Covers or originals? [Archive] - Harmony Central Musician Community Forums

Shovelhead

07-25-2005, 11:58 PM

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

I absolutely love the process of writing. I also love performing original tunes. But now I only throw in a couple in with the covers that we do. I like to play, and I like to get paid to play. So, I use the original music to satisfy my need to create at home and in the studio, and use the cover gig at the clubs to satisfy my need to perform while getting paid to do so.

Having been in both situations (originals for much longer than covers), and for all the reasons I've listed, I've come to prefer to do primarily covers with a few originals thrown in. And for the life of me, I can't understand why so many original guys have a superiority complex! Good music is good music, regardless of who wrote it.

Tedster

07-26-2005, 12:59 AM

This is the basic question for all who labor in musical pursuits.

For me, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

It depends on what the band is trying to achieve...are they wanting to be a club band, or are they more into doing shows with other bands on the bill? Or a little of both, perhaps?

Side projects can help with this. Say you've just joined a great moneymaking band in town...all covers. Have another project on the side that does originals. Heck, even famous players do this. Suppose for example that I was a hired guitarist for some big act...say (just for argument's sake) Sting or someone. Playing that gig would be sort of akin to playing in a cover band that covered all Sting tunes. It's his show, not mine. To get my ya-yas out though, I have a side project that highlights my own songwriting. The violin player from the Dave Matthews Band, for example, does this, as well as I think the drummer...Carter Beauford, did a project with Victor Wooten.

But, thinking a bit further, and getting back down to earth...covers have a great advantage in hooking people in to your band. People like familiarity...and cover tunes provide that. Doesn't have to be all of either.

johnny666

07-26-2005, 01:03 AM

Perform recitals where all you play is Bach, Mozart and other Dead White Males.

Does this fall under 'cover'?

Tedster

07-26-2005, 01:14 AM

I'd say that's a yes, Johnny. As a matter of fact, I'll go one further...in that famous artists that go on tour playing their old hits are in effect "covering their own material". That's what audiences want to hear. If you go to hear, say, the Stones...and they only play stuff off their latest CD, there'll be a lot of pissed off fans who came to hear, say, "Brown Sugar", for example. Perhaps most true of "franchise" acts, who have none of the original members, or maybe only one, but are touring with the original name, such as "The Platters", or the current lineup of "The Temptations".

PrimordialOoze

07-26-2005, 06:20 AM

Originals only here 15 years...........

www.myspace.com/killyourcomputer

or

www.killyourcomputer.us

thanks
http://myspace-469.vo.llnwd.net/00166/96/48/166548469_m.jpg

orourke

07-26-2005, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Shovelhead

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

I grant you that there are a lot of really crappy original acts out there with musicians that have more ambition then talent. But it's much harder to write a set of good tunes than it is to just play a set of other peoples good tunes. That's why original guys have a superiority complex, it's because they're superior! (At least when they don't competely suck).:D

I like playing cover tunes, that's why I get together with some friends every other weekend and jam on covers. It's good for my chops, it helps me work out technical ideas with my gear, and it's great fun. I've done cover gig's, I got paid and it was a goof, but I can't relagate myself to being a dedicated cover band guy.

When it comes to preforming live, I'd rather play original material, I've got some good songs, I've got something to say, and it's just a lot cooler to do. I know it's gonna piss some people off to say it, but doing covers live just seems a little lame to me.

fastplant

07-26-2005, 06:58 AM

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.

Another issue seems to be the lack of originality of original music. At least around my area there are 2 kinds of original bands: metal and death metal. I can't remember the last time I saw just a regular original rock band or any other type of band for that matter.

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.

Hamer Player

07-26-2005, 07:03 AM

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

I absolutely love the process of writing. I also love performing original tunes. But now I only throw in a couple in with the covers that we do. I like to play, and I like to get paid to play. So, I use the original music to satisfy my need to create at home and in the studio, and use the cover gig at the clubs to satisfy my need to perform while getting paid to do so.

