COVERS! Perfect recreation or put your own stank on it?

[Krakit]

I was in a Doors tribute band for a while and authentic recreation was the name of the game. From the equipment to the clothing but most importantly the music. With the exception of the solos (where I took liberties after doing the note for note version) we tried to sound just like the recordings. 

 

I'm not in a tribute band any longer (thank god) and am embarking on doing a by myself thing in a busking situation.  I don't really do covers at all in this mode, but I found myself meandering into one as I was inspired by a factory preset in my keyboard. It was a different tempo, different groove and completely new feel for this old chestnut.  I really dug it. 

 

Now, I'm thinking about possibly revisiting my old repertoire and putting a completely personal flavor on everything. 

 

Opinions? 

 

Faithful or playful?  

[CEB]

Depends on the gig. 

[Krakit]

2 minutes ago, CEB said:

Depends on the gig. 

solo busking

[RABid]

If you are in a bar band, 9 out of 10 songs should be as close as possible to the original with the 10th being your own twist. If you want to put your own spin on everything you do, you better be really special. Busking is a different world. No one expects a one man band to sound like the record. Especially if acoustic is the main instrument. Go for it and make it your own.

[ProfD]

A tribute band should strive to recreate the vibe and play the songs as recorded by the original band. 

 

A cover band should capture the vibe of the songs.  Similar to the way the original artist/band takes liberties with their own songs during live performances.

 

An artist/musician should put their own spin on tunes in order to develop a unique voice. 

 

Personalizing a repertoire sets an artist/musician apart especially from others who might be playing the same songs. 

 

*I* personally do not enjoy listening to music in which the artists/musician paints by numbers i.e. covers tunes verbatim.  For that, I can listen to the recording.

 

Of course, all of this falls under IMO.😎

[ElmerJFudd]

I would hope that there is great variety between those who do note for note and those who completely rearrange.  The world would otherwise be far less interesting.  Do what you enjoy, what you do best and connect on some level with your audience. 

[KuruPrionz]

Do it your way!

 

Did Jimi Hendrix do his cover of All Along The Watchtower just like Bob Dylan's original version?

No, and he made the song a hit. In fact, when I saw Dylan in concert, the last song was Dylan's band's version of Jimi's version!

 

Linda Kronstadt covered Warren Zevon's Poor, Poor Pitiful Me and she changed the lyrics and the arrangement considerably. It did well on Top 40 radio. 

There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples of name acts changing cover tunes to suit their own styles. It's not wrong, do it!

 

You are busking solo. You sound like you when you sing. Play the songs the way you like them. I was in a band a long time ago and I came up with a reggae version of My Girl by the Temptations. We filled the dance floor with that many times. 

 

I fully agree that tribute bands should try to sound (and look) as much like the original band they are doing tribute to but this is a completely different situation. 

Most records are produced with sounds and instruments that cannot be easily duplicated by 1 to 5 band members and many records feature singers who can hit amazingly high notes with ease, something that is not common in the real world. 

 

So the first step would be to find the keys you are comfortable in. 

[cphollis]

As a performer and a live music enthusiast, the *last* thing I want to hear is "just like the record".  Technique can be learned, taste less so ...

[HSS]

FWIW... Here's Ray putting his own stank on a tune.  He mutated this country classic into a funky vibe.  

 

https://youtu.be/MDvPkuuNEdU

 

IMHO this is what real top shelf musicians / "artists" do when doing someone else's tune. 

 

Of course, since I suck, I just kind of copy songs within my limitations.  When I solo, I try to capture the song's vibe along with my own feelings at that moment in time, usually leveraging my small basket of licks mainly based on minor and major pentatonic scales.  Besides, I'm not technically good enough to precisely copy other's solos.   

 

When I try to abuse the audience with my vocals, I often change the key until I don't squawk like Donald Duck. I get my $75 - $150 for the gig and go home. And yes, I confess, I'm guilty of occasionally using the transpose button.  So that's that. 

