Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google

Become a Subscriber!

Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!

Read more...

Songs That Bands Always Play Wrong

What's Hot
13

Comments

  • Jimbro66Jimbro66 Frets: 2418
    Surely this is about the band not being good enough to work the song out correctly for themselves, so either they get it wrong, or the use an Internet transciption, which can be all kinds of mess...


    Not good enough or just plain lazy. Then they are either oblivious or pretentiously call it an 'interpretation'. It's the sort of dumming down that happens at many jam sessions, which is why I avoid them like the plague.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • VoxmanVoxman Frets: 4718
    edited October 2016
    Surely this is about the band not being good enough to work the song out correctly for themselves, so either they get it wrong, or the use an Internet transciption, which can be all kinds of mess...


    Not good enough or just plain lazy. Then they are either oblivious or pretentiously call it an 'interpretation'. It's the sort of dumming down that happens at many jam sessions, which is why I avoid them like the plague.

    Sorry, but that's utter and complete nonsense - when you refer to working a song out, which version?  Live versions are rarely the same as the studio version.  And sometimes there's even more than one studio version (one for singles, one for the album - e.g. All Right Now).  
    We do a long version of Jumping Jack Flash and Gimme Shelter (as did the Stones live) but we put our own spin on it i.e. taking it down, lifting it up, jamming up the solo etc.  Are you suggesting we're lazy because we choose not to play it exactly the same (note for note) as the Stones do? If so, then presumably the Stones themselves are lazy and dumming down - because I've never seen them play these live the same way twice!  

    And are you suggesting that if a band doesn't have the ability to play something exactly the same as the studio/proper version, they shouldn't play at all?  That's not exactly going to encourage folk to play live music is it?   

    Let's take another classic - Smoke on the water.  If you have a listen to the current incarnation of the band playing the song, the solo's are nothing like the album version - and even Ritchie Blackmore never played it note for note the same live either!  

    Oh, and by the way - look at where Ritchie Blackmore is laying the main riff on the fingerboard - my goodness, he's playing it the wrong way! And the solo's all wrong - nothing like the album version - Clearly, he's being lazy and dumbing down!

    Listen to the commentary afterwords - real pearls of wisdom!  



    Playing music is about enjoying what you're playing, being as tight as you can, and playing with expression and feel.  If you're having a good time, the audience will pick up on it & they'll have a good time.  The whole point of playing live is to experiment, mix it up and get a little 'magic' going (if you can).  

    One caveat & exception, if you're a tribute band then that's a bit different - people are paying to hear something as close to their idols as possible.  But even then, there's still latitude because a lot of tribute bands like to play live rather than studio versions, mainly because sometimes these are more practical - and sometimes even more interesting.  
    I started out with nothing..... but I've still got most of it left (Seasick Steve)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • Jimbro66Jimbro66 Frets: 2418
    edited October 2016

    /\ /\ Rattled a cage, eh? As I said in my earlier post, presumably not read, I enjoy a well considered and well played alternative version of a song. What I don't appreciate is a lazy 'that'll do' approach to a song. But I don't have to listen, I have the choice of walking out and finding a gig with a band that does care.

    Edit: I should add that if I see a really good tight band I'm lavish in my praise for them. If I see a band that's crap I don't say a word because it's just my opinion, nothing more.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • supessupes Frets: 179
    I play in a covers band, gig every week and have enough gigs that we have to turn some down. 
    We dont get re-booked because we play songs exactly as they were recorded, we get re-booked because we've entertained the crowd all night and they dont want us to stop. Playing with passion, energy, and enjoying it is far more important than every note being correct.
     In fact there's nothing worse at the end of a great gig when after loads of people come to tell you how much they're enjoyed it, a musician comes and tells you how he plays it. Funny bunch aren't we.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71956
    Jimbro66 said:
    ICBM said:
     There is no wrong as long as you perform whatever you want to, well.

    I'll go along with that, although try doing something like your own off-the-cuff solo to Killer Queen to test that theory ;)

    It depends on how differently you've done the rest of it. I agree it might sound a bit jarring if you've done the rest quite close to the original, and then throw in something completely different for the solo. But if you've already played the song very differently it probably won't.

    Jimbro66 said:

    FWIW I'd personally rather hear a band playing well-crafted/performed original material than any note-perfect covers.
    So would I, mostly - but I've reluctantly come to the conclusion over 30 years of trying that, that most punters don't. It's slightly disheartening to get polite applause for all your own stuff, but throw in a cover and everyone goes wild… so I've ended up playing in a band which only does covers. Although in our own way, of course.

    robinbowes said:

    You're saying the same thing as me with different words. My "wrong" is your "not played well".

    I've heard many interpretations and re-arrangements that are clearly different to but recognisable as the "original" song, and I applaud those, even if I don't like all of them. I've also heard many songs just played wrong ("not played well", to use your terminology), ie. where the performer plays a major chord instead of a minor because they've got cloth ears.

    Call it "wrong", nor "not played well" - I don't really mind.
    Playing a different chord might be because you think it sounds better, rather than because you've got cloth ears. Was Johnny Cash playing 'Hurt "wrong" when his version missed out the discordant chord?