Having been in both situations (originals for much longer than covers), and for all the reasons I've listed, I've come to prefer to do primarily covers with a few originals thrown in. And for the life of me, I can't understand why so many original guys have a superiority complex! Good music is good music, regardless of who wrote it.

Excellent post! :)

I've been in both originals and covers bands. I love both. Each has its challenges.

Right now (for the past 3 years) I've been playing in a covers-bar band.

For 15 years before that I was playing originals.

Before that I was playing covers.

Before that I was learning how to play by copying covers.

Before that Dinosaurs roamed the Earth. :( :eek:

:)

Igneroid

07-26-2005, 07:50 AM

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

I absolutely love the process of writing. I also love performing original tunes. But now I only throw in a couple in with the covers that we do. I like to play, and I like to get paid to play. So, I use the original music to satisfy my need to create at home and in the studio, and use the cover gig at the clubs to satisfy my need to perform while getting paid to do so.

Having been in both situations (originals for much longer than covers), and for all the reasons I've listed, I've come to prefer to do primarily covers with a few originals thrown in. And for the life of me, I can't understand why so many original guys have a superiority complex! Good music is good music, regardless of who wrote it.
Heya Shovelhead(You Into Harleys??)
You prettwell nailed it with your post. Its been the other way around for me though. Mostly cover bands and a couple of original bands. Never made a cent with the original bands.

I guess I been "selling out" most of my musical life. It has helped pay the bills and has paid for all of my gear. That being said, I just about orgasm when some one comments positively about one of the many original tunes Ive recorded.

Doing strictly originals is a tuff road to hoe and the chances of commercial success has the same odds as a winning lottery ticket,...... unfortunatly.
I have experienced the 'Superior" attitude from a few guys but they were the ones that sucked. THe real good original guys/gals are usually pretty positive, around here anyways, as they realize "word of mouth" advertising can help or hurt bigtime depending on their attitude.

worthyjoe

07-26-2005, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by fastplant

Another issue seems to be the lack of originality of original music. At least around my area there are 2 kinds of original bands: metal and death metal. I can't remember the last time I saw just a regular original rock band or any other type of band for that matter.

amen to that. And most of these bands can't write a hook to save their lives.

That said, I totally respect original music and do some writing myself. But I don't respect people who bash cover bands. I am content to do covers as a hobby and treat it as it is. As long as said cover bands don't have attitudes/act like they are rockstars, I think you should give them respect. It is what it is.

And for those who think it's "sad" or whatever, I would contend that it's equally sad for a bunch of guys in their 30's thinking they will "make it" as an original band.

Terry Allan Hall

07-26-2005, 08:00 AM

fastplant

07-26-2005, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by worthyjoe

amen to that. And most of these bands can't write a hook to save their lives.

That said, I totally respect original music and do some writing myself. But I don't respect people who bash cover bands. I am content to do covers as a hobby and treat it as it is. As long as said cover bands don't have attitudes/act like they are rockstars, I think you should give them respect. It is what it is.

And for those who think it's "sad" or whatever, I would contend that it's equally sad for a bunch of guys in their 30's thinking they will "make it" as an original band.

I don't think it's as "sad" as it was in say the early 90's/80's. There's alot more "older" people being signed nowadays. Although, I do tend to see alot of older guys (30's/40's) still with the long hair and rocking out carbon-copy Dokken ripoffs and assuming they're going to be the next Dio. That's a little sad in my opinion. You have to change with the times at least a little. But if you're good, you can easily be signed at an older age.

That said, my intention with original music is more for myself. I just want to get out there once in a while and play songs I wrote for people. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that I'm going to "make it." I just want to enjoy playing my music to people.

Lee Flier

07-26-2005, 08:36 AM

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.

Yes, that seems to be the mentality now on both sides.

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 :D, 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. :D

On the flip side, cover bands were different at one time too. I've been in cover bands that made good money and we didn't have to play the same tired covers all the time. We could, again, play what we liked and enjoyed playing, and throw in some originals too. Now the big money cover gigs come from agencies who have strictly regimented playlists just like radio does.

