General Music Chat

Yeah but Bob, ya can't bring people on it at gunpoint.

"You are taking what they're given, when your working for a living" - Huey Lewis

Yeah but Bob, ya can't bring people on it at gunpoint.

....you can't? Oh crap, NOW I see what the problem was.....

Why fish for minnows when you can swim w/ the dolphins?

I fish for everything.

And minnows can take direction, where bigger fish are convinced that everything they do is "for the good of the sea".

And those damn sharks. Always swimming around with frikkin laser beams on their heads. Big deal.

LOL Just as long as they aren't of the "swimming bomb" variety.

DJ Bomb Blasts go far under water.. LOL

I've played in both all-original and cover bands, and I can't honestly say that the original project was any more gratifying than the other. It's all a matter of personal preference and/or personal situation.

I've commented on here before that BOTH are certainly valid occupations, but you MUST really decide what you are all about from the onset. You have to decide what your goals are. If it is just to play music in front of a crowd and make a little money at it, then Cover band is the way to go. As you mentioned, not everyone writes good music, but if you are a creative person, and believe in your music, then the Original band is the route to go. You cannot really do both, in the same band, and expect to succeed at original music. In other words, bands that typically do 90% covers and throw in one original per set, are almost never, going to see anything come of their own music. No music industry rep sees a band perfectly covering Tool, for example, and thinks "Wow those guys sound more like Tool than any band I have ever seen, I've got to sign them right now! And they don't stay around long enough till you get around to playing your single original tune.

And while you are probably correct that SOME bands don't match exact licks because they are incapable of playing them, that is not always the case. My band has a philosophy of "Making them our own". We do a cover or two per set sometimes, but we make them our own. It is valuable to play a cover here and there for an original band, because if you are playing a club that is unfamiliar with your music, it is good to have something recognizable, that grounds the uninitiated, that they know the words to.

But when we do covers, we make them our own, and that brings it's own challenges, because if you are going to re-do someone's tune, it had better be, as good, or better, than the original. An example for us, is Christopher Cross' "Ride Like The Wind" - This song with Chris's high and soft voice, and the Michael McDonald harmonies, is very melodic and syncopated, with lead guitar being very subdued most of the song. It is rockin' but an accessible 70's kind of rockin'. More groove than guts.

But the theme of the song, an outlaw on the run, is geared more toward a Southern Rock, Outlaw Rock kind of sound and feel. Who knows, it may have originally been written that way? But Chris's melodic style mellows it out. We have taken it, and made it more guitar strong, vocally powerful, and kept a strong groove, but a Southern Rock groove. It rocks out, and I honestly believe, it is better than the original. It certainly rocks better than the original, and no one, seems to miss a thing, from the original. So we have successfully made a cover our own. The people can still sing the lyrics, but we do not have to leave our style and sound, in order to accomplish that.

If you believe in your own music, you do yourself a diservice by spending an inordinate amount of time learning other people's music, rather than spending that time perfecting your own style and sound. You spend days each weeks learning to sound like other bands, and guess what? You start sounding like them.

The problem is, that there is already a Nickleback, already a Tool, already a whoever. The world doesn't need two of them, and they were first, so you lose that battle.

Here's an example from history...

Lou Rawls, great and unique vocalist of the past, with hits like "You'll Never Find" was huge for a long time, selling 40 million albums, winning Grammy's being in movies, etc... Well, he also had a brother who sang. I saw this guy on a talk show once. He sounded much like his brother, and might have even been a better singer. No one knows who this guys is. He never made it. His own music never went anywhere. No one needed a second (even if better) Lou Rawls. The world had already embraced the first one.

Musicians should be commended for their talent, whether original or whether playing other's licks. But let's be honest. When you are a cover band, you are little more than a glorified Jukebox. People like the band, they scream for you (for the songs really) but they inevitably come up to you afterward and rather than praise for your musicianship, they want to know "Do you guys do any Iron Maiden???!!!"

Tell me it's not true. They've got their "quarters" all ready and waiting, looking through the song list for the music of the bands they REALLY love, and that you will "spin" for them.

Sure, they may have come to know an original tune of yours that you pop in, now and again, but they gloss right over it, because even they know, it is not your "thing", you play other people's music. "Hey, I thought you guys said last week, that you were gonna learn Freebird?"

I'm not putting anyone down, it's just a different mindset. Some people want, with their own music, to make as much of a mark in the world as Elvis, and other's are satisfied making a little money dressing like him and singing his songs. There's nothing wrong with that, just realize, it is a choice being made, a very serious life choice.

