Covers or originals?

[Greazygeo]

Originally posted by Lee Flier 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...

 

 

Music has always been entertainment, thats kinda what it is....

I do both originals and covers (in two different bands).

The cover band, we do strictly covers, thats what we are paid for and I am there for the money. The majority of the tunes I would not listen to personally. I find ways to make the songs interesting.

The original band is a three piece instrumental rock fusion project. We dont play alot of gigs and dont focus on writing "HIT" tunes. We just write and play what we want and have fun. Some people enjoy it, so all is good.

[JTbaddog]

The last and best band I was ever in hit on a format that worked great. We did four forty five minute sets a night, usually three to four nights a week when we were booking. The first two sets were cover materiel, rockin' stuff to get the crowd rowdy. Then the third set we'd anounce that we were going to do all originals. We always got a good response. We played an area of maybe a hundred mile radius, so we got to play the same clubs often. It got to where, during the cover sets, people were yelling out names of our originals, they knew and liked them that much. But we always saved them for the third set and went back to the covers for the fourth. Worked out great for us.

[Meatball Fulton]

My take on this (which is the one thread that is required to be present on every music related b-board on the Web ) is that it's way too overblown.

1. Almost everyone here is equating "band" with "ROCK band". As those of you who play other styles know quite well, outside of rock covers are considered to be perfectly OK. In fact covers are often seen as a way to pay tribute to the music's tradition.

2. If you're not supporting yourself playing music, do what you want. If you have to pay the rent, play what you need to in order to make money. I never worked with a pro player who put down cover gigs, they only put down gigs that were not fun AND paid poorly. Curious as to how you anti-cover types feel about nameless sidemen that back up big stars or the bands on TV shows (SNL, Letterman, etc.).

3. It's not a black and white issue! I've been playing in more than one band at a time for years now. I like the variety, I get to play in different styles, I can do covers, I can do originals. My level of satisfaction has more to do with the chemistry between the players than who wrote the material. If the players are getting their rocks off and the dance floor is packed I could care less who wrote the tunes!

4. Music is a CRAFT for almost all of us, not ART. Yes, writing music is a creative activity but it rarely reaches the level of art. I don't know why we demean the word art by applying it to every Tom, Dick and Harry who learns how to throw together 3 or 4 chords in service of a pedestrian melody and puerile lyrics.

5. Stop worrying about what other musicians think about what you do. Worry more about whether you're enjoying what you do.

[Tedster]

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!!"

SPLRFFFFFFFFFTTTTT!!!!
:D DAMN YOU!!! Who's gonna clean all this coffee offa this keyboard?!?!?!?! :D

[David R.]

I agree with Meatball Futon. Most of my gigs have been in the jazz realm, where covers reign supreme. (That said, the funk/jam/hip-hop/soul gigs I've done have been mostly originals, with the odd cover here and there.)

For me it's always been about the song. Can I convey myself through the song? Does the song suit the band - our vibe, our sound, our strengths? If it is a cover, what can we do to it to make it our own?

In the jazz trio I play in, our repertoire ranges from standards to originals to tunes by Paul Simon, Nick Drake and Bjork. A great song is a vehicle for communication - no matter who wrote it.

David

[Dave Martin]

Why has no one pointed out that for many acts, their 'breakthrough' songs (and sometimes their only hit song) were covers?

The Beatle's first record was mostly covers. Since it was the Beatles who first promulgated the idea that bands should write their own songs (they were really, really good at it - unlike most bands), why not blame them for all the bands who perform really crappy original songs?

Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels "Devil With A Blue Dress" was a cover.

The Allman Brothers? Both Statesboro Blues and Stormy Mnday were covers.

Bill Haley's "Shake Rattle And Roll" was a cover (the original was a lot dirtier).

A lot of the Early Zeppelin songs were uncredited covers. (Fortunately, the writers eventually got their share).

Humble Pie did a ton of covers - I seem to remember that more than half of "Rockin' The Fillmore" were, as a matter of fact.

Few of the Stax or Motown artists were writers; does that mean that they were doing covers of their own hits?

The Rascals had more hits that were covers of R&B songs than originals.

And thank GOODNESS that some of the Nashville artists are doing remakes of old songs - most of the new ones seem to be uniformly awful.

[squealie]

Originally posted by Dave Martin Why has no one pointed out that for many acts, their 'breakthrough' songs (and sometimes their only hit song) were covers?

 

 

Very good points.

 

 

[rim]

Good thread.

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.

I don't agree with that. Haven't you related to a song someone else wrote? Haven't you heard a song by someone else and you swear they could've been writing about you? I have, many times. This is why music is universal.