I think the bottom line is that audiences are much less open to new things than they ever used to be. They want to hear what they expect to hear and little more. It doesn't occur to them that somebody might have written a better song than "Freebird" by now. And at the same time, the marketing aspects of music (both original and cover) has been refined to such an artform that there are tons of bands running around doing nothing but catering to a market demographic instead of creating music.

I think original and cover bands both have their place, and my band does cover gigs sometimes to finance some of our other projects, but I think the potential for lameness on both sides has gone way, way up in the last few years.

Badside

07-26-2005, 08:43 AM

I currently play in a cover band, mostly because we're having so much fun we just can't stop! We play almost every weekend, everywhere across the province, in front of young people, old people, drunk people, ugly people. Our mix of classic and hard rock, with some metal sprinkled on seems to work pretty much everywhere we play. We always have a blast, make enough money to pay for our "more than we need" equipment, travel, meet people.

Yet I long for some original material. I love songwriting and I've been doing it since I got my first electric guitar at 12. Problem is, we gig so often, we don't have the time to write songs (when you're gone whole weekend at a time, your family wants you at home during the week!). So I'm torn: do I quit the cover act and risk never making it with my own stuff, or abandon the rock star ambition and keep having a blast as long as it lasts? I could never find another band like the one I play in, we're just not your typical cover band...

Ah well, at least in the meantime I'm getting lots of stage experience. I just hope this will come handy one day!

Micky Z

07-26-2005, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by fastplant
Another issue seems to be the lack of originality of original music.
This touches on my pet peeve: In today's popular music, is lead guitar dead? Or are the musicians simply incapable of playing an interesting lead?

Think of the recognized "guitar heros" and they're almost all from long ago - Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Allman, Gilmore, Santana, Gibbons, Schon, etc. They have their roots in the 60s, and 70s. Even Steve Vai and Steve Morse come out of the blues tradition, although they've definitely transcended it.

Nowadays when I hear a popular artist, the traditional "lead break" is nothing more than a rhythmic section with few single notes, but rarely any melody. Most bands seem to know how to play downstroke chords, and that's all. I call them the Quarter-Note Kids, because it seems all they can play is a downstroke on the beat. Anybody ever hear of syncopation?

I'm not asking in this thread for more people to listen to - although I'm always looking - I just don't understand why popular music shows such limited musicianship and gets away with it.

Micky Z

07-26-2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Hardtailed
So I'm torn: do I quit the cover act and risk never making it with my own stuff, or abandon the rock star ambition and keep having a blast as long as it lasts? I could never find another band like the one I play in, we're just not your typical cover band...
Maybe you could schedule yourself in cycles to give yourself some additional time off for writing? For a month play hard, then the next month cut to half-time and use the time off to write, and then play a lot again, including what you came up with on your "down" time, and then cycle back again for more writing, etc. Pick your own time period - month, six weeks, two months, whatever. It could strike a new balance in your music that allows you to be more productive in ways you haven't been able to.

guitarmook

07-26-2005, 08:55 AM

The big question becomes... is the music about stroking your ego, and asking the audience to praise your genius by applauding YOUR songs, or is it about doing what it takes to really entertain THEM...

Cover songs entertain... originals bands are about working hard on the craft of songwriting to develop something that people will respond to. It's hard work, but it's also more rewarding when it actually happens. Personally, it's more fun to see 1200 people 'out there' dancing and shaking to a song you wrote and massaged and changed into something you think will work, than it is to get 'em with something you know they will respond to.

OTOH, it's a lotta fun to watch people really respond to songs they know and love.

I work primarily in originals bands, but I'm looking for a cover band to scratch that 'itch'.

Lee Flier

07-26-2005, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by guitarmook
The big question becomes... is the music about stroking your ego, and asking the audience to praise your genius by applauding YOUR songs, or is it about doing what it takes to really entertain THEM...

I totally understand your question, but I think it's sad that it needs to be asked in that way (and this is not a criticism of you, but the way things are right now). Why is music suddenly a battle of egos between the musicians and the audience and we can't see a way out? Either you "stroke your ego" or you pander to your audience's egos. Neither one is particularly satisfying for either party.

