General Music Chat

As many of you know, I'm involved in an originals project that is acoustic folk / pop. We do a two hour set of about 2/3 originals and then 1/3 covers that are in the same genre.

We've struggled with getting out to bars because of the style of music and made a conscious decision to 'step it up' and start doing bar-friendly covers.

The advice needed is actually on the lines of how to co-exist as a bar cover band, and at the same time as an original act.

One member feels that the two should be separated with two different band names, and the other idea is to just add a name after the artist name, kind of like 'tom petty and the heartbreakers', and just 'tom petty' for the originals gigs.

Anyone run into this before or have any suggestions on how to proceed?

Of course I have no experience in this kind of thing.
It would seem to me if the two "shows/acts" are going to be quite different you should use two different names in order to reduce confusion with both your fan base and prospective venues.
I mean if Little John and the Papers were doing both a Kiss tribute and a Wayne Newton tribute. Well you see what Iam getting at.

I have previous experience in a band that did this. We used the same name, got in good with a bar, built a small fan base, and started having other bands open (leaving more time to focus on originals instead of covers). We eventually built a small "community" of all original bands. I don't know how realistic this is to your situation. We were lucky, and we worked hard!

Thats what we were doing in the band Rare Seed that I was in. My advise is to only use one name because you want to gain all the publicity you can and it is hard enough gaining publicity for one name let alone two bands, unless you live in New Jersey and your name is crypt (just kidding).

Playing originals is tough it is almost impossible to make any kind of descent money, and even tho most of your members are probably cool with that lets face it money is a necessity and sooner or later someone in the band is going to start screaming about how they need money!

That is why I decided to perform live as a coverband and write my songs here at home in my studio but recently I find myself reconsidering that decision. Maybe I'll throw in 3 or 4 originals thru out the night

Hey Kramer,

Seems that my exp. is gonna differ from others.In the PAST, bands would definetly go under two names.The venues were numorus enough and differed in clientel where the 2 intities co-existed without problem.In the PRESENT,locally where I am now, members are everchanging to a point in both original and covers bands that we still would have 2 different names,BUT in the cover bands, chances are, the members will be different from week to week.Seems to revolve around the venues. I guess alotta bands dont want their ID/reputation as either to be known by the club owners on the opposing side.Sometimes the genres between the 2 are quite different forcing that decision.I guess alot of it would depend on how differing you feel the cover genre based venues are from the original ones in your area..They are QUITE different here...

We work harder on the originals than the covers. I will NEVER be in a cover only band. We play a lot of obscure covers, some more well known covers and some really well known songs such as Roadhouse Blues, Red House, Pride and Joy etc. as well as a few originals each set. I don't even say which ones are ours and which ones are covers. We just play them all together (usually 1-3 originals per set). Personally I think it's ludicrous to have two "different" bands. My best advice is play mainly covers and throw in a few originals and don't make a big deal about it. I've had more arguments about this very topic than I care to remember. It's always good to play your originals in front of people. See how they react. If you get a good response keep them in your repertoire. If you don't, change the song or dump it, the same as you should be doing with covers. The best way to test your own material is to play it for people. I think it's insane if you've got your own tunes not to play them for people. How do you know if they're any good? As far as making money that's a problem whether you're doing all covers or originals. I don't know about your market but here in the KC area there's too many bands playing for next to nothing or nothing. It's a matter of supply and demand. If I'm going to play for peanuts then I'll be damned if I have to play nothing but covers. I might as well enjoy myself and throw in tunes I like, be it covers or originals. My attitude (and some say I have a BAD attitude) is to play what I want the way I want. My two cents...later...

Hey Bob, I think part of the problem is the difference in the genres between the originals and the covers that would be played in bars. Would knowing that affect your opinion?

*oh, and about pay- Here, you can make good $$ playing covers in bars, and pretty much nada playing originals, which is part of the reason we're trying to expand out - well, one of many reasons... We are looking to expand the fanbase, get onto the circuit, make some $$, etc...

Personally, I've been on the side of the argument that thinks we should keep the name the same, but I figured I would ask and get some opinions to make sure I see all the possible perspectives on this.

Using two different names is an oldschool philosophy that (to me) is outdated. Thanks everyone for the insights, keep em coming.

We used to start sets off with acoustic originals, & move from there into the danceable louder stuff. It worked, cuz some of our acoustic stuff was pretty danceable, too.

I wouldn't change my band's name between the two acts, though. I might add the word "acoustic" to the bill if need be. You can get a much wider audience appreciation by expanding the music styles you incorporate into your act. At the end of the night after playing dance rockin' stuff, you say "Come see us at Smilin' Joe's for our all-original acoustic night," or somesuch.

We used to start sets off with acoustic originals, & move from there into the danceable louder stuff. It worked, cuz some of our acoustic stuff was pretty danceable, too.

I wouldn't change my band's name between the two acts, though. I might add the word "acoustic" to the bill if need be. You can get a much wider audience appreciation by expanding the music styles you incorporate into your act. At the end of the night after playing dance rockin' stuff, you say "Come see us at Smilin' Joe's for our all-original acoustic night," or somesuch.

Hey thanks Philby, that was pretty much my feelings on it, but I only give input, I'm not the decision maker, I figured I could ask around and use more insight to make sure I was looking at it objectively before stating it.

So much different territory these days... It's tough to know sometimes what decisions are good anymore.

Kramer, I actually play in pretty hard rock band for our area. Im not sure what your originals sound like but with your love of Rush and groups like that I figure its proggish in nature.