[ProfD]

35 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

I would hope that there is great variety between those who do note for note and those who completely rearrange.  The world would otherwise be far less interesting.  Do what you enjoy, what you do best and connect on some level with your audience. 

Exactly. 

 

There would be no *cover* tunes without originality, creativity and/or influence. 

 

Music is an artform that provides the artist/musician with a creative outlet and if well done, provides the listener with an experience on some level. 

 

Artists/musicians who are capable of doing so should be delivering their artistic expression.

 

There is still plenty room for musicians and singers who choose to be role players.  Of course, one must be prepared to do that job.😎

 

[allan_evett]

I find it so tasty when a musician puts their own spin on a cover song.  A local friend and favorite male vocalist-pianist does an amazing version of Roxanne. His most recent act was crafted somewhat in the style of Postmodern Jukebox. I'd like to think Sting would find the arrangement fascinating as well. 

That said, for a typical, pop cover band I'll stick with signature lines/sounds (especially for intros), then put my own spin  on the comping sections and keys solos. Though there are rare moments when twisting a signature line can work. However... In 2015 I tried to improv the synth lead for Shine On... during a 'Floyd tribute set; the band was not at all pleased . But during Comfortably Numb, the lead guitarist didn't mimic David Gilmour note-for-note, but he did exquisitely capture the soul of David's playing. Completely appropriate.

 

Boiling it down:  Catch the signature lines the majority of the time, but make the rest your own.

[Montunoman 2]

47 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

 

 

So the first step would be to find the keys you are comfortable in. 

Yes, this so important and so many cover bands don't even consider the possibility. 

[Stokely]

Own stank.  I'd have to be making a ton more money in a trubute band (and I don't play primarily for money) to agonize over patches.   I like working things out as a band but that's more about being tight, getting harmonies right and frankly I need to get in shape...all way more important than my Moog patch using one less oscillator than the original song, which not a single person will ever notice.   That doesn't mean I'm going to play an accordion patch on Foreplay/Longtime, there are a few songs I try to get mostly right.  Speaking of that song, the organ sound Lachy Doley is getting on his great cover (look it up) is not spot on to the recording (it's better IMO, mainly its more overdriven), but who the hell cares when it sounds good.

One benefit of this approach is less overall patches, so less volume issues.  I don't need Elo strings, and U2 strings, and strings for every song I do regardless of how the album was recorded.

The original artists don't when they play live, unless of course they run tracks and fake it like everyone seems to be doing.

I really don't get the "must play in original key!" people.  We tune down 1/2 step, but change keys as needed.  I sing Some Kind of Wonderful and even down a half step, that ain't happening unless we take it down a bit more!

Something that keeps it fun for me...I don't have patches for most of our songs.  Or set parts for that matter for a lot of them.  I'll see where the mood takes me   

[Thethirdapple]

At a concert or show I DONT want to hear the album !!! Even from “established” groups/musicians I prefer and almost expect to hear a variation and feel let down with “faithful” recreations of an album.

 

Same thing with a cover band or rendition… 

 

And especially as a musician, if not for my own take on a song, why bother…

 

Tribute bands might be a bit different, went to Beatlemania in the late 70’s, as a kid, and loved the experience of “seeing and hearing” the band I love….

 

PEACE

[HSS]

16 minutes ago, Stokely said:

Own stank.  I'd have to be making a ton more money in a trubute band (and I don't play primarily for money) to agonize over patches. 

FWIW... The only "tribute band" I'm currently gigging with is a Grateful Dead tribute band.  Since the Dead never did any of their own songs the same way twice, it gives me considerable freedom to do them the way I want to within my own technical limitations. Most of my other current gigs are with blues and old school soul bands with no expectations of covering songs precisely.  

[ProfD]

28 minutes ago, Stokely said:

I'd have to be making a ton more money in a trubute band (and I don't play primarily for money) to agonize over patches.

