Covers (How should they be played?)

[brophyd]

I've been playing keys in a band for a while now (1 year+). We play mostly covers with a few originals in each set. We only have a Guitar/Singer, Bass, Keys (Me), and Drummer.

 

Some of the songs that we cover have more than one guitar on the recording. Since this is mostly an alt-rock band, 1/2 of the songs have no key part at all. Every now and then I'm asked to cover a little 3-4 note repetitive pattern on keyboard that usually would be played by another guitar. Now, being a keyboard player, this gets annoying and repetitive for me afer a while. I have suggested that we just leave that part out, or let me play what sounds good on keys, but our singer thinks it's a necessity. As you can tell, I'm not really fond of covering guitar parts on a keyboard.

 

My question is this:

When it comes to playing covers, should they be played exactly like the recording, or should the band take it and make it it's own (playing what sounds good)? Uniqueness?

 

A lot of people I know can't recognize a song, until they hear the lyrics anyway. Now being that we play 90% of the time in bars I wouldn't think small parts like that would matter.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[worthyjoe]

I play in a 3 piece (guitar, bass, drums) so I can relate to your issue. I personally think it's usually a waste of time to learn every detail when doing covers. The average bar patron will never notice. Like you said, 90% of them won't know until the singing starts anyway. I think the key is to get the 'essence' of the sound/song you are doing and do it in your own style. No one cares if you hit lines perfectly as long as they know what the song is and can sing along. That's my 2 cents.

[JBJ]

I've found the best way to do it is get to the ballpark and make it sound good but not waste time trying to nail exact tones, licks etc...

 

saying that, if the part you're having to play is essential to the song then you have to play that ie you couldn't do livin on a prayer without the guitar riff int he verse or wonderful tonight without the lead lick.

 

what stuff are you playing?

[Tedster]

The answer is "Yes".

 

Should it sound exactly like the album? Yes...depending on the song...if you are a tribute band. But realize that even the original band performing the work seldom did the song exactly the same night after night. Unless there's some guitar solo that has to be played verbatim more or less.

 

Should you take some leeway? Yes...depending on the song, and if you are just about anything else than a tribute band. One good thing to keep in mind about covers is to pretend that you're recording it for your own album and putting a new twist on it. Like UB40 doing a reggae version of Elvis' "I Can't Help Falling In Love". (Not my favorite cover or song by a longshot, but an excellent example of putting your own twist on something).

[Guitar Centaur]

Why not set up a second keyboard you can sequence that will just play the part for you?

 

Hit one key to start it, then do the tasty stuff on your other keyboard.

[whiteroom]

Give a real good listen (with headphones) to some of your favorites. Then give a listen to the live version performed by the original artist.

In general, the "hooks" are there, it's a bit faster and it has more energy. The layered sounds with the singer harmonizing (with himself) is gone, the double tracked lead guitar is gone, the huge drum sound is gone. Where are the backup singers?

 

You begin to realize, they are mere mortals, just like the rest of us.

 

So the question is not "should you play it like the record" but is it even possible to "play it like the original record".

[Terry Allan Hall]

I/we don't ever do a cover note-for-note, under any circumstances...I/we always "re-interpret" the tunes.

 

Examples:

 

Wonderful Tonight...I play the obligatory guitar hook on racked harmonica.

 

Free Bird...my bassist plays the slide guitar intro on her fret-less bass.

 

All Along The Watchtower...we do this as ska.

 

I Fall To Pieces...we make this into total Delta-Blues.

 

This approach works for me/us and has for about 20 years.

[Strings74]

Interesting thread.

 

My opinion is that most songs should be played more or less the way they are recorded because that is what people generally expect. I think that capturing the "essence" of the song as another poster said is right on the money.

 

My cover band doesn't worry too much about making things 100% true to the recording (with an exception noted below) but we do generally avoid totally re-interpeting most songs. Personally, while I think a clever redux of a classic song can be very cool if done tastefully, this is a situation where you can get too much of a good thing in a hurry.

 

People want to hear what is familiar to them so too many reggae versions of classic rock songs (or whatever) can kill the response. (We actually did a reggae version of "Numb" by Linkin Park, but that's another story).

 

What I do find annoying however is our lead guitarists obsessive desire to nail every solo note-for-note in every song we play. It's so bad that when we practice, he refuses to just fudge a solo when he forgets the specific phrases. Obviously, nailing certain signature leads and licks can really add something to a performance but let's not get too carried away.

[JBJ]

^ do you do that because you think it sound sbetter or just because you really don't want to copy the bands TAH?

 

just curious.

 

the stuff we do mostly follows the bands style and rough sound

 

ie we do a bit of the clash, undertones, pistols and it's pretty much the same

 

other stuff we change up a bit just because it's how we do things not because we're specifically not wanting to play like the original

 

so i'm a believer and suspicious minds are a bit more rock and always on my mind is acoustic.

