Covers Vs Originals.... Part III

[elbow]

OK.. this is probably not going to be another drama thread regarding covers vs. originals.

 

I'm in a band that's been together 7 years. That is, up until this winter anyways. We've had some recent changes in line-up and we're ready to get back out and gig regularly again. We started out as a cover band, but about 3 years ago we began writing and arranging our own music too. So.. we still played some club gigs.. 4 hours of covers.. and we would also play some original "whirly gigs" as some call them.. clubs and festivals... and we liked that too.

 

We brought the new guys in and we rehearsed and played a few gigs with the same sort of material we would have done before, and have the same sort of show. Their input of course changes the feel of the music some, but it's still the same show. I thought that's what we wanted

 

Here is something that finally dawned on me. Is this the right time to tighten the direction of the band? Make it one or the other.. a cover focused or original focused band? We receive good feedback at either sort of gig... and we usually sprinkle originals in with the covers too, just thinking.....

 

Should we make 2 projects with the same people? Make one for covers and one for orginals? I guess I'm curious if there are others that have thought about this or were in a situation like this and could share some ideas.

[DanielQ]

Personally, I say one or the other. This way you can be more focused on the direction of the band.

[BlueStrat]

I say do both. Why limit yourself?

 

For years I've done bar gigs for four hours, doing my originals mixed in with covers, and used the money to pay for recording and promo. The recordings and promo got me into decent paying festival and concert gigs ($1000-1650 for a 75-90 minute show) playing for thousands of people rather than the four band a night gigs where you might make $150 for the whole band playing for your 25 friends. I don't get why this model even exists. The only ones doing it are original rock and punk bands. I don't see blues guys, roots guys, folk guys, country guys, or anyone else doing this. Mostly they're playing the entire nights.

 

Lucky Peterson, Smokin' Joe Kubek, Luther Allison, (until he died), Tommy Castro, and tons of others play entire nights in bars during the week between weekend concert and festival gigs. They couldn't make expenses, let alone a living, otherwise.

[THX1138]

 

I say do both. Why limit yourself?

 

 

What he said.

 

I've never understood why it has to be one or the other to some folks. We do both (in a rock setting), and have had good success with it. If you play covers that, for the most part, people actually want to hear, and your originals can hold their own... why chain yourself by choosing just one way?

[rhat]

I say do both. Why limit yourself?

 

the four band a night gigs where you might make $150 for the whole band playing for your 25 friends. I don't get why this model even exists.

 

 

It is easier to get a band up for that kind of gig. Less songs on the list. Alot of the veunes that do that stuff have a house PA. so there is the lure of a better sound system... It is a rock scene that caters to younger and newer bands. They dont play live music in the school systems anymore.. so younger bands get forced into the 4 band format. I can see why it exists. You gotta figure in the bars ,, young bands have to go compete with guys like you and other middle aged weekend warrior cover bands.

[Lee Flier]

 

I've never understood why it has to be one or the other to some folks. We do both (in a rock setting), and have had good success with it. If you play covers that, for the most part, people actually want to hear, and your originals can hold their own... why chain yourself by choosing just one way?

 

 

Yeah, I don't understand it either. Most of my favorite bands started off by playing covers, mutated into original bands and still play the occasional cover in their set. And if they hadn't gotten "famous" would probably still be doing all-nighters featuring a lot of covers, cuz it pays more.

 

I think it makes you a better band the more music you play together. Like I've said here quite a few times, we just like to play good songs - doesn't matter if we wrote them or somebody else. There are a lot of hugely popular songs that we don't like to play, so we'll never be a top dollar act as a cover band, but that's not why we do this.

[SpaceNorman]

It sounds to me like you've already done the hard part - and have developed two distinct "products" (a covers show and an originals show). It would seem that you've got two questions to answer. First, how are you going to package it (i.e., do you blend it into one show, sell it as two different products from the same band (i.e., same band name) - or maybe consider running under two different names (one for the cover shows and one for the original shows). Second, is to decide on what the right mix of marketing energy will be. Do you focus on $$ which probably means sell yourself as a cover act...or do you focus on the originals (knowing that it will likely mean less $$)...or is a split (25/75?, 50/50?,75/25?) the right way to go.

 

Personally, I'd be tempted to market it under two different names (knowing that you can always pull out an original or two when working under your cover band name - and vice versa). The cover band market is way different than the originals band market. I'm finding with my variety act that it's tough marketing yourself as a "something for everybody" band these days. In today's market I think you need to have a distinct market identity.

[Crownman]

Learn enough covers to book good paying cover gigs. Play 1 or 2 originals in each set and have your CD's available. Then tell the people at the cover gigs when you'll be playing at another club doing your originals. I did this about 10 years ago and sold more of our merch at the cover gigs than the others. We also managed to triple(or more) our pull at the original gigs.

