To cover band, or to not cover band.....

EricTheWeary

jaygtr said:

A lot of famous bands that get covered a lot don't bother playing their own songs note for note .

A. Because they can't.
B. because they can't be bothered.
C. Because they want to keep things interesting for themselves and the audience.

So i can't understand why a covers band would want to either.

Although it does to a certain extent depend on the song. If a solo is very recognisable like "alright now " I wouldn't deviate to far

Although a lot of people don't like it when an artist reworks a song, probably less of an issue for a covers band than the original artist. When I go see Black Sabbath in December I don't expect it to be their own back catalogue completely note for note but I might not feel totally happy if they rework everything as acoustic reggae.

monquixote

Why don't you see if any cover bands need a dep so you can try it out. 

EricTheWeary

Danny1969 said:

In my experience if you want to go out as a covers band at a professional level then yeah you should really be able to nail songs and solo's note for note. That ability can actually make life easier to a certain extent because if everyone plays exactly whats on the record there isn't any need to rehearse a lot of the time. I bet there's plenty of guys on here in wedding bands who have to play certain songs for the first dance and sometimes you will never need these songs again. So you don't rehearse your own version you just stick to what's on the record and turn up and play it. Also if you have to use dep players due to other commitments like session work it's a lot easier if the dep player only has to listen to the record to know exactly what to play. 

As for the covers \ originals thing, just do both. If you get people into the venue spending their money then throwing some originals into the set isn't a problem and can even help you sell some CD's

There is note for note and there is note for note. It doesn't have to be exact to every last lick and squeal to work with the same arrangement as the record ( so that dep players can sit in), but some folks will be chasing that. The other thing about being a guitarist in a covers band is that quite often the number of guitars on the original and the number of guitars in your band don't match up. Far less likely to be an issue for bass or drums or even a singer. So you often have to create an amalgam guitar line anyway ( or create an additional part if you play in a two guitar band and there is only one part on the recording).

monquixote

Agree that playing like the record makes everything much easier. 

My current band don't do that which is more creatively fulfilling, but it means that everything has to be learned/worked out in rehearsal rather than just learning it with the record and blitzing through it in the studio. 

It also makes getting deps loads harder. 

vasselmeyer

There are some songs which demand that the part is played as close to possible as the most well kown version. Take that old chestnut "All Right Now" which we often end up covering, depending on which type of audience we're playing for. I end up playing the solo almost note-for-note because it's so iconic and melodic. Even Brian May does that when he plays it with Paul Rodgers!

What's ironic is that if you look at some of the live recordings of Kossoff doing it, he plays it differently almost every time. I can't see many of Free's punters being critical because he didn't play it the same as on the record.

meltedbuzzbox

I play in a covers band and an originals band.

The money is nice but it does go back into the band for equipment, running a van, lighting, demos, promotional material, banners etc.

So once you have that all covered you are looking at about £75 each per gig. Minus your beer money/petrol/whatever expenses and its a small perk.

The crowds are generally much better and bigger for covers. 

Its not as rewarding as doing originals but if you are playing with a good group and you want to keep your playing up to scratch its not a bad thing to do. It all helps when it comes to playing your original stuff, how to deal with the crowd and how to put on a show.

I would say do it. Or at least try it. What have you got to lose.

And yes you do have to play a lot of sex on fire/Chelsea Dagger

Longtallronnie

I've played in both and enjoyed them for different reasons. These days my band is predominantly covers but we chuck a couple of our own in now and then depending on the gig/crowd etc.

I'm not sure if it's less rewarding playing covers though, depends how good/bad your band is!

 Ps

I love playing Sex On Fire! I find playing the same songs every week can get boring if you don't mix it up but having a dance floor absolutely packed with people singing their heads off is great fun.

RocknRollDave

As people have said, some solos or guitar parts need to be the same as the record but you can take liberties with others..depends on the song.

That also applies to the song in general - some songs kind of need to be played fairly close to the record (there's not an awful lot you can do with the likes of Sex on Fire and Chelsea Dagger other than to stretch them out for more singalongability, for exmaple) and others can be played about with a lot more.
For my own band, what really makes the difference is the instrumentation - By which I mean Sex On Fire, being a two guitar song from a two guitar band, is pretty close to the original, whereas something like Come On Eileen, with its banjo/ fiddle malarky, or Superstition, with its clavinet or whateveryermacallit, both deviate somewhat from the original in sound, at least, if not in structure.


I have just had to learn Chris Martin's piano intro part to the latest live version of Yellow for a wedding that's coming up. I'm no Richard Clayderman, this could get messy...

stickyfiddle

I did the covers thing 18 months or so until April this year. It's brilliant fun. As far as I'm concerned playing to a room of people who're enjoying themselves because of what you're doing is what music is all about, and covers hits that particular nail on the head. AND you get paid. And sometimes free beers too. 

