Covers or originals?

[Teddy]

People who play in cover bands are Entertainers. Immediate gratification and cash flow are the results.

People who play in original bands are Creative Artists. A riskier investment of one's time since the chance of acclaim and cash flow are small, UNLESS you make it big.

I have more respect for original bands even if they suck or don't get recognition becuase at least they are creating something. cover bands don't create anything.

That said, I'd like the next band I join to be a cover band. I am not a prolific writer. I wish I were the creative artist type but I'm not. that's just facing reality. I just want to have fun playing out. its hard finding a band that wants to do the kind of covers I want to do. I just want to play the songs that I love to hear.

the last cover band I was in I hated because it was all about playing what the crowd wanted to hear (pop punk crap like Greenday, whereas I wanted to play classic rock). It was the worst of both worlds. I wasn't experiencing the reward of playing original creative works as I would in an original band, and I wasn't having fun playing covers because they were crap Top 40 covers.

[THB]

Originally posted by fastplant I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not saying people should sit around saying, "hmmm, what do people want to hear." And then write to that. What I'm saying is you need to consider the audience when writing. If you don't, then it will likely fall on deaf ears. It's cool if you write only for yourself, but don't be surprised if no one digs it. That seems to be the issue. People write what THEY want to hear then get frustrated that they're not famous.

When writing songs, we need to understand/realize how the listeners ear-to-head relationship works. You can say whatever you want in your lyric and your music can do what it does, but you have to consider your audience with a little thing called a "hook" that I saw refered to only once in this thread. Ya just gotta have one, people. Why do you think people start cheering every time they hear Sweet Home Alabama? That is a great example of a very average song with an incredible hook! It's the hook in most songs that keeps your audience coming back for more.

That being said, I play in a band that does about 50/50 covers and originals. I've released three original CDs and can do more or less depending on the crowd. Originals is surely more fun and more satisfying, but we have to keep the crowd drinking or we don't get hired back.

[worthyjoe]

Originally posted by THB You can say whatever you want in your lyric and your music can do what it does, but you have to consider your audience with a little thing called a "hook" that I saw refered to only once in this thread. Ya just gotta have one, people. Why do you think people start cheering every time they hear Sweet Home Alabama? That is a great example of a very average song with an incredible hook! It's the hook in most songs that keeps your audience coming back for more.

 

 

Agree 100%. It seems like, atleast in the local original music I've been exposed to, that bands can't write a hook to save their life. I almost get the impression that they purposely avoid them because think they are selling out if they write a catchy hook. I just don't get it.

[Lee Flier]

Oh yeah, well songcraftsmanship is important no matter what! Of course... I could argue that I try to write songs with hooks because I'm a FAN of songs with hooks. On the flip side one could be in a cover band that played King Crimson or something, and probably empty the room just as fast as all those original bands with no hooks.

[fastplant]

Originally posted by worthyjoe Agree 100%. It seems like, atleast in the local original music I've been exposed to, that bands can't write a hook to save their life. I almost get the impression that they purposely avoid them because think they are selling out if they write a catchy hook. I just don't get it.

 

 

Exactly, I think purposely NOT writing hooks is selling out more than trying to write a good song.

[THB]

Originally posted by worthyjoe Agree 100%. It seems like, atleast in the local original music I've been exposed to, that bands can't write a hook to save their life. I almost get the impression that they purposely avoid them because think they are selling out if they write a catchy hook. I just don't get it.

I'm very fortunate to have a lead guitarist who is well-versed in his art. He comes up with some great hooks and it makes him indespensable. That and an awesome drummer and solid bassman.





I love my band!

[FlyingKeys]

Originally posted by Teddy People who play in cover bands are Entertainers. Immediate gratification and cash flow are the results. People who play in original bands are Creative Artists. A riskier investment of one's time since the chance of acclaim and cash flow are small, UNLESS you make it big.

 

 

Great point, Teddy. While those two types are not mutually exclusive, personality/temperment probably plays more into this than we often give credit for.

 

Example: I have a jazz quartet - bass, piano (me), sax, and drums. There are actually two variations on this quartet as one venue we play hard bop and another we play smooth jazz with a different bass and drummer. So you can say that the core group is myself and the sax player.

 

We are both fairly serious musicians but our approach to everything differs greatly. He likes the hard bop stuff better because he can take more liberty and be creative (even if we're covering Monk) and he also writes some originals. He also prefers to listen to hard-bop for the spontenaity, energy, and artistry it exudes.

