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

[KuruPrionz]

23 minutes ago, o0Ampy0o said:

Maybe OT: We were at the fair and my girlfriend wanted to see the Elvis impersonator show. I would have passed. It was one of the most enjoyable shows I have experienced. He did three sets. 1. Early Elvis. 2. Vegas Elvis. 3. Then did an oldies set. He even stayed in character handling an overly zealous drunken guy in the audience and everyone loved that especially. Later I found audio clips of him on his website (this was early internet and things were limited). He really did not sound like Elvis. But during his live performance I thought he sounded just like him. As an Impersonator/tribute act he had enough down that "good enough" was spectacular! and he had the confidence to act like Elvis might have when caught off guard.

I was in a Country cover band for 9 months and the male lead singer started his career as an Elvis impersonator when he was 9. A "child Elvis."

He wasn't a very good singer at all when we were doing Top 40 Country tunes. He could nail Elvis, we also played "Burnin" Love". 

[MathOfInsects]

4 hours ago, CowboyNQ said:

 tribute act sounds like the band they remember, know and love.  In their prime.

This is really the secret sauce regarding tribute bands: they present the possibility of an alternate timeline where the artists don't change or age or die...which means that by extension, the audience doesn't either, at least for a couple of hours. It's time travel. Even when it's camp (which it's usually not, but can be), you can't mock the willing. People like the fantasy that we're all still "back there."

[Piktor]

6 hours ago, CowboyNQ said:

 

I can promise you the only people in that audience who give two squirts about the keyboard patches are other keyboardists.  

While I generally don’t go out of my way to piss people off (a couple people here might disagree), I have to admit that once or twice when I was young, I did enjoy annoying some vocal and critical keyboard players by noticeably revising/reinterpreting parts and/or patches from well-known songs, while pretending to be serious about it. I mean, if a guy writes sticky notes and shares them with me during the breaks, that’s a bit much, right? So what if I changed a note or two in the “Dancing in the Dark” riff? 😁

 

I can appreciate the detailed work that it takes to nail multiple, involved parts faithfully. Doing that is admirable, but less interesting to me now. If I needed to pay off a mortgage, I would probably reassess my attitude. I also think that there is a difference between reinterpreting a song with a thoughtful, personal and creative arrangement, versus applying a looser, more improvisatory approach. Either could work, but if the performers in the latter setting are not sensitive and supportive listeners and players, that isn’t much fun to listen to. 
 

To each his own, according to their circumstances. 

 

 

[Spider76]

11 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

This is really the secret sauce regarding tribute bands: they present the possibility of an alternate timeline where the artists don't change or age or die...which means that by extension, the audience doesn't either, at least for a couple of hours. It's time travel. Even when it's camp (which it's usually not, but can be), you can't mock the willing. People like the fantasy that we're all still "back there."

 

Exactly my point, and why I compared tribute bands to classical music. Maybe I couldn't explain myself clearly (English is not my native language), but what I meant is that it's the only way to see and listen an act that doesn't exist anymore, it doesn't matter if we're talking about a composer who's been dead for 300 years, or a contemporary band that simply split last week and will never play live again.

 

19 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

Composers (...) almost always heard the work the first time themselves when others performed it. The art of composition in the classical style was literally the art of writing for others (hence dynamics, tempo, and other markings). 

 

Yes, but the original composer usually had control over the interpretation, at least when the work was first presented. Either he played it himself if it was a solo piece, or he directed the orchestra. Either way, the audience witnessed what was the original spirit of the composition direct from the composer, something that nowadays we can only try to guess and reconstruct from sheet music, historical accounts, letters etc.

 

12 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

Point being, Classical music is profoundly different than pop music. 

 

I think the main difference, apart obviously from the different styles and different epochs, is the medium.

Back in the day, sheet music was the only way to communicate between musicians and share their music. Sheet music was the mp3, VHS, Spotify and recording studio of the era. Apart from the fleeting moment of live performance, which was something very lucky few could experience, sheet music was ALL music. If you didn't live in a big city and/or couldn't afford to go to a concert hall, your only way of enjoying a piece of music was to read the sheet music and play it yourself.

 

Since the invention of audio playback, it is just more practical for the musician to go into the studio, play, record, save the good bits, rearrange and process them to various degrees, and come up with the final work.

And more practical for the listener to just, well, listen, without needing to be a musician in the first place. This has made sheet music almost obsolete, almost a technicality for pros and semi-pros. But most musicians can play, learn songs, perfom live and record albums without using sheet music.

 

That's why I said that in my opinion, there's not much difference between a classical musician playing a 300 years-old repertoire and a tribute band. The music genre, the medium, the target audiences may be different, but I think the essential purpose is the same when you consider the historical differences.

This is my personal opinion of course, and I have no idea if it's an academically orthodox theory . But I think it makes at least some sense.

[Spider76]

19 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

Just to clarify, in reverse order: that is 100% not what "conservatory" means. A "conservatory" was an orphanage; those being saved, were the ones who were conserved. The word has nothing to do with "conserving" the way "the original composer played it."

 

Wow, I admit I had no idea that the original "conservatories" were Italian orphanages where street kids were given some education and taught some jobs, among them music... and I'm Italian, now I'm REALLY ashamed of my ignorance!

 

I was told a looooong time ago by my parents (non musicians, of course) that the conservatory was about "conserving" past music, and honestly I've been too lazy to ever investigate the origin of the name 😓

Thanks for the history lesson, I learned something new today!

[KuruPrionz]

52 minutes ago, Spider76 said:

I think the main difference, apart obviously from the different styles and different epochs, is the medium.