To me, the relationship between musicians and audience should be like making love. The audience isn't there to watch you jerk off, and you're not there to take orders from them and fulfill all their demands. Know what I mean?

Micky Z

07-26-2005, 09:08 AM

Frankly, I always consider writing an original song to be like creating a present for the listener - yes, I consider whether or not it will be appreciated by the recipient, but this present will also reflect my personality, so that it is unique to me and no one else. I don't see it as win/lose in either direction, but hopefully win/win for me and the listener.

Badside

07-26-2005, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by guitarmook
The It's hard work, but it's also more rewarding when it actually happens. Personally, it's more fun to see 1200 people 'out there' dancing and shaking to a song you wrote and massaged and changed into something you think will work, than it is to get 'em with something you know they will respond to.

To me it's all bout the old trick of the pause in the middle of the song where you have the audience sing the hook. Just the mere thought of them singing my song gives me goosebumps. Or when you start a riff and within a few seconds people are going nuts (like when you play the intro to Thunderstruck), imagine if it was YOU freaking song that they are so happy to hear.

I don't get to see many shows because I'm always playing, over the last year I've seen two bands! First was Metallica, and it was quite impressive to see more than 10 000 people cheering and screaming (sounded like a thunderstorm!) but the show was frankly dull. They're just to big at this point to be enjoyable.

Recently however I went to see Story of the Year and it reminded me just why I want to do originals! They are such an incredible live band (honestly, I hate the CD, don't even own it), the show is full of dynamics to keep the crowd going at all time. When the light closed and you started hearing feedbacks from the guitars, everyone was screaming their lungs off, and then out of nowhere they blast into "The hero will drown" (it's in the game Need For Speed Undergroud btw), I couldn't help my "mature" self and I started jumping and singing along like a teenager! The song is well thought out, with mellower parts to give the fast parts more impact, there's a break in the middle so they can salute the audience while the guitars keep ringing, then they blast into the "funkier" part of the song that rebuilds the momentum and then just before it explodes again, it's the old trick of voice and clean guitar only with the hook sung an octave lower, and it works! Everyone sings along and then BAM they burst again. By the end of the song sweat is pouring all over your body.

I want to be the guy on the stage who incite such behaviour! I want people going nuts on my songs. I want to have sold out concerts in places big enough to have an impressive crowd, but small enough to have more impact.

Ok so I guess it's about the ego :)

caveman

07-26-2005, 09:36 AM

Most of the originals are a rehashing of somebody else's music and not all that original. Not that there's anything wrong with that.:)

DrumMonkey

07-26-2005, 09:56 AM

cherri

07-26-2005, 09:58 AM

Our shows consist of about half original and half covers, but we choose covers that are 'B' sides, less known, but that fit musically with our originals.

We gig about three weekends a month, and we have two completely different acts comprised of the same four musicians. One full electric blues rock show that we play at festivals and clubs, and an acoustic blues/variety show that we play in restaurants and small bars. It keeps us working, keeps us versitile.

I'd rather hear something original ANY DAY. But the musicians I talk to at open mics and shows say they don't get a good response to their originals. My response to them? Write better originals. Keep writing, keep playing them out. Of all the tunes I've written, some are big audience favorites and some tend to wander off and sulk by themselves because either the audience doesn't respond or we just get tired of them. If they don't have staying power for US, they sure won't with the audience. Write more.

Music is about drawing people together. Originals must have some common ground for the audience or the connection doesn't happen and the song falls flat. And ode to your child hood teddy bear isn't going to get anywhere, unless your listeners can relate to that teddy bear angst. Reaching a common ground with your listeners isn't the same thing as sounding like another band.

fastplant

07-26-2005, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by DrumMonkey

Couldn't disagree more with the above statement. Music is not about what Bob in the audience wants to hear - it's about what you as an artist are trying to express.
- DM

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.

Micky Z

07-26-2005, 10:07 AM

w3rd

Teddy

07-26-2005, 10:17 AM

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

07-26-2005, 10:24 AM

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.

