Covering all those studio sounds live...or not?

[kingy75]

Hi all,

 

I play in a cover/corporate function/wedding band and I'm constantly faced with deciding whether to try to cover every line I can hear on the recording (using multiple splits & layers) or to keep it simple and just use one or 2 patches (or perhaps one split) and not attempt to cover absolutely everything I hear but just try to capture the essence of the song/sound, if that makes sense.

 

What does everyone else do in this situation?

 

I'm used to attempting to cover everything (and in the right situation that's fine) but I know not all keys players do that so I'm looking for hints/suggestions on how I might make things simpler.

 

I only use one synth live, a Roland Fantom X6.

 

Thanks!

 

[CEB]

Depends.

[ElmerJFudd]

Depends on the song, style, period. I always focus on the parts I feel the audience expects to hear. Never really beyond more than a split and layer if one board. But I do bring two always, so I typically have 3 sounds available in the right octave at any given time. But honestly with a trumpet and sax player that doubles on flute I never need to do that stuff on those types of gigs, and if I do, I'm in unison or picking up a lower harmony on their lines. So more often than not my default is acoustic or electric piano with string layer able to come in/out and a synth lead, pad or organ on the other board. You'd be surprised how many tunes in a 40 song night that will get you through just fine.

 

 

[timwat]

Agree with both Ed and Elmer. It depends on several things:

 

1) The expectation of the band. Some bands strive to get letter perfect to the record - guitar solos are note for note, vocal inflections aspire to be dead on the record, etc. Especially true of tribute projects, but I've run across the occasional non-tribute covers band that wants to be meticulous about this. Discuss this with the band leader first.

 

2) The song itself. Some tunes might provide some latitude (e.g., I Can't Help It) for personal interpretation. Some might be a very tall challenge to duplicate (e.g., Rosanna). Some might require refined chops (e.g., Awaken...although that isn't common cover band fare). Many tunes will offer you a choice (i.e., do you focus on the piano or the B3 on Lady Marmalade...and which choice will benefit the dance floor most?)

 

3) Your sound palette. If you're not sporting a Kronos or similar "all in one", do you have the capabilities to reproduce every sound, patch and sound FX from the record? And even if your equipment has the potential, do you have the programming acumen to wring every last bit of authenticity out of your machine?

 

4) Your discretionary time. Only you know how much time you have to commit to sound craft, in exchange for time committed to practicing the parts. The benefits of sound craft are of course manifold - you get to really know your gear in a way nothing else provides, once your patches are set, they're ready for showtime indefinitely, your reputation as a pro who can nail the sounds gets known to other musos.

 

5) And of course, what's "signature". I find the wood blocks in Let's Dance make the tune. As does the "Julio get the stretch" whistle in Uptown Funk. As does the explosion in 1999. As does the police whistle in Bad Girls (I use a real one). Etcetera.

 

Out here in my neck of the woods, it seems there's a lot of KB players who don't do a superlative job at sound craft. Situations I play in seem to be regularly impressed with my palette of sounds - and I don't obsess over patch authenticity that much. I'm just old. And I remember coming up in a time when it was sort of expected of the KB player to do a decent (though not letter perfect) job of trying to get close.

 

All that being said, I think it's possible to pursue perfection at the sacrifice of the groove. The music has to feel good - first to you, then to your mates, then to the dance floor. If it don't feel good, it doesn't matter how many patches you've recreated from the record, right?

 

Tim

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MotiDave]

I'm not a great technician nor a master programmer but I pride myself on getting as exact the sound as I can. I know subtle differences but the audience always thinks it's spot on exact. It makes a difference in tributes I play in, elevates my rep above my chops. I am always complimented on my sound production and note accuracy.

 

I will attempt to replicate as many sounds from the song that I can. I will have 3-way splits or turn sounds off and on by zone as needed. the limit I can't reach is 3 sounds playing different lines at once, then I must decide what is most important to the song. I only backtracked sounds for one song in four bands (Drive by the cars, it has way too many essential layers)

 

That's just me ymmv

[DanL]

I try to cover it all but sometimes you can't.

[zxcvbnm098]

So funny MotiDave mentioned Drive by the Cars. Heard that yesterday and was reminded how many great sounds that are layered throughout that tune. I tried it when it was new in a band with only a Prophet 600 and one sound, and it sounded like ass. Greg Hawkes did such great job on that tune.....lotta stuff going on.

[mate stubb]

So funny MotiDave mentioned Drive by the Cars. Heard that yesterday and was reminded how many great sounds that are layered throughout that tune. I tried it when it was new in a band with only a Prophet 600 and one sound, and it sounded like ass. Greg Hawkes did such great job on that tune.....lotta stuff going on.

 

Did I imagine seeing the Cars do this live at some big Live Aid or something and Rick played the bell parts on a Synclavier?

[timwat]

I think when they performed the song at Live Aid, re-released it as a single and donated all the proceeds from the sales to Live Aid as well.

 

What an amazing, lush aggregate sound that tune has. Here's the 1985 Live Aid performance:

 

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSYCrbFZ21c