My band doesnt have many origianals, 5 but we sprinlkle them into our sets. We dont play origianals back to back unless requested. And hey we get requested our originals.

In thinking about it, I know you are a weekend warrior like myself so I would suggest keeeping the same name and start bending the cover material to work with your originals. You and your guys probably dont have the time to committ to 2 full on seperate projects.

What if one member decides that he doiesnt want to do origianals or covers. Looks like playing out as one unit allows you to expose your originals and as otheres have said will give you a live audience to gauge how good your originals are. I hate to say this but 90% of the local original bands I hear dont really have any good songs. They just dont click, concentrate on writing solid songs.

Good Luck and Im glad you are having issues like this instead of trying to get a band together. It looks like working and gigging for some money can keep things going and also let you know if your members are committed to the project.

For me personally there is no substitute for playing in front of people, I was born to get in front of people and act like a fool, or entertain them, act crazy whatever you wat to call it.

Get out there and play man, who cares what the name is!

Kramer, I actually play in pretty hard rock band for our area. Im not sure what your originals sound like but with your love of Rush and groups like that I figure its proggish in nature.

My band doesnt have many origianals, 5 but we sprinlkle them into our sets. We dont play origianals back to back unless requested. And hey we get requested our originals.

In thinking about it, I know you are a weekend warrior like myself so I would suggest keeeping the same name and start bending the cover material to work with your originals. You and your guys probably dont have the time to committ to 2 full on seperate projects.

What if one member decides that he doiesnt want to do origianals or covers. Looks like playing out as one unit allows you to expose your originals and as otheres have said will give you a live audience to gauge how good your originals are. I hate to say this but 90% of the local original bands I hear dont really have any good songs. They just dont click, concentrate on writing solid songs.

Good Luck and Im glad you are having issues like this instead of trying to get a band together. It looks like working and gigging for some money can keep things going and also let you know if your members are committed to the project.

For me personally there is no substitute for playing in front of people, I was born to get in front of people and act like a fool, or entertain them, act crazy whatever you wat to call it.

Get out there and play man, who cares what the name is!

Hey man,

Well.. This project is actually a very serious and ambitious one - I'm in the backup band, and the 'talent' is a career musician.

The originals are very acoustic and folksy with pop sprinkled in, whereas the 'bar covers' we're working on are designed to be the usual suspects in the modern rock/some 80's, lots of 90's upbeat, danceable stuff... everything from the b-52's to joan jett to evanessence. The two types of music will not mix together, with maybe one or two exceptions where we can take an original and dress it up (we will be trying).

Our reason for choosing to do bar sets is because we've maxxed out what can be done with the originals and cannot proceed to bigger venues and professional representation without becoming more mainstream and getting a following in the bar crowds (for lack of a better way of stating it)..

Yeah... I'm a progressive / rush fanatic and whatnot, but I realized long ago that what I love to play vs. what people want to hear are two different universes lol. Right now I'm in this originals project, and also playing in a modern rock (really heavy stuff) band, so I kind of get the best of both worlds, I've come to appreciate playing folk/pop/light rock as much as heavy metal and progressive rock. I actually like it all now, at least to some degree.

Sorry I didnt read enough of the original post to get the drift of the music.

Kramer, Me personally Im to the point in life that I know that I cant make the jump to a road touring musician. Im too finicky, and like to eat well and live well. I know doing the original thing is not going to go anywhere for me cause if something took off I would have to get off the ship anyway. So for me I just feel blessed to be playing in front of folks with guys I love to play with.

It seems to me if you are the same group anyway. Have CDs and merch available for the original act for your cover shows. Then as you build momentum maybe your fan base will adopt a few of the originals so you can go more in that direction.

Having two band identitys to me, would split it up eventually anyway, cause everyones prioritys might not be the same.

Good Luck and like I said just feel blessed that you have this problem, a few monthes ago you didnt have a solid group of people to work with if I recall right.

Rock On or Folk On

Good Luck and like I said just feel blessed that you have this problem, a few monthes ago you didnt have a solid group of people to work with if I recall right.

Rock On or Folk On

Very true, last summer I was in a dismal band going nowhere that apparently wanted only to play to 15 people in a shithole bar, for free. Now I'm in two bands that are fun, focused, and ambitious. I really do feel blessed in that area.

My 2 cents: if the genres are that different use different names. The original clubs around here don't want you to do many covers, maybe one or two a set. At the other end of the spectrum, the cover bars don't want you to do many originals, again maybe one or two a set. The solution is to keep them seperate entities. No you won't make much money playing original clubs but that shouldn't be the reason you're doing it. Most people go to cover bars to hear familiar songs that they can dance and drink to. Most people go to original clubs to hear original music. Keep the focus on what is most important.

Man, this is either going to sound crazy or stupid or both, but...

My understanding of the dilemma is that you WANT to play originals, but don't feel that you can make money doing it. Here's something to keep in mind. Club owners don't care what you play (many nowadays are actually beginning to lean towards original acts, simply to avoid clashes with BMI, ASCAP and SESAC). Club owners are only concerned about whether or not you bring in an audience-so that THEY make money.
Go out and play ANYWHERE that will let you play your originals (open mics, etc.) and build a following. Next, book a club gig (under the auspices that you play covers. MAKE SURE that you have 30 or so "loyal fans" that you can count on to be there. Then play your originals, instead of the covers. When the club owner sees that you brought in a crowd (and made the club some money), He or she will continue to book you-and let you play your originals.
Will this work? Hell, I dunno. Try it and let me know how it goes.