General Music Chat

So I've got a question....

I've been in cover bands for 10+ years. The group of guys I've got now are great musicians. We all get along...all have the same goal...no egos...no substance abuse problems...lots of family support. It's awesome and I know it's a blessing and DO NOT take it for granted.

In the last couple of years we've been pulling some unreleased (original) music that we have received from other musicians in our genre (country/ southern rock). We really enjoy playing stuff other than covers. You get to make it your own.

We've been having a discussion as of late about what one deems as "original" per se. One of the guys has a buddy that books original acts...no covers...maybe 1 or 2, but you know what I mean. Anyway...the question is whether original actually means songs the band wrote or someone else outside the group wrote. Does it really matter?

My stance is that LOTS of artists never write a single song but instead record songs others have written; or they jointly collaborate on material. To me those are original songs and you give credit where credit is due. George Strait for example never wrote any of his previous hits until a few years ago.

Am I looking at this wrong?

If you have secured the rights to perform "unreleased (original) music that we have received from other musicians in our genre" then you are free to do so anywhere. If you "borrowed" these songs without permission it may come back to bite you. As long as the club does not have to pay ASCAP fees on your behalf, they don't care what you play. They just wanna sell drinks.

Some bands have songwriters who aren't players or borrow from friends who have material. The Stones borrowed a song from the Beatles early on to get things moving.

My rule is simple - anybody who wants to can play my stuff but I get a significant cut if it starts making money on airplay.

Talbot

Original music has come to mean "written by someone in the band" but when you get to the higher levels the lines get blurred. True, many artists don't write their own music; the advantage is you can look at great number of tunes and pick ones that have potential. But whether you write it or someone else does, perform it likes it's your life blood.

So I've got a question....

I've been in cover bands for 10+ years. The group of guys I've got now are great musicians. We all get along...all have the same goal...no egos...no substance abuse problems...lots of family support. It's awesome and I know it's a blessing and DO NOT take it for granted.

In the last couple of years we've been pulling some unreleased (original) music that we have received from other musicians in our genre (country/ southern rock). We really enjoy playing stuff other than covers. You get to make it your own.

We've been having a discussion as of late about what one deems as "original" per se. One of the guys has a buddy that books original acts...no covers...maybe 1 or 2, but you know what I mean. Anyway...the question is whether original actually means songs the band wrote or someone else outside the group wrote. Does it really matter?

My stance is that LOTS of artists never write a single song but instead record songs others have written; or they jointly collaborate on material. To me those are original songs and you give credit where credit is due. George Strait for example never wrote any of his previous hits until a few years ago.

Am I looking at this wrong?

Its a pretty safe bet that for certain venues, "original' means they dont want to pay BMI or ASCAP for hosting published material that's been registered. That said, if your friends songs havent been published, and if the songs arent registered as such, you can count those as 'original' , and they should satisfy the venue's requirements