Covers or originals?

[fastplant]

Originally posted by 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 agree with you as well. Playing covers definitely does not mean you can't hack it. Alot of this comes from jealousy of original artists when they see cover bands making more money, playing better venues, etc. Instead of accepting the fact that their songs just aren't very good, they blame other factors.

[Micky Z]

Originally posted by fastplant ... the fact that their songs just aren't very good...

 

Perhaps this is the unadmitted (but suspected) truth? I've written LOTS of originals that sucked. But usually I'd realize it before foisting them on an unsuspecting public. Most of them, at least...

[Jimi Ray Halen]

In a perfect world I think that all people would start out in cover bands, learn a bunch of different styles, play note for note solos of the masters and then come back to the original thing when they've developed the chops to do it properly.
That's how Jimi did it.
Same for Eddie.
Ditto Stevie.
Just three of the top of my head - but three greats for sure.
Anybody who looks down on cover bands - well - it ain't easy to do it properly. It isn't easy to play any music well.

[THX1138]

Originally posted by fastplant I agree with you as well. Playing covers definitely does not mean you can't hack it. Alot of this comes from jealousy of original artists when they see cover bands making more money, playing better venues, etc. Instead of accepting the fact that their songs just aren't very good, they blame other factors.

 

 

I think you just hit the nail on the head regarding issues with original bands right there. I like to think that there is an audience for everything. However, there are larger and more receptive audiences for the better acts or songs in a given genre... the creamier of the crop for what its worth. Every band who wites their own music is prone to believe that their's is the best. Well, that is for public consumption to decide.

 

All you can do as a band is write what you believe in and see what the verdict is. If you don't care about progress and public appeal, thats great. Rock on and enjoy it, but don't bitch if your music isn't getting the results that other's are acheiving. If you do care about progress and public appeal, then listen to your audience and make the effort to write better music.

[fastplant]

Originally posted by THX1138 I think you just hit the nail on the head regarding issues with original bands right there. I like to think that there is an audience for everything. However, there are larger and more receptive audiences for the better acts or songs in a given genre... the creamier of the crop for what its worth. Every band who wites their own music is prone to believe that their's is the best. Well, that is for public consumption to decide. All you can do as a band is write what you believe in and see what the verdict is. If you don't care about progress and public appeal, thats great. Rock on and enjoy it, but don't bitch if your music isn't getting the results that other's are acheiving. If you do care about progress and public appeal, then listen to your audience and make the effort to write better music.

 

 

Which goes back to catering to your audience. It at least needs to be a consideration. My belief is that any original band can headline any club, even those dominated by cover bands, if they truly understand their audience.

[Lee Flier]

Well, as a couple of other folks have pointed out, it's not even just the music or the songs that make for good public response, a lot of it is the "entertainment" factor. If you know how to put on a great show, get people dancing and drinking, are great looking, or whatever, all of these things will give you an edge over somebody who doesn't.

Frankly I have mixed feelings about that. I know a lot of seriously talented people who write great songs and/or are great musicians but they aren't necessarily "entertainers" and wouldn't go over well in a bar. And the fact of the matter is there are fewer places now that are strictly music venues than there were 20 years ago, mainly because there are less people now who seem willing to be active listeners. There are a few "songwriter showcase" type venues that mostly cater to acoustic music, and occasionally you get the club that caters to shoegazing college indie rock. But otherwise... the average listener seems to have become less open minded about music than they were even 10 years ago.

There are a lot of people who blame the cover bands for this mentality, in that cover bands have instilled this idea in audiences that they have a right to "demand" what they want and the band should give it to them. And if that's Freebird, well then shut up and play Freebird. People seem to want to hear music that falls within a narrow and familiar format and cover bands cater to that. So I think that's where a lot of the resentment comes from.

Personally though, I don't really blame the cover bands for that attitude, I blame radio and MTV. The attitude that audiences have now seems to have arisen in direct parallel with the tightening of radio playlists. Music has become mere "entertainment" or "wallpaper" for the most part, instead of something really important to people's lives in its own right, as it was to the baby boomers and before. Partly that's because there are so many bands whose music sucks, yeah, but there is still great music out there too... it's just mostly under the radar, and probably won't get heard unless it's being delivered in a specific way with a pretty package and all that.

[squealie]

I think it all distills down to this:

Live music, has always been, at it's core, an excuse for folks to get together and party. If you ain't havin a party, you ain't havin an audience.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by squealie I think it all distills down to this: Live music, has always been, at it's core, an excuse for folks to get together and party. If you ain't havin a party, you ain't havin an audience.

