To me a band that only does covers doesn't impress me. I won't even audition for a band unless I hear at least two original songs that I feel are strong and well played. As far as getting exposure it's best for starting out bands to play joint gigs with other bands that are in the same over all genre of music otherwise it is likely that not enough people will show up for the gig. For this reason I tend to avoid musicians who have in mind the idea of trying to sound so original that promoters will have no idea who to book them with.
I would agree that most of the people calling themselves song writers and who also expect anyone that might join their band to quit their day job to dedicate themselves to it are indeed kidding themselves. I find that in most cases their songs and or their vocals just are not that good.
Another big problem with musicians who want to do originals is that they typically have a self centered approach in that they will not collaborate or do things in a slightly different way than how they originally decided. Because of the set in stone mindset that most original musicians have I can see why so many stick to cover tunes.
For myself I think it's best to do both.
This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.
Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace
#114333 by jimmydanger
Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:33 pm
Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:33 pm
Well put Nolo. Finally someone with some common sense. The Farleys do exactly that; a 50/50 mix of covers and originals. But the covers we do are so off the beaten track that it just sounds like - us. Most people don't know which is which. We don't announce "this is a cover" or "this is an original" and people love us. The cover band I'm currently in is a different story. They won't even listen to my original material, and their covers are so generic. I may have to give them the heave-ho.
#114339 by jimmydanger
Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:59 pm
Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:59 pm
Well George I'm not saying anyone's approach in particular is wrong, just that Nolo's words make more sense, to me at least. I've seen so many "original" bands that think they are better than cover bands just because they don't do covers, and so many cover bands that are just in it for money and won't do any originals. A blended approach just makes sense to me.
#114345 by jimmydanger
Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:09 pm
Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:09 pm
The key to doing covers, IMHO, is to first be faithful to the music (at least get the chords and lyrics right) and then to make it your own. If you just try to mimic the original you will fail.
90 dB wrote:"....but I have to wonder if that was a one time thing."
Here's another one. This one features David Kempers on violin, of the Trans-Siberian Orchestra (they play covers).![]()
How many do you want? I have all day.
I'm still waiting for Joseph's "professional" artistic critique of these songs.
I know that they are not on his 'skill level', but I value the opinion of such industry pros.
s://90dbband./
90db, your statement that anyone can write songs was and is a F**ked up thing to say here of all places. You should remove your foot from your mouth and man-up and apologise. Anyone can fart in a can but it doesn't mean they can sing. Anyone can blow in a kazoo but it doesn't make them a musician. Anyone can write roses are red violets are blue but that doesn't make them a writer.
Anyone can put down what someone else does and what that makes them is rude, disrespectful and shallow minded.
Anyone can put down what someone else does and what that makes them is rude, disrespectful and shallow minded.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



