General Music Chat

I would like to point out the infantile and asinine practice of someone challenging others to be a Xerox copy of some guitar hero implying that if the challenged is not able to Xerox he/she is a bad musician or not as good as the challenger as if by doing so he/she would master the formula to be successful in the business of likeability.

I’ve met few of these so called musicians who try to turn music making into a contest as if they have a monopoly on musical taste, these are people stuck in the believe that by imitating some former rock star would elevate them to the same status, yeah maybe technically but hardly a trail blazer, who needs to read a bad copy when the original is available in all its glory.

I firmly believe that these individuals are not in love with music per-se but with sounds produced by their instrument of choice.

I don’t know if it is naiveté, lack of experience of just failure to grasp the true reason for an individual to learn and play an instrument, for me it’s about emotions the stronger the emotions the better I like a song or a piece of music, I might spend few minutes to listen to some would be hero indulging him/herself in copying a rock star but the effect is like drinking coffee grains or tea bag percolated twice, yeah you can drink it but you can bet the taste will be weak not to mention that weak coffee or tea are the only beverages he/she can serve with no hope of versatility at all.

I realize that most of us in order to work have to do covers and try to sound as close as possible to the original recording artists but this is done out of necessity and with the main purpose of pleasing the public not as a vocation to please ourselves as it seems to be the case of some individuals.

If we all copied everything note-for-note we'd still be sitting in some mudhole somewhere playing with sticks and bones just imagining what might be in our future...Some people think that they become a great instrumentalist copying note-for-note, but what they become is a human version of a jukebox. While it may increase one's technical ability it doesn't increase one's ability to put FEELING into their music. Although I think calling this infantile and asinine may be a bit extreme, it really doesn't do anything to progress one's originality. I also liken the note-for-note method to being tied to the music by an umbilical cord. In order to advance, sooner or later you have to cut the chord, otherwise you'll always sound like somebody else and nobody will ever hear what YOU sound like...

Yeah I kind of see the point, if it’s a matter of technical conquest and nothing else. But it would be a huge generalization which I think unfair to live players, because most wouldn’t do it all if they didn’t share the same emotions you speak of, towards music they admire of the past.

If I see someone play an accurate facsimile of a piece of music that I love, they get an “A” just for effort. I don’t care if they are secretly an egotistical jerk bent on nothing but self validation, since that’s real hard to hear in the music. If that’s what carried them all that way in order to be able entertain me. So be it, I’m entertained anyway so why would it matter? In my opinion a good performance carries it’s own merit, regardless of the objective.

There's a lot to be said for learning a part by rote...I just don't think it's something a performing musician should strive for. That sorta thing's more for the musical student than the working muso.

The challenges are really worthwhile in the classroom, but out in the real, they're kinda pointless, imho, cuz out in the real, you're more worthwhile if you are a musical personality of your own, than you are if you're a copy of someone else's licks, or even someone else's style.

. Although I think calling this infantile and asinine may be a bit extreme,

Bob I was referring to the “challenge” part I still think that is juvenile to turn music into a contest with the purpose to see who can sound more like the original, if we were to judge musical talent solely on that (which it seems to be the only criteria this challenger applies) we would miss out on a lot of talented musicians.

I’m in sync with the rest of your post.

I’m entertained anyway so why would it matter? In my opinion a good performance carries it’s own merit, regardless of the objective.

Yes I enjoy a good cover myself and the objective should be relevant it is for me although I don't obsess on it, when a musician uses his talent to challenge, antagonize or dare other musician to do better that's a turn off, if you're good let others tell you that and move on... musicians should not use their talent to club other musicians over the head.

Right, right got what you’re getting at. I have to admit even in my so far small attempts at exposure, I have ran across this a couple more times than I would have expected. “Since I know more and am better trained, or posses more skill, your efforts are trivial and irrelevant.”

It’s worse with keyboards, because the instrument is viewed as hardly necessary for anything within the current rock genre. To top it off anything I could possibly play, can just as easily be reproduce in flawless quantized precision, with a good computer program and a mouse. So for internet downloadable stuff, absolute perfection is the norm and it’s hard to compete with. No one cares what’s involved, just how it sounds. Nowadays even that is questionable.

Dealing with that attitude as a fellow member of a band, sure I can see you’re point there. I’m working with a co-writer right now who is easy to get along with and we both insist on a professional attitude when dealing with music. You can’t have stark honesty which is necessary for the betterment of the music, unless that atmosphere is there. I have been lucky enough not to have to deal with undesirables so far, so I’m kind of trying to figure out for myself how that would work, if or when I have to. When you get four or five people together there’s bound to be some sort of drama.

Tom great stuff by the way, digging the style from Al Andal which is good, but Driffin is killer reminds me a lot of Pink Floyd.

Well, one thing's for sure --> You don't need to worry about the asinine & infantile guy who's always doing that stuff reading this thread...cuz he never steps away from his own posts to see what others think about anything, & he never bothers to critique anything, preferring to have ppl give him his kudos all the time. He's the only star in his sky.

I learned a song note for note that my friends girlfriend loved to sing whenever she got a chance. It was a really tricky ride with some intricate timings. It took me about 4 hours to get it down pat. I was really eager to spring it on her when she got up to sing it. After she sang a couple of songs I asked her if she was going to do that particular song. She said "No. I don't like it anymore." So much for note by note for me.

I do a lot of covers by choice. But they are not close to the originals. I try to make them better in some way and impart what I am hearing in my head as opposed to note for note. None of my interpretations sound like the real deal, but they still impart the essence of the original performance. Some songs are just too good to just throw away because someone else performed them.

I have heard a few cover bands , like Liverpool, but they weren't that impressive. But that was just my opinion. I know some people liked them. It has to be for the money. Why else would a musician sell off his creativity to pretend he's someone else? When you get bad musicians imitating bad musicians just because they had some hits, I really don't get it.

THis reminded me of something. There is a rock band that always asks me onstage to play a coupla Jethro Tull tunes. I never try to sound like Ian Anderson. That's Ian's sound. I want to sound like me and it works.

I beleive if you are a coverband you should try to play the song as close as possible but that is my preference. I tell every band I join up with that I prefer to play my parts as close to note for note as possible, but I don't expect everyone else to. On the other hand I think a good solid musician should have their own style. If you have the self discipline to set down and learn your parts the way they are written that impresses me personally. The band I am currently in is a coverband and we always refer to the version of the song we are covering if there is a question as to which is the right way to play a song. I think this is something that should be discussed up front at the formation of the band and or adding any new musicians. I personally don't want to play with musicains that don't have the self discipline to at least learn the signature parts of the song we are covering.

All good points above ...

When I put a band together for a touring artist. I tell the band to make it their own, do it the way you feel it, but as J Haley sez "learn the signature parts" and the intended essences and groove of the song.

I find that playing a tune note for note usually ends up feeling mechanical and looses the groove and you become boxed in .. rather than the band stretching out and making some memorable moments. We all feel the music differently and trying to copy someone elses exact feel ends up ... well not so great.

I'm guessing we all know who we are talking about here ... while the boy can play ... in his basement ... playing to backing tracks ... can he play in a band setting ... that's where most people fall down ... they don't listen to what is being played by others in the band and don't compliment it ... to me playing music (in a band setting) is like painting a painting with 4 or 5 guys each applying a bush stroke of color and if done right it can be a thing of beauty.

LOL ... I hope this post made sense ... I'm on day 7 of the tour and I'm a bit sleep depraved ...

No doubt you're depraved, and probably deprived too lol.

It's only rock n roll, but I like it.

I couldn't live with anyone mostly on here as regards musicianship, I'm crap, so I'm really safe