I guess it depends on the cover band, but in my cover band, we only choose songs we like. We do keep the audience in mind as far as choosing upbeat songs, but we like upbeat songs ourselves. So what songs we choose to cover does reflect us in some way - much like what you choose to play on your CD player has some reflection of who you are (at least at that moment).

----

Another thing a cover band offers is (at least in mine) a wider range of musical styles. We've played gigs where we've done songs from artists as varied as Rage Against the Machine, Janis Joplin, Eminem, Outkast, Chuck Berry, Alice in Chains, Eve6, and Sublime in the same night.

I've always felt that playing covers has improved my guitar playing much faster than if I was only playing originals. You improve by copying what others do before you. When you copy a guitar lick, you're playing a "cover", though it might only be a part of the song.

So it's clear I like being in a cover band. Having said that, I've had my dreams of being the next "Beatles" but unfortunately, my original songs suck for the most part. I've had a little success as far as people telling me they like some of my originals and I admit it is a high. It just doesn't come easy for me. What does come easy for me is playing what other people play. On the other hand, I have a friend who is a great songwriter but has a lot of troubles learning other people's songs. I've known many people who started writing their own songs because they couldn't learn to play other people's songs.

As has been said before, they both have their place. It just seems to me, cover bands tend to be looked down on more than original bands.

I think we can all agree that it's the Karaoke singers that suck.

Just kidding!

[songrytr]

Originally posted by Meatball Fulton Music is a CRAFT for almost all of us, not ART.

*applause*

Yes, it really sucks when "artists" get on a high horse about what they create. It's the listeners (or the viewers) who make it "art."

If you're not resonating with those folks you can bet it's craft.

When it comes to covers vs. originals I find it impossible to consider them mutually exclusive.

When you're young and independent you're more likely to take that original route exclusively if you find yourself writing songs. Some enjoy the risk and challenge (I did for a long time) and some continue to work that angle as they get older and acquire the trappings of older people (just ask my ex).

On the other hand, a lot of folks grow into situations that pretty much call for some sort of financial return on the time that goes into the craft. I know guys that started with covers and stayed there (most are now in Vegas or in some reservation casino) because they became used to the income. Hey...they're happy with that and it works for them. That's a good thing.

I personally believe, for anyone who is serious about making a living with their own songs, that a good background playing covers serves their own writing in a positive way. At one point I spent three years playing classic 60s/70s pop. I did finally get tired of being a human jukebox, but I had absorbed an encyclopedia of great songwriting by playing all those songs. Osmosis thing. When I did get back to my own stuff I was writing on an entirely new level.

But don't think for a minute I considered those new songs to be "art."

How's that for a wrap-up?

[Body Bomb]

Coming from the punk scene, I've always had a cynical attitude towards cover bands. And it's because a lot of cover bands are lame.

 

Not all, though. I think when approaching a cover band with a concept, it has the potential to be cooler than your average top-40 band playing a sports bar.

 

I saw a cover band, maybe eight or nine years ago that was really cool, they played spot-on 80's new wave covers, (Blondie, Devo, Gary Numan, etc.) looked the part, and totally blew the doors out of the place.

 

I'd be really excited to see a cover band doing faithful and authentic versions of 60's Stax/Volt R&B tunes.

 

Doing tribute bands to a specific artist is slightly cheesy and self-indulgent, but it's a whole lot of fun for the performers and audience.

 

I've had conversations with other members of local bands from the indie and punk scene about forming a band that did classic hard rock covers, but doing them with a slight punk edge, and only playing songs we liked. Playing slightly louder and harder versions of Who, Stones, and Cheap Trick songs actually sounds like a lot of fun!

 

Anyway. I think doing straight-up top-40 gigs are kinda lame, (although some people do enjoy doing them - more power to 'em)

But that's really only scratching the surface of cover bands.

 

And hell, if my original band goes tits-up, I might think about starting that punk/classic rock-crossover cover band.

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by Body Bomb I'd be really excited to see a cover band doing faithful and authentic versions of 60's Stax/Volt R&B tunes.

 

 

Not me - I LOVE that era and the musicians who created the Stax sound (essentially, Booker T and the MG's along with the Memphis Horns). But when they performed live, not even the Stax artists themselves did 'faithful and authentic versions'. I say Etta James last year - her versions of her own songs differed quite a bit from the recordings - and they were much better. Keep in mind that insturment sounds (and placement) have changed a lot in the last 40 years - if your band's live drum sound duplicated Al Jackson's drum sound on the Otis records or Benny Benjamin's sound on the early Motown records, both you and your audience would be pretty disappointed...