 

I, however, like the smooth jazz stuff better. The songs are often more familiar (R&B and the like) and I like playing catchy, accessible things that connect with the audience. I also like the structure that it affords with the "Joe Sample arrangement" of this or the "Bob Mintzer arrangment" of that. Not saying that it can't be done with hard bop, but again those gigs are more freestyle. I tend to like listening to smooth jazz more, too.

 

So you can say that I'm more the entertainer type and my buddy is more the artistic/creative type, though we display quite a bit of both, respectively.

[guitarmook]

Originally posted by Teddy People who play in cover bands are Entertainers. Immediate gratification and cash flow are the results. People who play in original bands are Creative Artists. A riskier investment of one's time since the chance of acclaim and cash flow are small, UNLESS you make it big. I have more respect for original bands even if they suck or don't get recognition becuase at least they are creating something. cover bands don't create anything.

 

 

another pinhead who thinks actually entertaining people is a bad thing, or that 'original bands that suck' should be encouraged, 'just because they're creating something'... bull{censored}.

 

Even people playing original music have to be Entertainers... or they won't be working for long. Bars want to sell drinks, so they want bands that attract people. If you wanna play music anywhere outside Madison Square Bedroom, you gotta be an entertainer.

 

Cover bands create an atmosphere, and an environment that people want to be a part of. They deliver entertainment to people... which is why they get paid better than original acts 95% of the time.

[Teddy]

Originally posted by guitarmook another pinhead who thinks actually entertaining people is a bad thing,

 

 

I never said that.

[squealie]

Originally posted by fastplant Exactly, I think purposely NOT writing hooks is selling out more than trying to write a good song.

 

 

 

That sounds like the kind of excuse you might hear from a {censored}ty band.

 

Kind of like the guys who refuse to learn a scale because they don't want to become a 'shredder'.

 

And the guys who won't lift heavy at the gym because they don't wanna accidently look like Arnold.

 

Everybody convieniently forgets that 'selling out' with a great and accessible hook or 'shredding' on guitar, or getting an Olympic body, or any extraordinary accomplishment is the result of endless amounts of time and dedication.

[Blackwatch]

[

Trouble is... do you think all those covers that everyone now wants to hear, were originally written with "what other people want to hear" in mind? Some of 'em, no doubt. Others were just a couple of guys in a bedroom writing what they wanted to write. Of course, for every one of those guys there are thousands more who write what they want to write but nobody wants to hear it. And there are also people who do consider "what other people want to hear" when they write, and STILL nobody wants to hear it , or they just come up with formulaic drivel.

That's the trouble: real art comes from within, and there's really no telling what's going to catch on with the public. It's a crapshoot. That shouldn't stop anybody from doing it and they don't suck for trying, even if we might think the results suck.

Thanks Lee, very well said........

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Teddy People who play in cover bands are Entertainers. Immediate gratification and cash flow are the results. People who play in original bands are Creative Artists. A riskier investment of one's time since the chance of acclaim and cash flow are small, UNLESS you make it big.

 

 

I disagree with your black and white analysis of the situation. I believe that cover bands have the potential of expressing artistry through the music they choose and the manner in which the music is performed.

 

Let me just say that I like the overall tone of this discussion quite a bit. This is one of the few civilized debates I've seen on this topic.

[Lee Flier]

Yes this is a great thread. I hope we can KEEP it civil.

I think there's a place for both kinds of bands... and my band does both kinds of gigs... and either cover or original bands can be very musically creative/talented or not. But there's no doubt the respective goals/philosophies between the two kinds of bands are often at odds with each other.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Lee Flier But there's no doubt the respective goals/philosophies between the two kinds of bands are often at odds with each other.

 

 

I don't even necessarily agree with this statement either. When I play a Stevie Wonder tune (I'm a huge Stevie freak), I enjoy it as much--perhaps more--than playing my own material. If the quality of the material is top-notch (in my current cover band it isn't all top-notch, unfortunately), I think the recreation of that material is artistically meritous and therefore not diametrically opposed to the goals of an original band. It's still a statement of the musicianship of the individual, right? As long as you're still learning something and growing as a musician, I view it as the same thing.

[LosBoleros]

Our band plays only Classic Afro-Cuban from the 1930's -1980's. the band is in high demand as we are one of the very few doing this in S.F. and are starting to get a reputation as a Class-act. We do about 2-3 weddings a month and 1-2 club gigs a month. I am making close to $1000.00 a month playing music about four nights a month. This really helps to pay the mortgage. Whe I played originals, we made hardly anything and many times, we actually paid to play. Huge difference.