    Personally I think both versions are equally good. As long as what you do works musically, it doesn't matter.

    supes said:
    I play in a covers band, gig every week and have enough gigs that we have to turn some down. 
    We dont get re-booked because we play songs exactly as they were recorded, we get re-booked because we've entertained the crowd all night and they dont want us to stop. Playing with passion, energy, and enjoying it is far more important than every note being correct.
     In fact there's nothing worse at the end of a great gig when after loads of people come to tell you how much they're enjoyed it, a musician comes and tells you how he plays it. Funny bunch aren't we.
    This, exactly.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBM said:. Was Johnny Cash playing 'Hurt "wrong" when his version missed out the discordant chord
    Yes. The frustrating thing is that it's really easy to include that interval on an acoustic version but instead the guitar part is a buffers version of all open chords. Which is a shame because the vocal delivery is phenonenal. It's just that it misses one of the most memorable and identifiable parts of the song. The majority of the success of the Johnny cash version is undoubtedly from people not familiar with NIN.
    ဈǝᴉʇsɐoʇǝsǝǝɥɔဪቌ
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71956
    edited October 2016
    ICBM said:. Was Johnny Cash playing 'Hurt "wrong" when his version missed out the discordant chord
    Yes. The frustrating thing is that it's really easy to include that interval on an acoustic version but instead the guitar part is a buffers version of all open chords. Which is a shame because the vocal delivery is phenonenal. It's just that it misses one of the most memorable and identifiable parts of the song. The majority of the success of the Johnny cash version is undoubtedly from people not familiar with NIN.
    I disagree, and I was familiar with the NIN version. To me, the chord fits as part of the vibe of it but not as an essential part of the song. I like both versions, for different reasons.

    Believe it or not I like the Madonna cover of American Pie too, and the original is one of my favourite songs. The only thing I don't like is that she didn't include more of the verses.

    I do admit that the whole "you're playing it wrong" thing is one of my pet peeves though. To me, if you're playing it with roughly the same lyrics, chords and melody - and I mean roughly - then you can do whatever you like with it. The only exceptions I can think of are things like the appalling Scissor Sisters cover of Comfortably Numb, where they change the lyrics to the point the song makes no sense. And a large number of people clearly think that's OK too, since they bought it...

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • So what about something like this



    Completely misses the point of the whole song.
    ဈǝᴉʇsɐoʇǝsǝǝɥɔဪቌ
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71956
    So what about something like this

    Completely misses the point of the whole song.
    Why? It's fine. He's playing it well enough - he's in time, there are no flubbed chords, and he can sing in tune, more or less. Not the most dynamic performance, but I bet if he played that to a room full of people, most of who were familiar with the original, he'd get a round of applause.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • See I dont think that a song can be boiled down to just a list of chords and a vocal melody. At least not good songs. There are factors in the specific parts and orchestrations that are important and by missing them you are losing the essence of the song. 

    Mind you I don't believe in the prescriptive harmonizing the major/minor scale method of producing music either. 

    Weirdly enough though most songs I don't find the solo an integral part of the song, in many cases being less important than fine details int he drum parts.
    ဈǝᴉʇsɐoʇǝsǝǝɥɔဪቌ
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71956
    edited October 2016
    See I dont think that a song can be boiled down to just a list of chords and a vocal melody. At least not good songs. 
    I think that's the exact definition of a good song - one that can be completely changed and still be recognisably the same song. The accepted definition is actually only lyrics and melody, although its usually true that the relationship between the melody and the chord structure also counts.


    There are factors in the specific parts and orchestrations that are important and by missing them you are losing the essence of the song.
    Disagree. That's why arrangement is a separate credit from composition on a reworked cover.

    PolarityMan said:

    Weirdly enough though most songs I don't find the solo an integral part of the song, in many cases being less important than fine details int he drum parts.
    Ah! You're a drummer. That explains it ;).

    (Joke :). A good drummer is at least as much of a musician as any other type…)

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBM said:
    See I dont think that a song can be boiled down to just a list of chords and a vocal melody. At least not good songs. 
    I think that's the exact definition of a good song - one that can be completely changed and still be recognisably the same song. The accepted definition is actually only lyrics and melody, although its usually true that the relationship between the melody and the chord structure also counts.


    There are factors in the specific parts and orchestrations that are important and by missing them you are losing the essence of the song.
    Disagree. That's why arrangement is a separate credit from composition on a reworked cover.

    PolarityMan said:

    Weirdly enough though most songs I don't find the solo an integral part of the song, in many cases being less important than fine details int he drum parts.
    Ah! You're a drummer. That explains it ;).

    (Joke :). A good drummer is at least as much of a musician as any other type…)
    Cant be bothered multiquoting so just imagine im writing each point inline :dizzy: 

    So how come in rock music at least the lyrics and vocal melody are usually the last element written? I know there is the whole singer/songwriter area but for an actual band it's quite rare for the vocals to come first.