 

Theres a group here in Nashville called "The Prisoners of Love", fronted by Jimmy Hall (Jimmy was the lead singer with Wet Willie, has recorded an album or two with Jeff Beck - you know, has some experience). I'd far rather see Jimmy do his take on classic blues and R&B songs than any authentic rendition of the single. If you an catch him on a night when the incomparable Jack Pearson is playing guitar, you'll understand why.

 

But that's just me...

[Carbophos]

It's all about personal choice.

Some people just love to play gigs. They want to play as many as possible and obviously, dedicating so much time to gigging they'd like to be paid.

Some people just love to make their own music and gig is just an exposure for them.

People play music for so many reasons... Even within one band the motivation behind each player may so differ...

At the end of the day it's all about having fun.

And I don't understand "original vs cover" controversy. I doubt that "original" bands steal the gigs from the cover bands, doing it for free or the cover bands keep orignal bands off the paid gigs.

Obviously no venue will invite original band, which didn't prove to have a big following, to play on Saturday night. And I totally believe that if one of a sudden all cover bands will be unavailable for certain night, no bar owner will pay that much for unknown original band which fills the slot. If I'd be bar owner I'd better put some CD's on stereo, rather than invite some band that may alienate my customers.

So, original band always have to prove it worth something. All famous bands started played free gigs, gigs for 5 ppl on Tuesday night etc.
And of course, original band should understand that if they play music that doesn't fit mainstream, again they won't get big gigs even if all cover band from the neighbourhood will dissappear.

If someone thinks of himself as a Creative Artist, than he should be happy just with creating music and understand that anything else is just a bonus to his creative outlet.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

I just quit my second cover band in about a 2 year span. Before that, for 20 years I was strictly in original groups. Right now I have no intention of doing a cover band again. I just had this feeling when I was playing like I was a complete fraud. I didn't like it.
Another thing is I hate the general cover band audiences tastes. LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR for them. "AC/DC!" (I love AC/DC, don't get me wrong), "FREEBIRD!" I always wanted to do off tracks, and obscure songs but of course that would never fly.

[mightysasquatch]

I write extensively. I would rather play my music for 20 people than play Steve Miller songs for 200. I have played original music in front of crowds ranging from the bartender to 2,000 people, and had a great time every time. I don't look down at cover bands, but they are not for me. Cover bands don't play Madison Square Garden & I don't either, so either way I'm screwed.

[d. gauss]

i'd rather see these guys....

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1371/5551029.html

[emdub123]

This may be slightly off topic.

I am 35 years old and started learning to sing/play guitar simultaneously about three years ago. Not an easy task when you've had no training/experience in either. I didn't know any chords or theory. I started by printing tab off of this website and slowly learning bits and pieces of songs.

As I learned one, then two songs, then a third, a fire developed inside that continued to grow to the point that I have now learned 40+ songs and can sing them all relatively well. I've found a group of guys to play with on occassion and have even played a few gigs.

This has only intensified the fire inside. Now, I've begun to write verses and choruses. I've even turned on the recorder and improvised over I-IV-V type progressions, looking for something to click.

I played a couple of my songs and song fragments for the guys I jam with, and they were encouraging and want to work them in to our "set" when I get them done.

In my case, learning cover songs has been my teacher. Covers are a common language to communicate with other musicians and an audience. Even when I play an obscure song that no one knows, people respond because the song successfully communicates itself.

I've tried to do 3 originals and one gets across, but the other two don't. I won't play them again, they're just not good songs. I have a sense of accomplishment in finishing songs, but I also realize that some are just going to turn out better than others.

If you don't play covers that really work, chances are you won't know what it feels like to really get it right, IMO. If you don't know what it feels like to really get it right, you'll have no basis for determining whether your originals are any good. Sometimes it's easy to mis-interpret politeness.

[renier]

Originally posted by Shovelhead Me? Both. I've been in 2 completely original bands, and a bunch of cover bands. Here's what I've learned: 1. Original bands don't make much money compared to cover bands.

 

 

so your cover band makes more money then the stones? or U2?

 

shure, you'll get paid more to start with, but there is a "ceiling" for cover bands.

 

 

2. The original gigs are more of a pain because there are usually 2 to 4 bands on a given night, and all of them have egos because they're "about to be signed".

 

 

true. but i look at that is one of the fun things. it's more then just delivering a service.

 

 

3. I've seen more original bands that suck than cover bands that suck. Why? When you play covers, you pick the best of the songwriters. Most local original bands are lucky to have 2 or 3 decent songs.

 

 

you have a point. on the other hand, when you play covers, you can never win (you can't do it better then the original, but you shure as hell can do worse!) plus, playing originals has the advantage of never having to play stuff that doesn't work for you. if i can;t get a certain riff to sound right, i find something else to play.

