yod wrote:Does it count if it isn't a macro-genre?
Never saw a future in recording a song I don't own. I suppose it's fun to have a lot of people be familiar with a song the first time you play it. After 20 years of not doing covers, I've recently started covering a few songs by other artists/writers within my own micro-genre. Again, it's highly unlikely you would get the references, but some of my friends in this micro-genre have done well doing well-known covers by more well-known artists in the next sub-genre up.
Without knowing who you really are, and therefore not being even slightly familiar with your music, I don't know if there is a future in recording your own songs. I don't know what your micro-genre is, either, so commenting on it one way or another is pointless.
From my own perspective, I am not a good song writer. I've never written a good song. But then, some of the best and most well known musicians have never written a hit song, or even a song, period! There are a lot of bands out there where one or maybe two of the people in the band write the songs, and the rest of the band just performs them. Some of the best singers and guitarists in the history of music only (?) performed the songs their bandmates wrote. Imagine how terrible The Who would have sounded without Roger Daltrey "covering" Pete Townsend's songs. So, I'm not automatically impressed by anyone who makes a big deal about writing his own songs. I'm impressed if I hear that he's written a lot of GOOD songs. Though even at that, sometimes the songs are only good because the artists performing and/or arranging them made them good. That example in my launch post showing Jackie DeShannon's original campy demo for "Bette Davis Eyes" compared to the remake that Kim Carnes sang, with that great Bill Cuomo riff is a great example of a less than outstanding song turned into something memorable.
I've also noticed something else with a lot of bands of younger musicians nowadays. Sometimes, songs have chords in them that are hard to play. It takes a certain level of skill to perform something as it was originally written. If you're a novice musician, it's often easier to write your own "original" derivative piece of crap songs that are all well within your personal comfort zone. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with writing good songs if you're capable of writing good songs. But writing "original" songs just to cover up deficiencies as a performer is nothing to brag about.
And then, there's the issue of why a musician performs. I play guitar at church because (1) I enjoy it and (2) I'm pretty sure God likes it. When I do troubadour or busker gigs, my intention is to entertain an audience. Songs that they might be familiar with, or that are really good songs even if the audience isn't familiar with them, are what I play. I have no choice but to re-arrange the songs so that I can perform them with just a single guitar and my baritone voice. If it's written in a tenor's key, I have to transpose it down. Sometimes a song works. Sometimes it doesn't. It's most satisfying to me when the audience reacts positively to a song I've "uncovered" into something almost completely different.
The bedrock foundation of good music is great songs. I'd rather hear a cover of a great song than a bad original song.