:cool:

worthyjoe

07-26-2005, 10:29 AM

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

07-26-2005, 10:38 AM

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. :D

fastplant

07-26-2005, 10:43 AM

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

07-26-2005, 10:49 AM

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!

:)

MattFacingSouth

07-26-2005, 10:59 AM

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

07-26-2005, 11:10 AM

Teddy

07-26-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by guitarmook

another pinhead who thinks actually entertaining people is a bad thing,

I never said that.

squealie

07-26-2005, 04:54 PM

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 shitty 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

07-26-2005, 05:36 PM

[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

07-26-2005, 05:37 PM

Lee Flier

07-26-2005, 05:42 PM

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

07-26-2005, 05:54 PM

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

07-26-2005, 08:38 PM

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

07-26-2005, 09:10 PM

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

07-26-2005, 10:07 PM

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. :D 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

07-26-2005, 10:17 PM

Unfortunately, the demographic for my originals is:

Males, my age, who are me. :rolleyes:

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

riffdaddy

07-26-2005, 11:33 PM

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. :D 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

07-27-2005, 08:09 AM

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

07-27-2005, 08:14 AM

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

07-27-2005, 08:23 AM

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. :D 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

07-27-2005, 08:24 AM

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

07-27-2005, 08:28 AM

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

07-27-2005, 08:29 AM

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 ).;)

fastplant

07-27-2005, 08:39 AM

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

07-27-2005, 08:51 AM

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

07-27-2005, 08:57 AM

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

07-27-2005, 09:05 AM

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

07-27-2005, 09:20 AM

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

07-27-2005, 09:21 AM

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

07-27-2005, 09:34 AM

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

07-27-2005, 09:48 AM

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. :D 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. :D

fastplant

07-27-2005, 09:50 AM

Lee Flier

07-27-2005, 09:54 AM

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

07-27-2005, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Lee Flier

When you go to a symphony it's not a party. :D

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

07-27-2005, 09:59 AM

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

07-27-2005, 10:18 AM

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

07-27-2005, 10:24 AM

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

07-27-2005, 12:28 PM

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. :D 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

07-27-2005, 01:12 PM

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

07-27-2005, 01:25 PM

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

07-27-2005, 01:39 PM

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 (http://www.hxcmp3.com/bands/1)

fastplant

07-27-2005, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by xonetruedesirex

a cookie-monster (sometimes) band with big hooks: Still Remains (http://www.hxcmp3.com/bands/1)

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

xonetruedesirex

07-27-2005, 01:57 PM

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 (http://www.myspace.com/seventhstar)

fastplant

07-27-2005, 02:00 PM

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 (http://www.myspace.com/seventhstar)

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

07-27-2005, 02:00 PM

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. :o

riffdaddy

07-27-2005, 02:44 PM

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

07-27-2005, 02:47 PM

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

07-27-2005, 02:49 PM

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. :D 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. :D

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.

Greazygeo

07-27-2005, 11:42 PM

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

08-01-2005, 02:29 AM

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

08-01-2005, 03:13 PM

My take on this (which is the one thread that is required to be present on every music related b-board on the Web :cool: ) 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

08-01-2005, 03:33 PM

David R.

08-01-2005, 08:11 PM

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

08-01-2005, 09:36 PM

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

08-01-2005, 09:55 PM

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

08-01-2005, 10:57 PM

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. :D

Just kidding!

songrytr

08-01-2005, 11:00 PM

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

08-07-2005, 03:25 AM

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

08-07-2005, 10:00 AM

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

08-07-2005, 04:08 PM

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

08-10-2005, 10:54 AM

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.

SASQUATCH

09-06-2005, 06:08 PM

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

d. gauss

09-07-2005, 09:26 AM

i'd rather see these guys....

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

emdub123

09-07-2005, 09:46 AM

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

09-09-2005, 08:54 AM

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

09-10-2005, 12:07 PM

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

09-11-2005, 06:29 PM

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

09-12-2005, 08:18 PM