Well that's just it... I don't entirely agree. It has become that way to a large degree but that doesn't mean it's inherently that way. When you go to a symphony it's not a party. Some types of music are better for partying and some require more active listening to appreciate. But active listening doesn't happen as much anymore. How many people even still turn off all the lights, put on headphones and listen to an album or two all the way through? Everybody I knew used to do that, now most people listen to the radio or iPod while cleaning house, watching TV, talking on the phone, whatever. Like I said there are a few venues left that cater to active listeners but not many. That's just the reality, it's not really the musicians' fault. Unless they suck.

[fastplant]

Originally posted by Lee Flier Well that's just it... I don't entirely agree. It has become that way to a large degree but that doesn't mean it's inherently that way. When you go to a symphony it's not a party. Some types of music are better for partying and some require more active listening to appreciate. But active listening doesn't happen as much anymore. How many people even still turn off all the lights, put on headphones and listen to an album or two all the way through? Everybody I knew used to do that, now most people listen to the radio or iPod while cleaning house, watching TV, talking on the phone, whatever. Like I said there are a few venues left that cater to active listeners but not many. That's just the reality, it's not really the musicians' fault. Unless they suck.

The problem there is that there isn't as much money in it for the bar to have "active listening" than say, a dj playing reggeaton all night.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by fastplant The problem there is that there isn't as much money in it for the bar to have "active listening" than say, a dj playing reggeaton all night.

 

 

Oh yeah, definitely. So... if you want to make money and get the big crowds, you have to be an "entertainer." All I'm saying is that if you don't do that, it doesn't mean you suck. It means maybe bars aren't the best places for you to play. Quite a few bands are figuring that out now and are doing house parties, coffeehouses, renting their own halls, etc.

[squealie]

Originally posted by Lee Flier When you go to a symphony it's not a party.

By party, I meant in the biggest sense.

A chance for people to come together and have something in common (the music) as a focus.

The headphone listening statement, is a valid point. But I think that is where the personal fulfillment of music is most achieved.

Not mutually exclusive, but opposite ends of the same stick.

[Teddy]

People who have the creative impulse to put original words and music together to create something brand new do so because THEY HAVE TO. It is the creative fire. They don't care if people like it or not, they do it for themselves.

Not everybody has this impulse. Life is probably alot easier for people who don't have it! The ycan be happy playing other peoples music which the original writer had to sweat and and do many rewrites to finally create.

Learning to play an instrument to be good enough to be in a cover band also takes sweat and hard work but it is a different kind altogether from the work which personal creativity entails. Personal creativity and songwriting is a reflection on you as a person. you are representing your views and therefore putting yourself at risk. so it is beyond music -- songwriting is a statement of belief.

PLaying in a cover band is NOT a reflection of your own beleif s and does NOT reflect you as a person. it only reflects the views of the original creator. its more like hero worship than anything else. playing in a cover band is not an act of creativity. not that theres anythign wrong with that.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Teddy People who have the creative impulse to put original words and music together to create something brand new do so because THEY HAVE TO. It is the creative fire. They don't care if people like it or not, they do it for themselves. Not everybody has this impulse. Life is probably alot easier for people who don't have it!

 

 

Well said!

[fastplant]

I wouldn't say there's NO creativity in playing covers. You can always write medlies, change up the songs in different ways. Of course there's alot less creativity, but there is some.

[GOSG]

Originally posted by Lee Flier Well that's just it... I don't entirely agree. It has become that way to a large degree but that doesn't mean it's inherently that way. When you go to a symphony it's not a party. Some types of music are better for partying and some require more active listening to appreciate. But active listening doesn't happen as much anymore. ...

I will slightly disagree with your symphony observations...I worked as the FOH engineer for a state symphony for three years during their Summer concert series. There were some people at the concerts that REALLY knew the music and were there for the music, however there were a lot of folks at the shows who didn't know the difference between Bach and John Williams. (The best response that they recieved to any program was when they played "Harry Potter" soundtrack pieces and a "Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws") Can you say symphony cover band!

IMO there were more people at the shows for "The Party"...it was just Wine & Cheese vs. Bud & Wings! They also were there to network...gossip...and show how superior they were to the common folk who didn't appreciate the "finer things"

BTW: After my last season working with them they were over $750,000 in the red and the debts were climbing faster than the water di on the Titanic! Sad...I actually enjoyed mixing the shows...but not enough to do it for charity wages.