That type of gig belongs to a musician who lives (eats, sleeps, drinks, breathes) to create and play those patches effortlessly.  It's not a chore for them.😎

[Bobbo Fett]

If you're in a tribute band, people go to the show to experience a close as possible replication of the actual band. In a bar, in a cover band situation, people are there to drink, dance, maybe get a little in the parking lot....in other words, the "accuracy" of the band's interpretation of a song is pretty far down the list of things that matter to the average bar hopper on a Saturday night. Original key: Doesn't matter....perfect recreation of patches, guitar tone, etc: Doesn't matter.....What DOES matter? Present the song (your way) with a lot of good energy, and ABSOLUTELY get the lyrics to the chorus right, because that's the part that they sing along with....anything else is simply US trying to justify all those music lessons Mom and Dad paid for (joking of course, but hopefully you get the idea).....

[KuruPrionz]

Just now, Bobbo Fett said:

If you're in a tribute band, people go to the show to experience a close as possible replication of the actual band. In a bar, in a cover band situation, people are there to drink, dance, maybe get a little in the parking lot....in other words, the "accuracy" of the band's interpretation of a song is pretty far down the list of things that matter to the average bar hopper on a Saturday night. Original key: Doesn't matter....perfect recration of patches, guitar tone, etc: Doesn't matter.....What DOES matter? Present the song (your way) with a lot of good energy, and ABSOLUTELY get the lyrics to the chorus right, because that's the part that they sing along with....anything else is simply US trying to justify all those music lessons Mom and Dad paid for (joking of course, but hopefully you get the idea).....

YES!!! The chorus is the part the audience sings along to and I will add that you just need a good groove so they can shake their rumps and party. 

[TommyRude]

I rely on AI to answer all my questions.  Here's what AI says... (generated in approx 1.5 sec)

*****

 

Opinions on whether to approach your old repertoire faithfully or playfully can vary depending on your personal artistic vision and goals. Both approaches have their merits, so it ultimately comes down to what you want to achieve with your music and what resonates with you as an artist. Here are some considerations to help you make a decision:

 

Faithful Approach:

1. Authenticity: If you value honoring the original sound and maintaining the essence of the songs you perform, a faithful approach allows you to stay true to the original artist's vision.
2. Nostalgia: Some audiences may appreciate hearing faithful renditions of familiar songs, as it can evoke nostalgia and create a sense of familiarity.
3. Recognition: Performing well-known songs in a faithful manner may make it easier for people to recognize and connect with your music, especially if they are fans of the original artist.

Playful Approach:

1. Creative Expression: Putting your personal flavor and interpretation on familiar songs allows you to showcase your own artistic style and creativity, making the music uniquely yours.
2. Innovation: By experimenting with different tempos, grooves, and arrangements, you can breathe new life into the songs and offer fresh perspectives to your audience.
3. Differentiation: In a saturated music landscape, a playful approach can help you stand out from other performers by offering something unique and unexpected.

Ultimately, there's no right or wrong answer. You could even choose a middle ground where you maintain the core elements of the songs while adding some playful twists and improvisation. It's important to consider your artistic goals, the preferences of your target audience, and your own creative fulfillment. Remember, the most important thing is to enjoy the process and create music that speaks to you and your listeners.

[TommyRude]

I went ahead and asked AI, "what are some of the risks and benefits for each approach?"  Here's what friendly AI had to say.

******

 

Certainly! Here are some potential risks and benefits associated with each approach:

 

Faithful Approach:

Risks:

1. Comparison: By striving for authenticity, you may invite direct comparisons to the original artist's performances, potentially putting pressure on you to match their level of skill and expertise.
2. Lack of Differentiation: A faithful approach might make it challenging for you to distinguish yourself from other tribute acts or artists who perform the songs in a similar manner.
3. Limited Artistic Expression: Strictly adhering to the original recordings may restrict your ability to express your own musical ideas and creativity.

