Reproducing Covers Faithfully?

Lestratcaster

I don't play in a cover band but I do teach songs and try to get them exactly like the original. At times though they'll be in a funny tuning or a bit too advanced for the learner so I will rearrange it so its a bit simpler but the integrity of the riff/song remains.

I do like different versions of songs however (like ones played on Radio 1 Live Lounge and Punk Goes Pop compilations albums). Some are done really really well.

thecolourbox

Gassage said:

It's not a binary thing but you do need to pay some homage to the original UNLESS you completely rework it.

A great example is Comfy.

If you cover it as per PF, then you must play the first 12 bars of the outro solo correctly- but it's a tradition that you can freestyle thereafter.

Or, you totally rip the song up and do something original like the Scissor Sisters did.

You'll be horrified to know that at a wedding last week, I managed to segue from the chorus to Taylor Swift's Wildest Dreams straight into the chorus of Comfortably Numb (one of the guests on the table next to where I was sat had said he was a Pink Floyd fan so I thought he'd appreciate a break from all the Swift, Cyrus and Del ray songs I was otherwise playing).

Of course I'm only doing instrumental piano versions of things so not necessarily relevant to the general OP topic. I think if in another universe I was in a cover band I'd probably be massively obsessive over certain details of the songs and arrangements but then be quite lax with other things - I also imagine this would frustrate any hypothetical band mates, if the details they were obsessed with were different than mine

Sporky

stickyfiddle said:

But I also firmly believe that a lot of people use "doing it our way" as an excuse to not put effort in to make something sound good

Conversely, a lot of the note-for-note brigade lack the musicianship and imagination to do anything interesting with a cover.

thomasw88

I can't think of any  original bands that play the songs note for note every gig as the record so why should anyone else.

As long as the important bits are right, the rest of it is up to making it sound as good as you can with what you available.   If you're in a tribute band then fair enough but most people aren't.

I play mainly in bands as a 3 piece and that requires a lot more creativity as a group to get a song  that wasn't a 3 piece song not sounding boring/empty,.

nero1701

I like to learn them note for note, but when gigging them live, it usually gets adapted to suit the bands dynamics, we've 6/7 members with a couple that rotate in and out.

soma1975

I'd be annoyed if a band did Beat It and then copped out on the solo.

But I'd be happy if they did a version of Beat It in a '92 Seattle stylee or something which then didn't warrant that solo. 

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

Kurtis said:

Doesn't really matter as long as it's good! 

^^^Is the correct answer!^^^

ICBM

Actually I could have answered this question much more simply by saying that one of my favourite albums is Duran Duran's Thank You.

PolarityMan

it depends

slacker

I play in a covers band a folkish trio and family get together. So it depends what scenario I'm playing in.

Family- one or two acoustics and maybe a djembi. I try to play the song so people can recognise it. I did struggle when someone wanted space oddity.

Tri-trad songs or stripped down versions like Johnny cash did with hurt etc.

Band-we get close with riffs etc and the trick of doing signature solos is to start and end as the original and improvise the rest.

I once saw an ahem 80s acoustic duo. The guitarist singer would play jinky jinky root position chords and the cajon guy would play on the bongos like a chimpanzee end quote. It was so bad that I tried to guess the song from the intro. Couldn't be done. They started with sweet dreams jinky jinky and tainted love and my son asked if it was a marylin manson tribute act.

ScreamingDave

One of the best cover versions I ever heard was from a band in an apres ski bar in Val d’Isere. They had one guy on acoustic guitar, one on a Tele, a guy on upright bass and a guy with a cajon.  They asked for any requests.  I was drunk (well, they were giving away a shot of toffee vodka with every drink). I asked for Sweet Child o’ Mine.  They totally nailed it. 

fretmeister

Tribute - has to be bang on.

Covers - has to be close enough to get the punters singing along.

Dan_Halen

I dunno, I like a band doing their own thing with a song but also quite like them sticking pretty close to the script. There's surely room for both.

I can think if so many songs that initially did nothing for me hearing on the radio/TV or wherever but then I hear a band play it live and suddenly it makes sense. That riff that just sounds flat on a record all of a sudden comes alive when it's hitting you in the face at a gig... that sort of thing.

Snags

Anyone saying it has to be spot on (other than for a tribute band, and even then I'd allow some wiggle room) needs to get the stick out of their bottom

As long as it's engaging to the audience, I don't think it matters too much. So if someone shouts out "TUNE!" and people start singing/dancing, that's fine. If you're playing to some avant garde introspective hipsters then doing a quirky massive reinterpretation that gets them stroking their chins is good.

Beyond that, everyone will have their quirks. e.g. personally I hate the advertification of songs, where someone takes a high energy rock song and re-imagines it as a hippy lullaby (although exceptions can be made), and i get a nervous twitch at acoustic-only covers of Wicked Game because the whole point of the song is the intro and fills; double-demerit if you mis-place "... with you" and put it too late; triple demerit and a shallow grave if you then also leave off the last line. But that's just me; other people seem to love it.

stickyfiddle

Sporky said:

stickyfiddle said:

But I also firmly believe that a lot of people use "doing it our way" as an excuse to not put effort in to make something sound good

Conversely, a lot of the note-for-note brigade lack the musicianship and imagination to do anything interesting with a cover.

I completely agree. But I honestly dont have any interest in watching bad bands of either flavour! 

mrkb

Snags said:

Beyond that, everyone will have their quirks. e.g. personally I hate the advertification of songs, where someone takes a high energy rock song and re-imagines it as a hippy lullaby (although exceptions can be made), and i get a nervous twitch at acoustic-only covers of Wicked Game because the whole point of the song is the intro and fills; double-demerit if you mis-place "... with you" and put it too late; triple demerit and a shallow grave if you then also leave off the last line. But that's just me; other people seem to love it.

Any version of wicked game makes me twitch - brings back the trauma of sitting in the rain waiting for the endless dirge to finish

PolarityMan

fretmeister said:

Tribute - has to be bang on.

Covers - has to be close enough to get the punters singing along.

What if it's only a tribute to tribute?

PolarityMan

I mean it's not like it's the greatest song in the world....

HAL9000

Until recently I was one of two guitarists in a blues band - the idea of playing anything note-for-note was never even a consideration.

ScreamingDave

PolarityMan said:

I mean it's not like it's the greatest song in the world....

Unfortunately, I couldn’t remember the greatest song in the world.