It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
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.
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.
/\ /\ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
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
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Completely misses the point of the whole song.
"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
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
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.
Disagree. That's why arrangement is a separate credit from composition on a reworked cover.
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
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
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.
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
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
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).
Studio: https://www.voltperoctave.com
Music: https://www.euclideancircuits.com
Me: https://www.jamesrichmond.com
Football is rubbish.
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.
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.
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
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
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.
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.