And put me in the "I heart Dakota/SexOnFire/ChelseaDagger" crew. Chelsea Dagger murders your voice at the end of a set, but it gets a Friday night crowd going like nothing else, and at the end of most sets you can let them do most of the shouty singing for you.

ragingben

It's a dilemma I've found myself in a few times. At the moment I play in an originals band with about 40% of our total playlist being covers so we have them in the bag if needed. The covers thing really isn't for me to be honest, but it is easier to get gigs with a covers set at hand, and not easy to get paid for originals. Having said that we do get paid for originals at times, but the originals rule us out of a few of the bigger local events. Regardless I think having a few covers is a great thing in case you find the crowds interest dwindling when playing your own songs, every crowd is different. I know that isn't much help with your question but I think what it really comes down to is you gotta do what you want to do. Whatever you do don't let playing become a chore, which it can easily do if you are playing covers you don't enjoy either listening to or playing.

RocknRollDave

The tribute bands have it the worst - If they don't play it exactly like the record, punters will go "Pfft, they don't sound much like Dumpy's Rusty Nuts*...!"  whereas Dumpy can play his own songs any which way he likes, and punters will only go "Oh he's changed that part " or "Oh an acoustic version, interesting..." or whatever.

As if the Beatles would have had to have played stuff like Strawberry Fields Forever with the same fidelity as the tribute bands do!







*just for an example...

Longtallronnie

I was chatting to a bassist that played in a Status Quo tribute and he told he how one punter was having a go at "Francis Rossi" because his green telecaster didn't have a little hole in it. 8-}

RocknRollDave

I know someone who plays Paul McCartney in a Beatles band, and by coincidence happens to also be left-handed...but I read about another "Macca" who was right handed and actually went to the trouble of learning left-handed, just for authenticity's sake.

Taking it too far, IMO.

Mind, I know someone else who also plays in a tribute band and doesn't make the effort to dress up and/ or look like the person in question, and I think that's a bit odd too, it's all a question of balance, innit.

EricTheWeary

RocknRollDave said:

The tribute bands have it the worst - If they don't play it exactly like the record, punters will go "Pfft, they don't sound much like Dumpy's Rusty Nuts*...!"  whereas Dumpy can play his own songs any which way he likes, and punters will only go "Oh he's changed that part " or "Oh an acoustic version, interesting..." or whatever.

As if the Beatles would have had to have played stuff like Strawberry Fields Forever with the same fidelity as the tribute bands do!







*just for an example...

Dumpy is on my list of minor celebrities I once sat next too ( okay, him and Billy Bragg). When I was a student the Nuts played at my Poly and they ate in the canteen, sat next to me. However, I hadn't bought any tickets to go and felt, therefore, I couldn't really start a conversation.

EricTheWeary

Longtallronnie said:

I was chatting to a bassist that played in a Status Quo tribute and he told he how one punter was having a go at "Francis Rossi" because his green telecaster didn't have a little hole in it. 8-}

although from my brief dealings with people in 'serious' tribute bands this is where the money is, much better than the average covers band.So, maybe a hole in his green telecaster isn't an unreasonable request.

koneguitarist

I think people what people call a covers band and a regular gigging band hat does covers is often different. I have played in a "covers" band most of my life, that doesn't mean it's boring or not as good as playing originals. Personally I go out to entertain people, majority of audience couldn't care less what solo is played, or even what song is as long as you play with commitment and integrity. The Beatles started off as a covers band as did the stones, the Yardbirds etc etc, nothing to stop you throwing originals in every so often, and see how they go down.

Deijavoo

monquixote;22744" said:

Why don't you see if any cover bands need a dep so you can try it out. 

That is a very good idea!

hywelg

ICBM said:

I like playing covers or even in a complete covers band as long as they're always approached as playing the song and not the record. The obsessive trying to 'nail' songs exactly like the original recording drives me nuts - I hate listening to cover bands like that, let alone playing in them. As soon as it gets to the point of "you have to play it exactly like that because that's how it is on the record", I'm out. Just put another dime in the jukebox and be done with it...

But covers done you own way can be great fun - more than originals even. It's like playing originals but the audience recognise the songs so the response is always far better... which is annoying if you write originals, but true! And is actually no different to playing an original that someone else in the band wrote, if you think about it.

Even classical musicians interpret the written score and put their own personality on it, not play it robotically.

Our previous bass player had a habit of saying lets do our own version, when he actually meant he wasn't too bothered about learning to play the original. Its one thing to know how to play the original and opt to change it its quite another to not be bothered and just think 'they'll be too pissed to notice. Well I would notice. We do a cover of Take Me To The River which is our own take, and we also play Sex On Fire verbatim or at least try to. Most covers bands don't try and work out the weird rhythmn drum/guitar intro part and just fudge it. Lazy I say.

And I say to bands, if your singer has to change the vocal line because he can't hit the high notes, drop the song or play it in a different key. I saw a band play JJF and the singer sang a completely different vocal line and my wife looked at me very qiizzically wanting to know what was wrong. Its not called 'making it you own' its called desecration to anyone who knows it and loves it.

RocknRollDave;22967" said:

As people have said, some solos or guitar parts need to be the same as the record but you can take liberties with others..depends on the song.