 

we're getting round to the idea of mixing songs together. chris martin from coldplay has a nice little habit of breaking into lyrics of other songs that fit with what they're playign and it's pretty cool. i've seen soem cover bands do the same and it makes you sit up and listen again i mean a band doing teenage dirtbag is meh but a band who break into diamonds on the soles of her feet half way through are cool in my book.

 

 

we're workign on going from the libertines can't stand me now into the 2nd half of coldplays fix you partly through accident when we were jammign and i decided to see how it sounded and partly because i got the idea from coldplay. should be fun.

[Tedster]

One weird cover I've done solo acoustic (like Terry on harmonica) is "Whiter Shade of Pale". The organ bit is actually playable on harmonica, believe it or not. The end result is kinda like "Bob Dylan plays Procol Harum" or something.

[ratthedd]

 

Originally posted by JBJ ^ do you do that because you think it sound sbetter or just because you really don't want to copy the bands TAH? just curious. the stuff we do mostly follows the bands style and rough sound ie we do a bit of the clash, undertones, pistols and it's pretty much the same other stuff we change up a bit just because it's how we do things not because we're specifically not wanting to play like the original so i'm a believer and suspicious minds are a bit more rock and always on my mind is acoustic. we're getting round to the idea of mixing songs together. chris martin from coldplay has a nice little habit of breaking into lyrics of other songs that fit with what they're playign and it's pretty cool. i've seen soem cover bands do the same and it makes you sit up and listen again i mean a band doing teenage dirtbag is meh but a band who break into diamonds on the soles of her feet half way through are cool in my book. we're workign on going from the libertines can't stand me now into the 2nd half of coldplays fix you partly through accident when we were jammign and i decided to see how it sounded and partly because i got the idea from coldplay. should be fun.

 

 

Punk music just begs for someone to do some {censored}ty old top 40 tune in a head banging beat--like Marilyn Manson redoing Sweet Dreams.

 

Take some old Beach Boys tunes or Rolling Stones' "Paint it Black" and make them your own by turning them into something you'd expect from the Sex Pistols or Ramones.

[Hollow body]

I can't think of anything more boring than learning songs verbatim, and I hate hearing bands play songs verbatim. Our take is to treat the original versions like sheet music -- my favorite example of the approach is Hendrix covering Watchtower. People like our band because of how we sound, and people like to hear familiar songs. So we do covers in a way that's natural to us, and it seems to work pretty well.

[cherri]

What works best for us is to listen to several different versions of the song (if it's a heavily covered tune) , and then put together our own arrangement.

[Electric Catfish]

We usually just play them and let them sound however they want to. Hooks/riffs are usually essential, but other than that, if the chords, melody, and lyrics (if any) are there, it's all good.

 

Steve

[ZED]

I don't like seeing/hearing cover bands that do songs like the record. I hated playing in cover bands that did songs like the record. So I avoid both.

[axe2 2001]

a band is restricted to the number of instuments and talents of it's players, in other words, you are what you are. If your doing songs that are simalar in layout to the strengths and capabilities of it's players, you'll naturally sound more like the record. If your doing say, somthing with a horn section and you have no horns, your already not going to sound like it and need to interperate it your own way. I'm in a band with two guitar players , bass and drums. We do a wide variety of cover music. Most stuff we try to stick within our means but a handful of them have stuff we can't do. Then we'll ask ourselves, will it be gay to do this one either without the part or doing it on a guitar? We've scrapped a few songs cause it would have been gay. Other songs end up cool just doing it our way. I look at it like this, you can do older songs your own way because some pro band is or has done it already. People expect re-makes. Newer songs should be done as close to the original as possible. People will just think you can't do it as good otherwise. Unless you put such a spin on it that it's recieved as different intentionally. Unfortunatly, it will come down to vocals anyhow. If your singer or singers can sound close to whatever is being done, and it's done good musically, whatever it is, people will respond positively. Just my 2 cents worth.

[JBJ]

Originally posted by ratthedd Punk music just begs for someone to do some {censored}ty old top 40 tune in a head banging beat--like Marilyn Manson redoing Sweet Dreams. Take some old Beach Boys tunes or Rolling Stones' "Paint it Black" and make them your own by turning them into something you'd expect from the Sex Pistols or Ramones.

 

please tell me this is a joke?

 

marillyn manson desecrating a song wrote by dave stewart is far from a masterpiece. same as tainted love. he lets put some really heavy guitars on these songs, slow them down a bit and gorna over them. AMAZING

 

it;s the same when i hear punk or heavier bands playing the beatles, bowie, t rex even hit me baby one more time or something equally as contrived.

 

there are some great songs out there (including hit me baby one more time) that should not be touched wether you personally like them or not. speeding them up. putting heavy guitars in, screaming the lyrics.... why? seriously i think it's gayer than sticking on a pair of hotpants and forming a wham tribute.

 

btw we ran the libertines into fix you thing otnight and its so good it resotred my faith in man. you know when you run somethign and you think {censored} people are going to go mental for this.