Benefits:

1. Familiarity and Recognition: A faithful approach can create a sense of familiarity for audiences who are fans of the original artist, helping you connect with them on an emotional level.
2. Honoring the Original: By faithfully recreating the music, you pay homage to the original artist and their work, potentially appealing to fans who appreciate the authentic experience.
3. Technical Skill Showcase: Staying true to the note-for-note versions allows you to showcase your technical prowess and ability to replicate complex musical arrangements.

Playful Approach:

Risks:

1. Alienating Traditionalists: Deviating too far from the original versions may alienate audiences who prefer a more faithful rendition, particularly if they have a strong attachment to the original artist's sound.
2. Disconnection from the Source Material: If your playful approach strays too far from the original songs, it may become challenging for listeners to recognize and connect with the familiar melodies and lyrics.
3. Mixed Audience Reactions: Experimenting with new interpretations can elicit mixed responses from audiences, as some may appreciate the creative approach while others might prefer the familiarity of the original versions.

Benefits:

1. Artistic Expression and Individuality: A playful approach allows you to infuse your personal style, creativity, and musical ideas into the songs, giving them a fresh and unique twist.
2. Enhanced Engagement: By offering fresh arrangements and new grooves, you can captivate audiences and keep their attention throughout your performance, potentially leading to a more memorable experience.
3. Differentiation and Originality: Taking liberties with the songs can set you apart from other performers, enabling you to establish your own artistic identity and potentially attract a dedicated fanbase seeking a fresh take on familiar tunes.

Remember, these risks and benefits are not definitive, and they can vary depending on factors such as your target audience, the specific songs you're working with, and your own artistic vision. It's essential to find a balance that allows you to express yourself while also engaging and resonating with your listeners.

[Adan]

This question is a recurring theme on this forum.  Of course there's no right answer, there's only what works and what doesn't.  If you're joining or forming a cover band, it's crucial to get some kind of consensus on this foundational/philosophical issue.

 

I've been in tribute bands where authenticity was the priority.  I did it for the money, the friendships, and the women.  Now I'm married, pretty well set financially, and barely any time for friends while raising young children.  So at this point in my music career, slavish authenticity offers me nothing that I can use.

[surfergirl]

Currently all I'm doing is busking. I believe it depends on who your audience is. I can only speak to our situation. About 80% of our audience is tourists who come from Waikiki for the day, and we will likely never see them again. They're a mixed crowd age wise and where they are from. We have a mix of genres, 60's girl groups, country, pop/R&R and Hawaiian. We cycle through these and hope we catch someone's ear. We've been doing this for 2 months, and seems to be working. All of our songs are covers, and we put our own spin on them. 

[CowboyNQ]

I play in both tribute and cover bands.

 

IMO the answer to this question depends entirely upon the expectation of your audience, which if the band is marketed well, should match the “brand promise” of the outfit you play in.  

 

For those who look askance at those of us who play “just like the record”, I can assure you that the ability to do this and take the audience to an actual time and place in their lives is a serious and worthy craft.  It requires long hours of practice and patience.  A great deal of personal satisfaction can be derived from successfully executing a complex piece “authentically”.  I’m not good enough to play classical music professionally, but I imagine a classical musician might express similar thoughts.

 

I’m also going to address something here that no one in this thread has yet mentioned, but I see in the live scene often:  “We do our own interpretation” can frequently be code for “we can’t be bothered learning the song properly”.  I’m a great believer in people doing whatever pleases them, but I do get irked when an artist rationalises their lack of work ethic as being more musically worthy than the efforts of a tribute artist.

 

For example, the reason very few bands play the bass line  to Don’t Stop Believing, the transition to the upbeat section of Stairway to Heaven, or the introduction to Pink Floyd’s Time like the original artists has nothing to do with preserving one’s musical integrity.  
 