And I get pretty tired of hearing so many spew the "Not everyone is a good songwriter" crap. Not everyone was born a prizefighter either. It is a skill. One that is learned and one that can be developed, with time put into it. It is difficult to believe that in a band, with 3 to 5 members or more, that NONE of these artists can write valid original music???? Even the Beatles had their Lennon/McCartney, George and Ringo wrote occassionally, but there were two main songwriters in the band. The point is, that if ALL the band members are songwriters, that's awesome, but more often than not, it is one or two that are more adept at that role. But again, in a band of 3 to 5 members or more, how is it that NOT ONE, can write?

I don't think it is a creative issue. I think it is a confidence issue. You may be a better songwriter than you ever imagined, but without working at it, you may never find that out, and sadly, neither will the rest of the world.

uh-oh.. (keeping head low) Let me know when the bullets stop flying. LOL

Whoa, I feel like I just stepped into Pretentious-palooza when I started reading these threads! Dismount your respective high-horses guys...there's absolutely nothing wrong with playing in a cover band if that's what an individual chooses to do. You know, not everyone has the ability to write marketable music, or even the desire to try...and that includes half the people that think they do, IMHO!!

In an industry as subjective as music, to say "doing this is wrong" or "this is the way you have to do it" is way off base and close-minded. If a player despises doing covers and would rather write and perform their own tunes, well, more power to them and good luck. I don't know any legitimate musician who would begrudge someone that opportunity, or berate them for feeling that way. Conversely, to be condescending towards, or to denigrate someone for wanting to perform covers actually goes beyond pretentiousness, if you ask me.

I've played in both all-original and cover bands, and I can't honestly say that the original project was any more gratifying than the other. It's all a matter of personal preference and/or personal situation. As for myself at this stage of my "career", I'd much rather play covers to a packed house that's enjoying familiar music than to be languishing in the few clubs that will host original bands (in my town anyway), playing to little more than the band member's wives/girlfriends.

I've learned over the years that the closer you perform a cover song to the original, the better it will be received. The most popular cover bands (read bands getting the most work) will adhere to this philosphy more times than not. In most every song there are hooks, harmonies, licks, etc. that have to be exactly reproduced, or John/Jane Q. Public is going to think "they didn't do that song very well". And it's been my experience that when a cover band boasts of doing "their own versions" of songs, it usually means that one or more of the players lack the ability to actually play certain parts of songs. Of course that isn't always the case, but it's close.

Just my $0.02, 'cause I hate to see a guy get preached to and flamed for no other reason than wanting to play in a cover band.

Me thinks the gentleman doeth protest too much....

There is nothing wrong with a cover band as long as its an honest thing. And there is nothing wrong with writing music either, even if it's not "marketable". In fact, some of the most memorable pieces in music were not marketable in their time.

I write to suit myself, f**k the world as they don't know jack.

The covers? I say, let's do them but as the other gent mentions, I do them MY WAY or it's the highway.

I used to play with this one guy who was really good, but he complained about music that was slightly different than the original.

I ended up telling him to "go buy the record".

You lasted longer than I did. I ran out of patience with doing covers when I was 22 years old. Never looked back.

LOL My covers do not sound too close.

Take "My Friend 222" for an example. That's about my usual level of cover.

I'd have to tell you what song it was. LOL

But then, i get rotten remarks about what a thief I am.

The point is, no one is ever happy. If you do it close to the original, you are wrong and if you do not, you are wrong. I do what I want to do and very little else.

PS: Celtic, thanks for that tip. I told that gent this evening I was charging him $40/hr for admin costs and he bailed quicker than I could say, "jack robinson".

12 empty missile tubes, course correction of 180 degrees,all ahead full and it's miller time.. LOL

and not only did we do nothing but covers, but we did everything note-for-note and tried to achieve the exact tone that was on the original recording. Some of the songs we covered (Mainly old blues songs) had mistakes on them and we PLAYED THE MISTAKES like the originals. I have no problem with doing covers as long as you don't try and do them exactly like the original. Hell, the original may have only been played like that ONE TIME in the studio by the original artist. Real music should live and breathe, should be played with each musician's own feel to it. There's a Beatle tribute band here in the Kansas City metro area who sound EXACTLY like the Beatles. You close your eyes and you cannot tell them apart. They make tons of money. God bless them if they're happy sounding exactly like their musical heroes. I just feel sorry for any musician who has to sound and play eactly like somebody else. It's hard to believe that an experienced musician DOESN'T HAVE ANY CREATIVE URGES. As you can tell the cover vs. original issue is a real sore spot with me. I've had the most fun in music over the years playing my originals or originals written by another band member. It's a heck of a lot MORE FUN to create music than it is to cover someone else's stuff. Later...

It's a heck of a lot MORE FUN to create music than it is to cover someone else's stuff.

Amen to that.