Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

When I was a young man, this guy offered me a job painting his shed.

I went & looked at it, & noticed that it had been done very poorly before. Paint just slopped around. The trim color often had all these drippy spots, & smudges all over the field color.

I looked at his house & saw the same thing.

I figured this would be a quick slop job, & I knew I could do at least as good or better than he'd done.

I finished the job in record time, & went for my pay.

He came & looked at my work, shook his head & clucked his tongue.

"Is this the best job you could do?" He asked.

I honestly told him no, but that I had thought it was better than what was there before, or on his house, & I'd guessed that that was kinda what he was expecting.

He told me that he'd just bought this old house, & was fixing it up. He also said that he'd hired me to do my best, because since I was being paid, I was a pro. He said that if he'd wanted it to look that bad, he'd have done it himself. He paid me, but I felt bad as heck. I repainted it for free, & did the best job I could do.

Ended up with him letting me paint his whole house, & I made a lot of money for the job.

Now I apply that to everything I do. I always ask myself "is this the best job you can do?"

When it comes to doing covers, I listen & learn the song. I don't learn it note for note, though. I do the best job I can do.

I hear a lot of ppl here talking about learning songs note for note these days, & it really surprizes me that there are so many ppl that do that.

When it comes time to get paid, I wonder if these ppl should get paid, or whether the original artist should get the bucks for doing it 1st.

When I hear a song, I listen for the instruments that I play, just like everyone else does. If I can't do it any better, or in my own style & make it work, then, & ONLY then, will I play the thing by rote.

When I'm hired to play in a band, I look at it like they're hiring ME, not John Entwistle or whoever. They're asking me to do the best that I can do, not the best that someone else could come up with.

Sometimes it takes me a few days to work out the best that I can do, but I always think it's worth it in the end. I do my best, & my input gives the band its own sound.

This approach doesn't always apply, as we all know. There are times that there's a signature lick that cues everyone that is totally necessary for the piece to work. But usually, I will work out my own spin on a song, learn THAT note for note, & play it the same way every time it's played. I find that it works better both for my own self, & for the band as a whole.

Your views on this are important to me, as I respect the lot of you muchly.

Reminds me of the old painting story.

A guy is out of work and goes up to a rich guys house and asks do you have any work? The rich man says well I do need my porch painted. The guy out of work says sure I can do that, When can I start? The rich man says right now. He says theres paint and brushes in the garage. The rich guy leaves for while and comes back and sees the down on his luck guy sitting on the porch. The down on his luck guy says Im done and ready to be paid. The rich man says I cant pay until you paint the porch. The poor guy turns red and says I thought you said Porche, you know the one in the garage that I just painted.

So along with doing a good job, we all need to understand what is expected of us.

I think as I said before if you contact me to play. I would forward a songlist, I dont want to know if you think you can play the music. I want to know what music you know on the list for sure so we can concentrate on that. Then how quick could you have the rest ready to go. If you cant do that then dont waste mine and your time unless you want to just jam and make some noise. For the record I dont do much just jamming these days.

Philby, as far as covers go I ussually try to learn them pretty close at first, but I find that over time if I continue playing them they take on a life of their own. In my player listen to The Funk, which is a medley. Recently Im playing in a second band and we play Play That Funky Music, well Ive had to go back and relearn the original song cause thats the way the second band plays it. When I play with new people it helps if they play all the signature riffs that are in the song cause I can follow it better then. We play Sweet Home Alabama in one group and the other guitarist kind of hacks away at the chords like a beginning guitarist, when in reality on the record there are big differences in the rythym patterns between verse, chorus and solo sections. I chewed his ass out in front of everyone in the band the other night cause we finished the song and he said that it sounded great. I told him to quit hacking at it and learn the rythyms. He thought I was kidding, but I assured him I wasnt. I just hate to maul a simple song.

So if you are going back for the tryout you need to learn those riffs in Good Times Bad Times. Just kidding, when we were recording recently I wanted to record Good Times Bad Times and Andy the bassist, who is probably the best musician in the group says that he needed to really brush up on it to get those key changes down. So it aint just you. But thats the difference to me in a novice and a killer musician is knowing that hey I cant cover this right now. But Im willing to learn it and come back to it.

So to sum up, I think if you are a serious cover player that is going out expecting to get paid to play, you need to have a good understanding of the songs. And oh yeah I used to be a hack type player who could fumble thru just about anything, but I think Ive finally learned that I can always do better. So keep pushin

Perhaps I'm not being clear...I do learn cover songs, & play them the same way every time, so it isn't just jamming...I just write my own bass lines whenever I can, to keep it interesting to me, & what I'm playing is often more difficult than the original, so it also keeps my chops up. There are also times when I think the original bass line is too busy & detracts from the piece, so I dumb it down a bit to let the rest of the instruments or vocals shine.