[GreenAsJade]

What he said.

 

If you as a band only do originals, you will a) Not be able to play stuff people request and b) get bored, because there's only so much new material you can add, and because it's _fun_ to play those great songs you know and listen to.

 

If you only do covers, you'll be missing that creative outlet (possibly, depending on how closely you do the covers )

 

GaJ

[THX1138]

 

In today's market I think you need to have a distinct market identity.

 

 

I think you're absolutely 100% correct. But you can still have that, and combine both covers and originals in the same sets.

 

We write rock originals, and the covers we play stick to the same vein, or at least attitude and feel of our own stuff. We bill ourselves as a "rock" band. You won't hear us trying to be everything to everybody. We've carved a niche by doing this. Plenty of bands around who go from Disco to Country to Rap to Metal, and there ain't nuthin wrong with any of them. But none of them are getting their originals heard. Whereas people come to see us specifically because of what we are - and in the process, we're moving our own cds.

 

Take Lee's band - you're not likely to hear them rip through a Whitesnake cover. They have their own niche as well.

 

Pat (BlueStrat) - same thing. Probably doesn't have a whole lot of Slayer in his setlist (although I'd pay to hear it).

 

THB - Not sure, but I bet he doesn't cover too many R.Kelly tunes.

 

I think that's the problem with some of this cover/original thing is that the folks using covers to get their own stuff heard, often paint with too wide a brush - and their music gets relegated to background noise.

[badhabit]

 

Most of my favorite bands started off by playing covers, mutated into original bands

 

 

The Beatles and The Rolling Stones both would fall into this category.

[Lee Flier]

The Beatles and The Rolling Stones both would fall into this category.

 

Yeah... my favorite bands!

[Lee Flier]

 

I think that's the problem with some of this cover/original thing is that the folks using covers to get their own stuff heard, often paint with too wide a brush - and their music gets relegated to background noise.

 

 

Yeah, probably true. The covers we do are certainly not very far off from what our original stuff is like - if anything we are pretty much showcasing our influences. I would wager it'd be a lot harder to "sell" your originals if you're all over the map as a cover band. If your originals fit right in with the cover sets and vice versa, it's not any great leap for the audience and you still have your "marketable identity."

[elbow]

 

I think that's the problem with some of this cover/original thing is that the folks using covers to get their own stuff heard, often paint with too wide a brush - and their music gets relegated to background noise.

 

 

That's what I'm talking about. We do both, but I find we sometimes tend to compromise one for the other.

 

Maybe it's not so much a covers and originals thing as it is about focusing our direction period. We seem to be playing a lot of cool songs, but they're going all over the map genre-wise.

[elbow]

Yeah, probably true. The covers we do are certainly not very far off from what our original stuff is like - if anything we are pretty much showcasing our influences. I would wager it'd be a lot harder to "sell" your originals if you're all over the map as a cover band. If your originals fit right in with the cover sets and vice versa, it's not any great leap for the audience and you still have your "marketable identity."

 

Yeah.. what she said

[Nijyo]

 

The Beatles and The Rolling Stones both would fall into this category.

 

 

I think pretty much all my favorite bands started this way, I dunno if its this way with the "youngins" anymore, but even SLAYER started playing covers (not to mention Metallica, who started by playing covers of Venom, Iron Maiden, Diamondhead, and KISS). I'm sure this is the case in other non-hardrock/metal bands as well.

 

If there's such thing as a "path" for rock bands to follow, I'd wager this is the closest.

[thepalpitations]

Our band is the same way, and I definitely don't feel the need to market ourselves as two different names or projects. Hell, getting name recognition is hard enough as it is, why handicap yourself like that?

 

People aren't going to be confused if you play two different types of shows. If anything, they'll be impressed by your versitility. If they like your original music, they'll probably enjoy the way you play covers; if they like the cover tunes you pick, they'll usually enjoy your originals.

 

We have two different types of show that we play. The first is originals-heavy, and features covers that are --while not obscure, perhaps a little less expected. The second features a higher percentage of covers, mostly songs that are extremely well-known, but still interesting and enjoyable for us to play. We've never run into any trouble with this modal, and it definitely increases our ability to play different shows.

[GreenAsJade]

What they all said.

 

If you as a band only do originals, you will a) Not be able to play stuff people request and b) get bored, because there's only so much new material you can add, and because it's _fun_ to play those great songs you know and listen to.

 

If you only do covers, you'll be missing that creative outlet (possibly, depending on how closely you do the covers )

 

GaJ

[wades_keys]

Yeah, I don't understand it either. Most of my favorite bands started off by playing covers, mutated into original bands and still play the occasional cover in their set. And if they hadn't gotten "famous" would probably still be doing all-nighters featuring a lot of covers, cuz it pays more.

It's really inspiring to see so many musicians standing in opposition to the greedy club owners who are running these multi-band gigs.