    The credit for composition on the original usually includes the arrangement though. Arrangement isn't really the entirety of what I mean though. There are certain parts and changes in songs that are important to the whole composition because they set up the flow and feel and in the best cases there is interplay between different instruments that isn't just random. In some cases these arent vital but in others they can be huge features of the song or even iconic moments.

    I do play some drums but not that well. I do write for all instruments though. When I'm composing each part i'm thinking about what the rest of the instrumentation is going to be doing and it probably affects how I listen to music meaning that some parts that I find completely critical might be utterly ignored by others.
    ဈǝᴉʇsɐoʇǝsǝǝɥɔဪቌ
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71956
    I don't disagree with any of that, but I still don't agree that changing any of those things is "playing the song wrong". To me the idea that it's "wrong" is just a muso idea, usually with the implied snobbery that it's because "you can't play it like the original".

    A simplistic version might be better in some other way. For example, I doubt the Big Brother & The Holding Company version of Summertime uses all Gershwin's original chords, and it's certainly a very different arrangement. But it does feature Janis Joplin's vocal performance, which makes it great.

    In fact I'd go further and say that probably *all* great cover versions differ from the original in ways that some people would consider "wrong" if a band played it like that at a small gig. Which doesn't mean that all pub bands are playing great covers, obviously...

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725
    BahHumbug said:
    The 7/8 bit in Times like these.....rendered in 4/4, presumably cos the drummer can't do 7/8.

    This isn't usually the reason- 7/8 is not difficult for someone who can play an instrument that requires 4 limb independence.

    The reason parts are simplified in this way is usually because someone in the band loses the ability to count it.
    It is the same with offbeat hi-hats (for instance in the chorus of Somebody Told Me, or the pre chorus of 'Play That Funky Music').

    You simplify the drum pattern in order to give a clear and consistent beat to the rest of the band as to avoid the song turning into a train wreck.

    If you are playing in a covers band with a set of 40+ songs you need to make these decisions or you need to be very well rehearsed (which usually means having a smaller repertoire).
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • sgosdensgosden Frets: 1993
    my band write our own songs and I often play them wrong

    I've always thought a studio version as the 'best version' a band can do at that time. with correct mixing and second guitar lines, multiple tracking etc

    I'd say loads of bands don't play the studio version of songs.

    one of my favourite examples is Reel Big Fish's version of 'take on me' - in the recorded one there's a fast picking solo over the power chords.

    live its obviously a bit hard to do when you're bouncing around like a hyper puppy and only have one guitar on stage. so they just vocally go 'bulblblbublbublbblblblblb' (correct my spelling) like a toddler blowing raspberries.



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Jimbro66Jimbro66 Frets: 2418
    octatonic said
    If you are playing in a covers band with a set of 40+ songs you need to make these decisions or you need to be very well rehearsed (which usually means having a smaller repertoire).

    Although there are some here who reserve the right to play a song any way they choose (fair enough) I think @octatonic has identified the crux of what this thread is all about. Sure there are issues like parts of an original recording being beyond the playing abilities of someone covering it, or layered parts of a recording being impossible to replicate - even for the original artists. But very often departure is a result of the reason @octatonic states rather than any conscious decision to do things differently.

    This can apply to all songs but, going back to the OP's point, there are some songs which get 'modified' or 'short-cutted' regularly and we've had a few examples. There must be more.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • So to flip things round, what would it take for you to consider a cover wrong? I'm guessing a performance mistake and not much else. What about a chord a semi-tone out but played consistently like that?
    ဈǝᴉʇsɐoʇǝsǝǝɥɔဪቌ
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71956
    It depends how it sounded and why it was done. A semi-tone out is going to be pretty discordant normally... but on the other hand 'that' chord in Hurt isn't far off being that, for a lot of people (possibly including Johnny Cash) - and yet that's the "right" chord exactly because it really adds an uncomfortable edge to the song.

    It would also be quite difficult to *un*intentionally play something a semi-tone out, I think - so at that point it would have to be a deliberate decision not a mistake. But otherwise, yes pretty much just a performance mistake.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • There are so many songs that are played badly to my ears, but as right as they can make them. 
    Take "All right now" for instance a song everyone knows well, yet people including Kossoff and Paul Rodgers play differently to original. Kossoff played the intro rhythms differently depending on version, is one right or wrong? The solo is often expanded on, Free at Isle of Wight is awful, where he plays an awful chord by mistake out of tune.
     But so what, 10CC used to be renown for sounding like their record when playing live, a fact that put a lot of people off and calling them boring. I watched the Eagles Hell Freezes over video, and talk about watching paint dry, yet I love the Eagles music. 
    So what do you prefer the band play a record and mime to it or do a great performance with odd bum note and different solo as the song has evolved in artists eyes. 
    As for the pub performer, like me, I struggle to play same solo twice to my own songs let alone others, yet no one has complained only asked why I don't play the original solo. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Danny1969Danny1969 Frets: 10356
    Kings of Leon sound exactly like the record when they play live, but that's more because they more or less record live as a band and don't rely on a million overdubs and harmony vocals. 

    If I like the song I'll generally nail the exact parts but I'm guilty of fudging stuff on other songs if I'm not overly keen on it. 


    www.2020studios.co.uk 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.