I find that in 3-piece situations, I need to be a bit more busy to fill in those dreaded holes than the original version allowed for.
I can learn to play just about any song that you put in front of me, but that doesn't necessarilly mean that I'll be playing it note for note like the original.

As I said, if there's a signature lick in there, as in Good Times Bad Times, I'll be sure to learn it & apply it where it goes, every time I play it. The rest of the song is mine to interpret, though, as I see it.

I don't think that's at all wrong, myself.

I hate doing covers for the most part. Some due to the fact I really am not good enough (yet) to do note for note and sound like so n so.
Mostly because I get great pleasure from the creative process. The release of emotions involved in doing my own ( or my bandmates) music.
I get emense satisfaction when we can turn a few misspelled words on a lumber recept into a head banger.

we've done a cover a demo as of now.
For whom the bell tolls, and Bed of Razors.

It brings new life into a song that was once old.
many songs today have been around since the 50s or even before that.

As of "note per note," thats not being creative. new fills, verses, bridges, whatever! note per note is kinda a sign of an immature band, as in, it cant function on its own.

Good post though.

I struggle almost daily with this topic. Good thread!

I'm a note-for-note guy, sort of.

Not just note for note, but I also use a modeling pedal, to get enough of a variety of amp models and effects to nail the exact tone and clean/distortion type and effect of the original song. Why? At first it was simple because I wanted to deliver my best 'impression' of the song. After some debate amongst my bandmates, we came to a few conclusions:

Some songs are very open to interpretation and very open to being re-made a thousand different ways, like "Mustang Sally" or "I will survive".. the sheer contrast between the original 'survive' and what cake did with it was amazing.

Other songs, like "breathe" from pink floyd, have such a specific groove that any alterations would most likely hurt the song, and there's always a band that can find a way, but in the grand scheme, most can't and really shouldn't.

When we started discussing being an original band, we discussed whether or not to even do any covers and then got on the subject of The Cars, and what they would have done with covers. They have such a unique sound that they would have probably remade every cover in their own way, and if soemthing didn't work in their flavor, they probably would have scrapped it.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that if I'm going to go out and play, as a cover-band, then the litmus test for a cover band is probably how well the band can duplicate the original. I don't think people who go to clubs on cover band nights are looking for the next Cake or Cars, they are looking for familiarity. Not all people of course, but even I, as a musician, going out and seeing bands, always compared the band to the artist who's song they were doing and if it sounded different, considered it inferior. I'm sure people who don't know music would think the same thing. Unless a band can truly reinvent a song, such as van halen did with "you really got me", chances are more likely that the band will just hack it up and leave people thinking they suck.

So I play note for note. You can hear it on my Rush demos in my profile (which I do hit off-notes in YYZ because it's freeking HARD to play grrr), but I refuse to BS my way through it, I'm practicing it, and intend to nail it to the exact album tone.

That's all just my take on it though, I realize I might be in the minority on the philosophy, but until my band really delves into originals and starts nurturing our own tone, I just don't see the point in deviations from the originals, with obvious exception to the songs that really are wide open to "jamming" on.

(edit) and on a side note: there is definitely a difference between playing a cover with a different flavor vs. bullshitting your way through it because you are too lazy to learn to play it correctly. I've seen a lot of argument against note-for-note by people who use it as an excuse to not learn a song the proper way. Not pointing fingers, just saying what I've seen in bands.

AirViking wrote:we've done a cover a demo as of now.
For whom the bell tolls, and Bed of Razors.

It brings new life into a song that was once old.
many songs today have been around since the 50s or even before that.

As of "note per note," thats not being creative. new fills, verses, bridges, whatever! note per note is kinda a sign of an immature band, as in, it cant function on its own.

Good post though.

I respectfully disagree

It's not the job, or expectation of a cover-band to be creative. Most club bookers will judge the band on how well they can duplicate the original, and most patrons will think you suck if every cover you do sounds... different. It sucks, sure, but if you want to be creative, do originals!

Kramer, I understand your point completely, but at the same time, I wonder, where does the band's own unique style come in when you do it that way? Is it all gonna depend on the singer's tone? I think that if you can play those difficult licks, then you should also be able to veer away from them, & do some equally interesting ones of your own at some point.