Live performances do not need to have been wholly or partially written by the performer to contain artistic merit, IMO.

[Docbop]

Don't like tribute bands they are like a lame musical to me.    Cover bands are cool because the good ones are putting themselves into the tunes.    Even the real/original bands over time change up the tunes to keep them fun to play.   

 

Back in my day the was the thing of supergroups created by the record companies, one of the biggest back then was a band called Bread.   Bread was studio cats and had a handful of hits.   One of gripes from reviewer of their concert was they were boring live because they sounded exactly like their records.   People don't go to a concert to hear what they can play on there record player at home.    Now people pay  to see imations because the real thing have raised ticket prices too much. 

[Tusker]

1 hour ago, Adan said:

This question is a recurring theme on this forum.  Of course there's no right answer, there's only what works and what doesn't. 

 

 +1

 

Personally I would mix it up. Perhaps alternate faithful and playful? Perhaps begin a song as faithful, then get playful, then return to faithful at the end?  Ask your audience what they think you should do. Tell them your friends can't agree. Make them a part of the game. Get them to cheer. See which team (faithful or playful) cheers louder. Have some fun with it.

[CowboyNQ]

1 hour ago, Adan said:

I've been in tribute bands where authenticity was the priority.  I did it for the money, the friendships, and the women.  

The women!  

 

Clearly I am in the wrong tribute bands…or just too darn unattractive.

 

NB:  I am also very happily married, so feel pleased not to have been vexed by this bothersome byproduct of slaving over my patches.

[timwat]

36 minutes ago, CowboyNQ said:

NB:  I am also very happily married, so feel pleased not to have been vexed by this bothersome byproduct of slaving over my patches.

Good save there!

[timwat]

Personally, I'm a fan of great tribute bands - I can see where it would take an admirable level of skill, musical talent, programming chops, patience and focus.  I know folks who play in very good best Beatles, Journey, Genesis, Steely Dan and other tributes, and the end product is astounding to me. But I've never been in one, and for a while now my day job precludes me ever taking on that level of commitment. 

 

There are certainly quite a few musicians who are just plain lazy. In any field of endeavor, the vast number of participants are just doing enough to get by, and sadly I find too many musicians who never rise above their present level of mediocrity to have a meaningful opinion on this question at hand...because they aren't choosing to "play it their way", they're resigned to that because they're unwilling to put in any higher level of effort, to CowboyNQ's very insightful point.

 

Others have chosen to invest that very high level of effort into other musical focus - perhaps they've invested their time pursuing excellence in classical or jazz or whatever, but not into tribute-level musical production. That should be acknowledged as a choice as well.

 

But yes, as noted by several, audiences, band purpose, and practical considerations usually answer this question. I don't play in any tribute bands, so we never seek to replicate the original recording. It's not required, and our efforts are invested in other musical areas. 

 

But my hat is off to those of you who tribute - and seeing Ian and The Musical Box, for example, is still on my to-do list.

 

[MathOfInsects]

It just depends on the gig, but I admit I get a little musically bored on straight cover gigs where they want to play like the recording. It feels like labor at every stage, particularly since keys usually have a lot of lifting to do on those gigs. 

Of course, there are certain riffs and other elements you generally need to keep holy, regardless of the nature of the gig. 

Tributes are completely different story--in that case I take the satisfaction @CowboyNQ mentions in "getting it right."

Cover gigs where we do live reinterpretation of the songs in real time? All day long. Very satisfying to me. 

[stoken6]

I'll add that there is a particular type of cover that I hate  - it's less prevalent on the live-band scene, but is all over Youtube.

 

The quiet, acoustic, slowed-down cover. Strummed cowboy chords, whispered wannab-Eilish vocals (perfectly Autotuned, of course), comments like "you bring a whole new meaning and depth to the song".

 

Do you though? 

 

No. No you don't, you really don't. You're just doing it slow and quiet. 

 

Cheers, Mike.