[orourke]

Originally posted by LosBoleros Our band plays only Classic Afro-Cuban from the 1930's -1980's. the band is in high demand as we are one of the very few doing this in S.F. and are starting to get a reputation as a Class-act. We do about 2-3 weddings a month and 1-2 club gigs a month. I am making close to $1000.00 a month playing music about four nights a month. This really helps to pay the mortgage. Whe I played originals, we made hardly anything and many times, we actually paid to play. Huge difference.

But at least you have an original approach to doing covers.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by riffdaddy I think the recreation of that material is artistically meritous and therefore not diametrically opposed to the goals of an original band. It's still a statement of the musicianship of the individual, right? As long as you're still learning something and growing as a musician, I view it as the same thing.

Oh yeah, from the point of view of musicianship/creativity it CAN be the same thing. When I say the two types of bands have different goals and philosophies, I mean basically... the cover band tries to play what they think their audience wants to hear, the original band does what they like and hopes somebody wants to hear it. The cover band tends to get the higher paying gigs, the original band tends to play a lot of gigs for not much money so that their music can be heard... etc. They can be kind of diametrically opposed... and again, we do both types of gigs so we know exactly how schizophrenic it can be. We enjoy both for different reasons, but it's definitely wearing two different hats.

I also sense a lot of resentment between the two camps. Original bands think cover bands are "selling out," that they steal all the good paying gigs, that they're willing to pander to audiences and thus dumb them down, etc. Cover bands think original bands decrease the value of musicians by playing for "exposure," that they don't care about audiences, write crappy material that drives people away from clubs, don't know how to be professional, etc. Of course, there are lots of exceptions on both sides, but the stereotypes are certainly there.

[KHAN]

Unfortunately, the demographic for my originals is:

Males, my age, who are me.

So I work on originals on my DAW primarily funded by the various 'unoriginal' projects that can turn a profit.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Lee Flier Oh yeah, from the point of view of musicianship/creativity it CAN be the same thing. When I say the two types of bands have different goals and philosophies, I mean basically... the cover band tries to play what they think their audience wants to hear, the original band does what they like and hopes somebody wants to hear it. The cover band tends to get the higher paying gigs, the original band tends to play a lot of gigs for not much money so that their music can be heard... etc. They can be kind of diametrically opposed... and again, we do both types of gigs so we know exactly how schizophrenic it can be. We enjoy both for different reasons, but it's definitely wearing two different hats. I also sense a lot of resentment between the two camps. Original bands think cover bands are "selling out," that they steal all the good paying gigs, that they're willing to pander to audiences and thus dumb them down, etc. Cover bands think original bands decrease the value of musicians by playing for "exposure," that they don't care about audiences, write crappy material that drives people away from clubs, don't know how to be professional, etc. Of course, there are lots of exceptions on both sides, but the stereotypes are certainly there.

Okay, I get where you're coming from now. I suppose I agree. Actually, a lot of those stereotypes are true. Unfortunately my cover band (I say mine--I have the least pull in the band because I'm 10 years younger than the drummer and 20 years younger than everybody else) tends to do a bit too much of the dumbing down. For some reason the band (minus the drummer and I) decided it would be a better idea to play "Da Butt" than to play "Superstitious" and "Flashlight". Needless to say, I'm searching for a new gig.

On the other hand, this band is probably the only one in town right now that can pull off legitimate funk. I doubt I could go anywhere else and do stuff like Lakeside or The Gap Band. Not everybody can pull off that sort of material.

[Jimi Ray Halen]

I like doing covers because a great song is a great song. If I could write a song as good as Jimi or Pagey then I'd have went that route.
The important thing is to play. Something. Anything.
I hear a lot of bands doing the original thing at our practice studio - and they all sound the same. Cookie Monster vocals over way loud distorted guitar riffs. Not a lot of dynamics. I can only take so much screaming. Like 5 seconds.
A lot depends on where you live also. If there is a strong indie scene than cool! If not you can spend a lot of Monday or Thursday nights in dumps not knowing what time you're going on and come away with no money.

[fastplant]

Originally posted by Jimi Ray Halen I hear a lot of bands doing the original thing at our practice studio - and they all sound the same. Cookie Monster vocals over way loud distorted guitar riffs. Not a lot of dynamics. I can only take so much screaming. Like 5 seconds.