[xonetruedesirex]

Originally posted by fastplant 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.

 

 

As someone in one of these "cookie monster" bands, I gotta say, you're wrong. There may not be a whole lot of melody in what we're doing, but by god, are there ever hooks...and it's quite possible for people to sing along with what we do,

 

As for good shows, give me 25 kids in a basement going off to the music and knowing every word to my band's original stuff, over a couple hundred drunks in a bar who are way too excited to hear the same AC/DC song for the 6,000th time.

[fastplant]

Originally posted by xonetruedesirex As someone in one of these "cookie monster" bands, I gotta say, you're wrong. There may not be a whole lot of melody in what we're doing, but by god, are there ever hooks...and it's quite possible for people to sing along with what we do, As for good shows, give me 25 kids in a basement going off to the music and knowing every word to my band's original stuff, over a couple hundred drunks in a bar who are way too excited to hear the same AC/DC song for the 6,000th time.

 

 

I'm not doubting you, but I've yet to hear a "cookie monster" band have a hook. All I ever hear is "ROOOOARRRR, rarararararah, Rababahaha, ROOOOOOOAAR!!" I have no idea how that's a hook, and I consider myself pretty open-minded about music. If I can't understand a single word, I'll pass on it. I know it's popular and all, I just don't dig it.

 

And it's cool if you're into it and having a good time. What I don't like is the fact that out of 100 bands in CT, 99 are gonna be this type of band, and they all complain that they have no fans/audience.

[xonetruedesirex]

Originally posted by fastplant I'm not doubting you, but I've yet to hear a "cookie monster" band have a hook. All I ever hear is "ROOOOARRRR, rarararararah, Rababahaha, ROOOOOOOAAR!!" I have no idea how that's a hook, and I consider myself pretty open-minded about music. If I can't understand a single word, I'll pass on it. I know it's popular and all, I just don't dig it. And it's cool if you're into it and having a good time. What I don't like is the fact that out of 100 bands in CT, 99 are gonna be this type of band, and they all complain that they have no fans/audience.

 

 

a cookie-monster (sometimes) band with big hooks: Still Remains

[fastplant]

Originally posted by xonetruedesirex a cookie-monster (sometimes) band with big hooks: Still Remains

 

 

Just listened, they're definitely NOT a cookie monster band.

[xonetruedesirex]

Originally posted by fastplant Just listened, they're definitely NOT a cookie monster band.

 

 

they have some very cookie monster moments...try this for straight cookie-monster that's easy to catch on to: Seventh Star

[fastplant]

Originally posted by xonetruedesirex they have some very cookie monster moments...try this for straight cookie-monster that's easy to catch on to: Seventh Star

 

 

When I say cookie monster band, I don't mean a band that screams for parts of the song. I mean a band that does NOTHING but grunt and groan for the entirety of their catologue.

[RupertB]

You know those underskilled hacks who look like the guys from "Office Space" and spend their weekends murdering classic rock covers for people who are too drunk to know the difference?

Yeah, thats me.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Teddy PLaying in a cover band is NOT a reflection of your own beleif s and does NOT reflect you as a person. it only reflects the views of the original creator. its more like hero worship than anything else. playing in a cover band is not an act of creativity. not that theres anythign wrong with that.

 

 

I couldn't disagree more. For you to tell me that I can't express myself through somebody else's music indicates to me that you just haven't learned how to express yourself that way.

 

Do you feel that when Stevie played Jimi he ceased to be a creative artist?

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by fastplant 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.

 

 

I somewhat disagree with this statement. I believe that audiences have a more acute sense of musicianship than most of us musicians are aware of. A band that doesn't swing can dance around and get stupid as much as they like. They still don't swing. People know the difference.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Lee Flier Well that's just it... I don't entirely agree. It has become that way to a large degree but that doesn't mean it's inherently that way. When you go to a symphony it's not a party. Some types of music are better for partying and some require more active listening to appreciate. But active listening doesn't happen as much anymore. How many people even still turn off all the lights, put on headphones and listen to an album or two all the way through? Everybody I knew used to do that, now most people listen to the radio or iPod while cleaning house, watching TV, talking on the phone, whatever. Like I said there are a few venues left that cater to active listeners but not many. That's just the reality, it's not really the musicians' fault. Unless they suck.

I have a teacher who is convinced that fewer active listening environments exist because active listeners don't drink as much as buttshakers. I think there might be a fair amount of merit to this.