Very true. A guitarist who plays All Right Now solo different to the original deserves to get booed. SImilarly Hotel California. But Some songs the solo can be improvised/extended/completely fucked up and no-one would care. How many guitarists here actually play the Chuck Berry intro to Johnny B Goode verbatim?. I've not seen a covers band do it mainly becuase its quite tricky. Its a very fine line between playing 'your version' and being too lazy to work it out/learn it. If you do 'your version' it has to be as good as otherwise its just laziness IMO.

Similarly if you are in a covers band you owe it to your audience to change your guitar sound during your set and to suit the number. Making everything sound the same is very boring for the audience.

Roland

I prefer playing covers to originals.  There is so much good music going back over more than 50 years, and I don't know anyone who can produce a set of original songs of the same quality.  It's good education to learn how the artist played it on the original recording.  It's interesting to learn how they actually played it live, which is often very different, particularly when the song has matured over a couple of years.  What I enjoy most is arranging the original material for our instruments and capabilities.  Some things have to be note for note: the solo in Alright Now, but not Kossoff's late 60s tone.  Some things change a bit: Brian May harmonies.  Some things are up for grabs: 80s synth pop without synth.

So I'd give it a go

ICBM

JayGee said:

The way I see it most songs have certain "signature" licks and/or riffs which define them and as long as you fit them in (or even just kind of reference them) the rest is up for grabs. 

I think the key thing is that if you're going to change things make the changes big and obvious as there's a fine line (in the heads of the punters, obsessives, and obnoxious band-mates) between "just tweaked this a little bit" and "too lazy and/or not good enough to play it properly" - I prefer to avoid that grey area and am very happy that the band I'm in at the moment shares that view as I suspect I'm all too often firmly in the "not good enough to do it properly" category :-)

Completely agree, which is why I think radically reworked covers are usually best, and there are no required riffs or solos at all - least of all something like All Right Now, since playing the solo accurately would make playing the rest of the song differently quite pointless... and it's only really the first few notes that most people (other than guitarists) would recognise anyway. 'Referencing' them is the closest I would go. Certain riffs might count as part of 'the song', but I still don't think it's wrong to change them or leave them out completely.

I honestly think most non-muso punters enjoy reworked covers more anyway. It gives them something to remember if you do something unusual, surprising or funny. It also makes 'nailing' sounds pointless, which is another thing that irks me about most cover bands... since I've never heard a cover band singer who can impersonate almost any original singer's voice, let alone more than one, why should it be necessary for the guitarist to? To me it's much better for the band to have as much of its own sonic identity as an originals band, but just play covers with it. Needs much less clutter on stage usually too - you don't need five guitars and this pedal and that pedal if you're not trying to duplicate sounds.

I genuinely think that the traditional note-perfect cover band has been a part of the death of live music - since as jukebox systems have improved to the point they can be as loud and sound better than a live band, why would punters want a near-substitute when they can have the real thing? On the other hand you'll never hear a jukebox playing a Kylie song in the style of Motorhead .

hywelg said:

Our previous bass player had a habit of saying lets do our own version, when he actually meant he wasn't too bothered about learning to play the original. Its one thing to know how to play the original and opt to change it its quite another to not be bothered and just think 'they'll be too pissed to notice. Well I would notice. We do a cover of Take Me To The River which is our own take, and we also play Sex On Fire verbatim or at least try to. Most covers bands don't try and work out the weird rhythmn drum/guitar intro part and just fudge it. Lazy I say.

Why does it matter whether you can play the original part before you change it? If you're going to change it, don't waste time learning the original - it might make it harder to come up with something your own, anyway. It's not about thinking anyone will be too pissed to notice, it's actively not wanting to play a near-clone of the original. Playing it nearly like the original is lazy, yes. Playing it completely differently is creative.

hywelg said:

And I say to bands, if your singer has to change the vocal line because he can't hit the high notes, drop the song or play it in a different key. I saw a band play JJF and the singer sang a completely different vocal line and my wife looked at me very qiizzically wanting to know what was wrong. Its not called 'making it you own' its called desecration to anyone who knows it and loves it.

If you go to a gig wanting to see a band play your favourite song exactly like the original you will always feel that it's desecration when they don't, no matter how close. (I would maybe make an exception for tribute bands if they're really good, but they have to get the complete package right.) There are very few musicians, no matter how good, who can play even a handful of different-styled originals well enough not to sound 'off' to someone who knows the song well. So the band shouldn't even try - that way there's nothing to directly compare it to and maybe the person who loves the song will like it.

Changing the vocal melody *without* changing the rest of the song is wrong though, I agree - that just makes it obvious that you can't do it. If you can't, rip the whole song up and start again. Keep the lyrics and the chords and maybe a bit of the riff, change the rest.

hywelg said:

A guitarist who plays All Right Now solo different to the original deserves to get booed.

Applauded, as long as it's a good solo. The original has been done to death badly by an uncountable number of guitarists who think that playing the same notes makes it the same as the original - if you're listening, you're running through the original in your head and spotting where what you're hearing isn't quite the same. Make it completely different and that doesn't happen. Or maybe it needs a bass solo instead... no that isn't a joke .

Obviously we are coming at this from completely different viewpoint, I know.