[Terry Allan Hall]

Originally posted by JBJ ^ do you do that because you think it sound sbetter or just because you really don't want to copy the bands TAH? just curious.

 

"Yes" to both...after all this time, those who've been following me/us expect me/us to do so...it a tradition in jazz and I've/we've always had a lot of jazz in my/our outlook.

[JBJ]

TAH

 

jazz is a bit different.

 

here as far as bands go there is no jazz unless you really look it out. most cover bands do close to the original with their spin. the biggest cover outfit in glasgow are a 4 piece, drums bass, electiric, acoustic and vocals who basically play the songs like the band in quesiton with that set up would, and it works.

 

we're a 3 piece and being young whippersnapper sused to playing things a bit more rock our stuff tends to get a bit more rock n whatnot.

[Terry Allan Hall]

Originally posted by JBJ TAH jazz is a bit different. here as far as bands go there is no jazz unless you really look it out. most cover bands do close to the original with their spin. the biggest cover outfit in glasgow are a 4 piece, drums bass, electiric, acoustic and vocals who basically play the songs like the band in quesiton with that set up would, and it works. we're a 3 piece and being young whippersnapper sused to playing things a bit more rock our stuff tends to get a bit more rock n whatnot.

 

Oh, I understand...here in the Republic O' Texas, it's a similar situation! Whether solo or w/ my trio "Too Hot For Snakes", we do a mix of acoustic rock, blues, folky-singer-songwriter stuff, Celtic and a little bit of jazz standards...but we approach it from the viewpoint that we're never going to sound like the original, due to our line-up (myself - acoustic 6 and 12-string guitars, harmonica, vocals, Wendy or Richard - fretless bass, tuba, harmony vocals, Kat - hand percussion, violin, harmony vocals), so we might as well do something creative with every tune.

 

And, so far...we've gotten away with it!

[orfalot]

Two schools of thought in this thread. I think it depends on what you are trying to do/be. I like the comment about capturing the spirit of the song and that would apply to an outright copy or the do it your way variety.

Our band does the classic rock songs generally very close to the original versions. We're not a tribute band except for the fact that the music we play is a tribute to classic rock. Most anybody would be able to name the song from the intro alone. Its our choice to try to emulate the original recording, it works for us. Some of the cover bands I see disappoint me because its like they are just going through the motions of playing the songs. I've seen guitarists much better than I rip off technically proficient but uninspired and out of context leads. One things for sure, you have to be into playing the song for it to sound the best. I've heard cover bands that take great liberty with some covers and do a fine job with it but they stick to the basics with most of their songs. We credit our longevity here in a small market to our ability to play a wide variety of classic rock pretty much like the first time you heard it but LIVE!

[Cortfan]

We do covers pretty close to the original, considering we are only a 4 piece band. Lead, bass, drums, and part time keys. Even original recorded songs are usually way over produced with racks full of effects, vocalizers, symphonies, choirs, etc. How do you expect a "bar band" to duplicate that? I can play most basslines note for note, and the guitarist can play really close to the original leads, even though he can improvise a lead for just about any song, and make it sound good. We get the basic feel of the song and just play it similar to a live version. I think our vocals save us (even though I don't sing) and keep our cover songs a good interpretation of the original recorded version, or should I say "live version".

[rim]

The safe way (as far as keeping audience happy IMO) is to keep the cover recognizable and we usually do that. Doing a much different version can be really good if done right, but if not, the audience will probably hate it.

 

If necessity is the mother of invention, then laziness is the father of invention for me. We've done different arrangements on some songs because of lazy reasons: it's the way I (incorrectly) remembered it and too lazy to listen to the original or the original arrangement was too hard for the band to keep straight and we're too lazy to try to get it right so we simplify it. Same with me for guitar solos. I'll try to get the solos close to note-for-note but if I struggle, I'm too lazy to keep working on it so I'll wing the rest. Taught me how to improvise solos, though.

[guitarmook]

The way I look at it, the question is... are you a cover band that does a few originals, or are you an originals band that does a few covers?

 

If you are a cover band, then your audience is there to hear the covers, and they should be more than recognizable, they should be done well. I think that if you're making your money as a cover band, you should do the covers as close as you can to the original version.

 

OTOH, if you have an audience because your band has defined a unique sound (based mostly on your original songs), and you want to extend that unique sound into some covers, then it's more acceptable to take some liberties...

 

 

It might be a little picky, but I don't believe in bastardizing other people's music to create a 'personality' for your band... you can extend that personality w/ covers, but not create it...

[Badside]

My opinion as always been: if the audience wants to hear a perfect rendition of the CD, they will stay home and listen to the damn CD!!!

 

We're there to provide live entertainment, not showoff that we can play a Vai solo note for note.

 

For us it usually mean doing a version similar to what the covered band would be doing live, and it sometimes mean adding a few twists or surprises. We rarely do a new version of an existing song.