges, I agree, but I get Rhat's point because I've been in and around there.

Writing 'original songs' = easy

Covering songs = depends on the song being covered, and whether you have the chops or not

Writing GOOD original songs that will stand the test of time, be popular, make money, garner fame and fortune = Immensely hard

To put it another way, Jimmy Page can be sloppy onstage sometimes, but what sets him apart is what he has WRITTEN. A million guys can cop it, but how many guys can CREATE it? Like virtually none.

But it is also true that a lot of 'original bands' are populated with 'musicians' that play originals partly because they are not capable (don't have the chops) to play covers.

However, it is also true that some of those chopless guys are in fact very creative and end up being famous musicians because they can WRITE something very catchy that becomes popular - hence the vast array of 'musicians' who sit around scoffing at the no talent hacks who now populate the airwaves etc etc. The fact is, if they had no talent, they probably wouldn't be there, and you are not, so what does that tell you? Writing something that people like, whether it exhibits blazing chops or not, is in fact a talent.

I guess I'm trying to say that I understand where Rhat is coming from because I've seen so many original bands with basically poor musicianship, including the first band I was in, that find playing a true cover a stretch for their skill set. At the same time, without question writing a GOOD original song obviously takes considerable talent, and effort, evidenced by the fact that only a very small infinitesimal (sp?) percentage of musicians ever get to do it, while the vast majority are all trying to.

To me it's kinda like when I was racing motorcycles - yeah, we might be in the same race, but finishing on the podium is a whole different world than coming in 35th. It requires a whole other level of talent and commitment. The same is true of writing originals, IMHO.

Purely in terms of effort, it seems that when I was writing originals, I spent a TON more effort than learning covers, BECAUSE I was trying to get on 'the podium' ie: not just write a song, but write a GOOD song that would gain us fame, fortune, and respect as musicians. To get a song to that level takes a lot of excrutiating, pain staking, tedious, obsessive effort, which frankly usually ends up bearing no demonstrable fruit. it is VERY hard.

But just banging out a 'song'? We could do that {censored} easily in no time at all. But it would suck.

Some covers are also way beyond my chops and ability to play. We're careful to avoid those.

Just my 2c.

[MusicalSchizo]

I've seen a lot of people write that just banging out a song doesn't mean you are writing something great, and I think that's probably untrue.

 

I think some songs are done fast, and some take more time, and not every one needs endless editing to make it better (as that also has the potential for making it LESS good).

 

In my experience as a songwriter there is often absolutely no correlation between the amount of time I spend writing a song and that song's quality (to me). There are songs I've written in 20 minutes that I love and think are good, and songs that took me months of edits that still sound like {censored}.

 

But that's just my experience, and I've written exactly zero "great" songs (at least by popular standards).

 

To me, when a song comes together quickly, it feels really magical.

 

I bet there are plenty of famous songs that I'm sure took next to no time for their writers to write.

 

Just musing on what I've read from this very unexpectedly interesting thread (being that it was born out of a sort of silly premise).

 

Brian V.

[Lee Flier]

I've seen a lot of people write that just banging out a song doesn't mean you are writing something great, and I think that's probably untrue. I think some songs are done fast, and some take more time, and not every one needs endless editing to make it better (as that also has the potential for making it LESS good). In my experience as a songwriter there is often absolutely no correlation between the amount of time I spend writing a song and that song's quality (to me). There are songs I've written in 20 minutes that I love and think are good, and songs that took me months of edits that still sound like {censored}.

 

Oh yeah, absolutely, and the same thing is definitely true of a lot of very famous songs. Some people are just good in general at knocking great songs out fast, and a lot of people's average time to write a song varies wildly (mine included - like you, I've written songs in 20 minutes while others have taken a couple of years ).

 

But then, the same is true with covers, depending what it is. Some musicians can hear a song once or twice and be able to play it immediately, even if it's technically challenging. Others take a long time to learn covers, and most of us fall somewhere in the middle - some songs take a longer time to learn if they fall outside our normal sphere of musicianship, but most seasoned cover band players can learn a song pretty quickly.

 

So this is why the premise of the thread is silly, although it has provoked interesting discussion. Which takes more effort really depends on the music and the musicians. Obviously, someone can write some hack song in 10 minutes, and the band can come up with an arrangement in half an hour, which will be less effort than learning a technically challenging cover tune. But if we're talking about learning the average songs that the average bar band covers, vs. writing good original songs and coming up with good arrangements for them, the original band is going to take more effort.

 

To me, when a song comes together quickly, it feels really magical.

 

Agreed! But, I think that if you write a song in the context of a band, even if you finish writing the song pretty quickly, the arrangement process can take awhile. It does in my band anyway, and I know that in most famous bands we know and love and probably have covered, this is the case. I don't usually consider a song "done" until my band has knocked it around a few hundred times. Usually, we come up with a few tricks that are different from the original way the writer conceived the song, but even if we don't, at least then we really know that the writer's original idea was the best way to do it. We really enjoy the process of knocking a song into shape, and sometimes we come up with other song ideas during that process too.

 

The bottom line is, being in an original band is a lot of work if you're doing it right. I've been fortunate to watch some very successful ones work, and even if it comes out sounding like they just rolled out of bed and played the first 3 chords that came to mind... it's almost never actually like that.

[wro]

and the drummer gets hammered even harder but he never told me if that annoys him.