 

Though in some ways this has been the start of the covers vs. original debate around here, it seems obvious that you are encouraging bands to not limit their potential by falling into the "original scene" trap.

[wades_keys]

 

Maybe it's not so much a covers and originals thing as it is about focusing our direction period. We seem to be playing a lot of cool songs, but they're going all over the map genre-wise.

 

That's the problem, right there.

 

Marketing guru Jack Trout believes that the most important aspect of any marketable commodity, is the "Differentiating Factor".

 

What is yours? What distinguishes your band from the pack? What is the first thing that comes to a fans mind when your band's name is mentioned?

 

What are you best known for?

 

Check out "Differentiate or Die" by Jack Trout - myself and a business partner applied his principles to a web based venture and saw a remarkable increase in sales.

[Lee Flier]

It's really inspiring to see so many musicians standing in opposition to the greedy club owners who are running these multi-band gigs. Though in some ways this has been the start of the covers vs. original debate around here, it seems obvious that you are encouraging bands to not limit their potential by falling into the "original scene" trap.

 

Actually, I'd say we play "originals clubs" with multi-band bills a lot more often than we play all-nighters, and greedy club owners really have nothing to do with why that happens. If anything, it's tougher for the club owners who have to deal with 3-4 bands a night with all their scheduling and other "issues," and provide a PA and sound guy. Plus they usually charge a cover so they have less people wandering in off the street to drink. Trust me the club is not making more money putting on original acts, and they are certainly not making their job easier - imagine getting 10 or more demo submissions a DAY from mostly crappy original bands and trying to figure out which ones "deserve" a gig and who to put them with on a bill. I sure don't envy that job.

 

I don't have a problem with the concept of multi band bills - sure you don't usually make as much money as playing all night, but you don't play as long, you don't usually have to bring PA, and you generally gain a lot of new fans if you put together a bill that makes sense. That adds up to merch sales and CD sales and so on. So that is why those type of bills exist - plus more established original bands generally DON'T want to play the whole night, so they offer an opening slot to an up and comer who gets a chance to play in front of a ready-made crowd. Ideally, that's how it works. Once it gets into pay to play and all that crap, different story.

 

However you're right that I'm advocating not limiting yourself. You can make extra money doing all-nighters to fund other stuff like getting CD's and merch made, and playing covers just makes you a better band. The more you get to gig and the more material you do, the more you grow as individual musicians and as a band. There's the odd exception here or there like U2, but I guarantee most of your favorite bands started off playing covers, even if they had originals to start with, and that's how they got good. Bands that don't know how to play anything together but the 12 songs they've written so far usually don't show a lot of depth. And of course they're cheating themselves out of some good money making opportunities and audience potential.

[wades_keys]

 

Bands that don't know how to play anything together but the 12 songs they've written so far usually don't show a lot of depth. And of course they're cheating themselves out of some good money making opportunities and audience potential.

 

I can relate - a friend of mine is in just such a situation; the band is basically stagnating now.

[Lee Flier]

 

I can relate - a friend of mine is in just such a situation; the band is basically stagnating now.

 

 

Man, it pained me how many bands fell into that trap when I lived in L.A. Part of it was just the logistics of getting together to rehearse - hardly anyone has a basement out there or even a house, so generally you're in a rehearsal space rented by the hour and time is precious. It was hard to get anybody excited about learning covers. But a lot of it was just pure ego: "I don't play covers maaaaan." And like I say, I never did understand that because it was always my impression that was how things were done. The vast majority of the musicians who said they'd always refused to play covers just were not very good.

 

Shoot, I saw the Stones rehearse when I was 18, and they spent about 3 hours jamming on blues and soul tunes before they ever touched any of their own material. That made an impression I guess. I never apologized about my philosophy for running a band ever again after that.

[BlueStrat]

We seem to be playing a lot of cool songs, but they're going all over the map genre-wise.

 

 

I'm with Wade. Herein lies the real issue!

[Lee Flier]

Herein lies the real issue!

 

Yeah, assuming there even is an issue. Reading the OP again it doesn't sound like there's actually a problem, unless there's something he's not saying. He just wondered if it might benefit the band to become more "focused."

 

If both types of gigs are going well, then if it ain't broke don't fix it. If you feel that being all over the map in terms of the covers you do is limiting your marketability, then you could do one of two things: 1) if the band LIKES being all over the map, then you could go with two different names and be more focused with your originals gigs, or 2) you could become more focused on doing covers that fit the original sound you envision for yourselves, so that your cover gigs will still be along the same musical lines as the originals.

 

Either way I don't see a reason to give up doing both types of gigs. And if there's not a "problem" doing things how you're doing them, just roll with it. Hey, maybe your audience doesn't mind you being all over the map, for all we know. If you don't have much of an audience, then you might want to look at one of the two above options.