 

 

4. I always see much more crowd response in a cover band. Face it, most bar patrons are there to have a good time with pals, not to focus on original music. unless they happen to be a musician - then they just stand in the back telling everyone who'll listen how they can do it better.

 

 

can't argue with you there. the only thing is: you get more respect playing originals.

 

 

5. Cover bands have the opportunity to play multiple times in a month. Most original bands are lucky to get 2 gigs a month.

 

 

probably true.

 

 

I can't understand why so many original guys have a superiority complex! Good music is good music, regardless of who wrote it.

 

 

this is a silly argument. i am not proud of "bohemian rapsody" why? because i didn't write it!!

 

i can understand why original musicians think they are musically superior to cover players. just as picasso would feel superior to the guy who sells posters of his work.

[Shovelhead]

Originally posted by renier so your cover band makes more money then the stones? or U2? shure, you'll get paid more to start with, but there is a "ceiling" for cover bands. ----------- No. But I'm fairly sure yours doesn't either. And I can't name any bands that do. Of the number of musicians in the world, one in a million would be lucky to reach the status of the majors like the Stones or U2. Our band makes infinitely more money that the local original guys. And, I don't kid myself about my chances of making it in the music biz. That doesn't stop me from writing tho, because I look at writing as an art form. The difference is that I write for me - not for the money. ----------- true. but i look at that is one of the fun things. it's more then just delivering a service. ----------- I no longer look at the logistics of hassling with gear as 'fun'. I like to get to the playing part. Moving gear and dealing with other musician's egos doesn't appeal to me. ----------- you have a point. on the other hand, when you play covers, you can never win (you can't do it better then the original, but you shure as hell can do worse!) plus, playing originals has the advantage of never having to play stuff that doesn't work for you. if i can;t get a certain riff to sound right, i find something else to play. ----------- I play in the clubs for fun , and write originals because I want to persue the art form. The fun part of club gigs is the interaction between the crowd and the band. It's much harder to get that interaction going with originals, no matter how good they are, because most people are there to party with pals. The band is usually there to enhance the party - not BE the party. ----------- can't argue with you there. the only thing is: you get more respect playing originals. ----------- Respect from who? The one or two musicians in the crowd? Most people don't care who wrote the song. They want familiar music to party to. Of course, the venue makes a huge difference. If you're playing a concert stage, it would be ridiculous to play all covers. If you're playing a club, covers work better in 99% of the situations. We still throw in a couple of originals, but they're in between the popular stuff. ----------- probably true. ----------- Around here, it's a fact. Cover bands work far more than original bands. ----------- this is a silly argument. i am not proud of "bohemian rapsody" why? because i didn't write it!! i can understand why original musicians think they are musically superior to cover players. just as picasso would feel superior to the guy who sells posters of his work. ----------- Not so silly. Again, you have to consider the needs of the audience. I find it really funny to see a mediocre original band come in with a huge attitude because they do all originals. I find it even funnier when they completely bomb in a club, and can't understand why. Most of them would do much better if a) they were on a concert stage, and b) if the music were as big as their egos. It's all about context. I'll save my originals for the proper place and time, and play the covers down at the club. That way, I'm happy because I'm writing, and the crowd at the club is happy because they hear what they came to hear. -----------

 

[Locke]

Currently we play only originals. We might add a couple of covers to our set in time. The thing is that all of us get our money from other jobs and not from music. Hence we can afford to play only for our own amusement. If somebody else likes what we do, great. If not, too bad although so far we've gotten pretty good feedback. I enjoy originals more although covers are fun too.

[tin whistle]

Originally posted by fastplant What I tend to see in original bands are people who will write music THEY want to hear, but don't really think much about what other people want to hear. So they end up alienating their fanbase before they create it. WIth a cover band, you usually do it the other way around. So of course it's going to be more successful. People need to realize that someone is going to be listening to your music, so you need to cater to that. Too many people label that as "selling out." But if no one wants to hear your music, then you're better off playing in your bedroom. I'd much rather see an awesome original band than an awesome cover band, but sadly I haven't seen one in years. That's why most clubs in CT refuse to book original bands. But because of the dominance of cover bands, alot of clubs are starting to stop having bands altogether because every band ends up sounding the same. They may as well just have a DJ that's cheaper.

 

 

Pretty much every artist that made it would tell you that they write music that they wanted to write... not by a formula thinking of what would sell (not counting "produced" pop music specifically geared to sell, obviously)

Whether or not they DO make it in the music business is either because what they like to write finds an audience or it doesn't.

Finally, just because we are going through a dearth of musical talent at this time doesn't mean that that has anything to to with it.

 

In the meantime, tune your guitar down four and a half whole steps and jump up and down on stage like a pogo stick.