I've been known to completely rewrite the song, keep the melody intact, of course, but completely rearrange it. When I play it, ppl still sing along, if it's that sort of thing, or they recognize it at the very least, & appreciate my own take on it. I've had to do that for all my life as a solo act, & I tend to take that with me in a band situation, I guess.

Every act I've ever played with has been reluctant, at 1st, then truly glad that we went in a different direction with every song we kept. Yes, there are gonna be somgs that don't fit one's style, so you just dump them or compromise to do one or two "impressions." But as a rule, I'd much rather hear someone's personal style than a rehash of someone else's.

Perhaps that's just me, though.

Kramerguy wrote:

AirViking wrote:we've done a cover a demo as of now.
For whom the bell tolls, and Bed of Razors.

It brings new life into a song that was once old.
many songs today have been around since the 50s or even before that.

As of "note per note," thats not being creative. new fills, verses, bridges, whatever! note per note is kinda a sign of an immature band, as in, it cant function on its own.

Good post though.

I respectfully disagree

Thats what music is about borther.
Different minds with different goals.
but im not against covers, we do them too.
But note-per-note is almost copyright infringment.

AirViking wrote:But note-per-note is almost copyright infringment.

That's pretty harsh lol. Covering a song loosely or strictly is the same level of copyright infringement to me. Just ask The Verve!

You are correct though, music is all about different philosophies. Brings out different types of creativity. My band does all covers right now and I can't stand it, to me there is not enough room to be creative in the few songs we openly jam on. We're moving to originals soon as we secure a good singer. Couldn't be soon enough. Covers are fun for the short term, but tire out quickly.

philbymon wrote:Kramer, I understand your point completely, but at the same time, I wonder, where does the band's own unique style come in when you do it that way? Is it all gonna depend on the singer's tone? I think that if you can play those difficult licks, then you should also be able to veer away from them, & do some equally interesting ones of your own at some point.

I've been known to completely rewrite the song, keep the melody intact, of course, but completely rearrange it. When I play it, ppl still sing along, if it's that sort of thing, or they recognize it at the very least, & appreciate my own take on it. I've had to do that for all my life as a solo act, & I tend to take that with me in a band situation, I guess.

Every act I've ever played with has been reluctant, at 1st, then truly glad that we went in a different direction with every song we kept. Yes, there are gonna be somgs that don't fit one's style, so you just dump them or compromise to do one or two "impressions." But as a rule, I'd much rather hear someone's personal style than a rehash of someone else's.

Perhaps that's just me, though.

it's a tough world of covers out there lol. Many a band argues over this internally. I guess where I come from is that to me, being musically creative means writing, collaborating with others on new unique material.

Re-arranging, editing, or changing the tempo of someone else's "finished" music just doesn't hold the same creative candle (to me), and the challenge of "nailing" (ala note-for-note) the original is more appealing in that sense, again, to me.

I see your point though.

Sorry cant turn the off the harsh thing, got it from my genre.

I would like it if that 10 years down the road someone did a cover on our stuff. Means that we are something to someone.

I see both sides of this honestly.

But a good musician is a good musician, weither they do all covers, no covers or even play a fender. (cant wait to get hate mail from that.)

hehe, I hate Fender!

i have to agree, since i love tone quality, i must hate fender by nature.

Kramerguy wrote:

AirViking wrote:we've done a cover a demo as of now.
For whom the bell tolls, and Bed of Razors.

It brings new life into a song that was once old.
many songs today have been around since the 50s or even before that.

As of "note per note," thats not being creative. new fills, verses, bridges, whatever! note per note is kinda a sign of an immature band, as in, it cant function on its own.

Good post though.

I respectfully disagree

It's not the job, or expectation of a cover-band to be creative. Most club bookers will judge the band on how well they can duplicate the original, and most patrons will think you suck if every cover you do sounds... different. It sucks, sure, but if you want to be creative, do originals!

Kramer I'm so heavily on your side of the fence on this one.
I was fixing to to write a huge old response to philby and argue like crazy with him, but you've already said everything that I think is important.

(Psssst ... philbymon, I don't agree with you. Pass it on.)

But quickly, my main deal is:
a) My way guy is 'my way guy' in a lot of cases cuz he 'cant' learn it note for note. He isn't good enough. So he adopts the 'No covers' or "We do it our way' mantras to shield his ego.
OR
b) My way guy seriously thinks he can do it all better than the original artist.

I see 'a' in most cases. 'b' is very off-putting to me.
Sometimes theres a 'c' --The I'm sick of using all my spare time to learn covers so I'll just be approximate. (I can understand that one sometimes...)