 

 

This is what I'm talking about. Every original band in my area wants to be a heavier version of Mudvayne. There's no possibly way to sing along to their music, they have no melody, no hook, nothing memorable about any of it.

 

If there was a wide variety of different kinds of original bands, I think there would be a bigger market for it. Most people that are into the "cookie monster" band, don't go to night clubs. So these bands will never get a good show.

[guitarmook]

Originally posted by Lee Flier Oh yeah, from the point of view of musicianship/creativity it CAN be the same thing. When I say the two types of bands have different goals and philosophies, I mean basically... the cover band tries to play what they think their audience wants to hear, the original band does what they like and hopes somebody wants to hear it. The cover band tends to get the higher paying gigs, the original band tends to play a lot of gigs for not much money so that their music can be heard... etc. They can be kind of diametrically opposed... and again, we do both types of gigs so we know exactly how schizophrenic it can be. We enjoy both for different reasons, but it's definitely wearing two different hats.

and my point is that to be successful, and to be asked to return by any venue, it doesn't matter whether you're playing covers or originals... the bottom line is the same - did you entertain the people, and make 'em wanna dance, and make 'em wanna drink?

I don't believe that there SHOULD be a 'different philosophy'... the fact that you as an artist have something creative to say doesn't mean that anyone else wants to hear it, or that you know how to present that idea in an entertaining way. If your original music isn't entertaining the people, then there's something wrong with it. It has no merit just because it exists, or because it's yours...

Musicians who go out and play in front of people are entertainers. If their music isn't entertaining, they need to work on it.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Jimi Ray Halen I like doing covers because a great song is a great song.

 

 

Totally agree and this was something that used to really piss me off playing in original bands in L.A. It was like pulling teeth to get people to do covers. I just never saw what the big deal was... I enjoy playing a great song and it makes a band a better band the more they play. Plus most of my biggest influences e.g. the Stones, Beatles, Who etc. started off being cover bands and that helped them develop their sound.

 

Luckily my band now is different. We're basically an original band, but we nearly always have a few covers in our set, often relatively obscure ones that are great songs but not many people know them. And if we're playing house parties and the like where we play all night, we can pull out zillions of covers. We pride ourselves on having a very "deep" vocabulary and our audiences love that about us, so it's all good.

[fastplant]

Originally posted by guitarmook and my point is that to be successful, and to be asked to return by any venue, it doesn't matter whether you're playing covers or originals... the bottom line is the same - did you entertain the people, and make 'em wanna dance, and make 'em wanna drink?

 

 

I agree, it matters little how good you are. People that have a good time at your show are going to tell people you are good. Most people can't tell if you actually have talent or not. You can be awful, but put on a good show and if people like you, then that's all that matters. Problem is that most bad bands don't know how to entertain either. But I've played with some awful bands that people thought were awesome because we put on a good show.

[Micky Z]

I still have a bit of a problem with the "diametrically opposed" characterization. I'm also not convinced that doing covers necessarily qualifies as "dumbing down".

I like riffdaddy's statement: "I believe that cover bands have the potential of expressing artistry through the music they choose and the manner in which the music is performed." When I do covers, I try to put as much into interpreting the song as I would my own. I never dumb that down, and hope that I do it in a manner that's enjoyable to everyone in the audience (realizing, of course, that playing to the lowest common denominator is not compatible with musical artistry). However, maybe I disqualify myself somewhat by making each cover somewhat my own, and don't necessarily stick to the song note-for-note and tone-for-tone, so it's intentionally my version of a tune.

Doing originals can be a great boost personally, and I have a few that are very well received. But you can't sacrifice audience appeal in the name of "original artistry" - people have to pretty much like what you do, or you won't work very long. Performance artists (of all varieties) walk this line all the time, and all too often cross it into areas their audiences consider distasteful, thereby alienating the very people they are trying to reach. Music is no different. An original song that is an exercise in ego masturbation will not be heard for very long.

The bottom line, though, I think, is what LosBoleros said: "starting to get a reputation as a Class-act". Whether it's covers or originals, does it enhance your reputation as a class act? Can people say, "they do (classic rock/punk/funk/folk/smooth jazz/whatever) and are really good"?

So, if you do covers, do them the best they can be done by you. If you do originals, do them in the way that best pleases your audience. Honest effort that pleases the crowd will not go unrewarded (except by a$$hole promoters who don't give a sh!t about anything but the money - bu that's another thread ).