Back in the day, sheet music was the only way to communicate between musicians and share their music. Sheet music was the mp3, VHS, Spotify and recording studio of the era. Apart from the fleeting moment of live performance, which was something very lucky few could experience, sheet music was ALL music. If you didn't live in a big city and/or couldn't afford to go to a concert hall, your only way of enjoying a piece of music was to read the sheet music and play it yourself.

"Back in the day" there were MANY people who shared songs and playing styles by play together live and in person. Sheet music existed but it was not the only way to communicate between musicians and share their music. Far from it. 

 

Blues would not exist if it could only be played by reading sheet music. Neither would Jazz or Folk music. These 3 styles are the basis for American popular music. 

 

This is to say nothing of the music of other places on our planet. The European Tempered Scale was made a standard for keyboards but it is by no means the "be all, end all".

[harmonizer]

I don't think there is any set answer.

What is the reason your band members chose to play together in the band you are a part of?

Our covers band is really trying to have fun, but also make sure that the songs that are fun for us to play are also songs our audience wants to hear.

We don't always choose the most popular song from an artist, but we usually pick songs that people have heard before and will recognize.

Usually we try to stay pretty close to the original because that's what we feel like doing.

 

 

[Spider76]

3 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

"Back in the day" there were MANY people who shared songs and playing styles by play together live and in person. Sheet music existed but it was not the only way to communicate between musicians and share their music. Far from it. 

 

Blues would not exist if it could only be played by reading sheet music. Neither would Jazz or Folk music. These 3 styles are the basis for American popular music. 

 

This is to say nothing of the music of other places on our planet. The European Tempered Scale was made a standard for keyboards but it is by no means the "be all, end all".

My "back in the day" referred to the times of classical music, before the US even existed.

And I am from one of those weird "other" places on Earth where music is not just "endless noodling on a pentatonic". 🙃

Sorry, but that's how blues is seen in the rest of the world. And I LOVE blues, it sounds so exotic compared to waltzes, polkas or the eastern European music that is our "folk" music! 😂

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, Spider76 said:

My "back in the day" referred to the times of classical music, before the US even existed.

And I am from one of those weird "other" places on Earth where music is not just "endless noodling on a pentatonic". 🙃

Sorry, but that's how blues is seen in the rest of the world. And I LOVE blues, it sounds so exotic compared to waltzes, polkas or the eastern European music that is our "folk" music! 😂

Which is why I mentioned "Folk Music". 

There were folk songs thousands of years ago, from all over the world. Europe is historically important but it is not the only place where music was and is played. 

A study of history shows it is difficult (maybe impossible) to find a culture that did not have music. 

[HSS]

3 hours ago, Spider76 said:

My "back in the day" referred to the times of classical music, before the US even existed.

And I am from one of those weird "other" places on Earth where music is not just "endless noodling on a pentatonic". 🙃

Sorry, but that's how blues is seen in the rest of the world. And I LOVE blues, it sounds so exotic compared to waltzes, polkas or the eastern European music that is our "folk" music! 😂

FWIW...  My brother-in-law is from and still lives in Uzbekistan and doesn't speak English (or any Western language other than a little Russian). He tactfully told me a few years ago, via translation, that Western / European music sounds like noise to him. Of course, being a proud Murican, I jokingly replied via translation that his native Uzbek music was weird and out-of-tune sounding to me. We then laughed and pounded down our beers.

 

Sorry for wandering OT, which I'm prone to do in my dotage. 

[MathOfInsects]

3 hours ago, Spider76 said:

My "back in the day" referred to the times of classical music, before the US even existed.

This gets a little slippery. The period of classical music you were referring to, with Beethoven and Mozart, is literally the Classical Era. That spanned roughly 1750-1825. The US became an independent nation in 1776--much closer to the beginning of this period than to the end. But before it was an independent nation called the United States, it had nearly a two-century long run as British colonies. So it actually predates even the birth of Bach by nearly 100 years.

 

[o0Ampy0o]

20 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

Classical music is profoundly different than pop music. 

Technically you could say, "Classical music is profoundly different than pop music as we know it today."

 

However, Classical music has actually been pop music during a period of its existence. This, if you define "pop" as popular. Maybe Pop is the appropriate distinction?

[KuruPrionz]

23 minutes ago, o0Ampy0o said:

Technically you could say, "Classical music is profoundly different than pop music as we know it today."

 

However, Classical music has actually been pop music during a period of its existence. This, if you define "pop" as popular. Maybe Pop is the appropriate distinction?

True, there was a time and a place. 

Although, I'm not sure how "popular" it really was because only a select few could attend concerts. The common people had to make do with lesser forms of entertainment. 

[o0Ampy0o]

Within certain groups and classifications there is popularity.

 

Taking a broader view they printed more money and there has been growing opportunity to be exposed to information in the meantime so you could say the lowest common denominator has been elevated and the common people have more knowledge and ability to access a higher level standard of things.

 

I recall when Wall Street was released. Charlie Sheen and Daryl Hannah are setting up Sheen's kitchen with appliances like food processors, blenders, espresso maker, etc. That scene was designed to mark a pivotal elevation in the Sheen character's life. It was only a few years later before those appliances were common in most households but they were reserved for the more affluent at the time, William Sonoma level. Macy's also carried some such things but was more of a higher end store in those days.  Then Bed, Bath & Beyond, Target, K-Mart and Walmart have since offered it all.

[Spider76]

13 hours ago, HSS said:

FWIW...  My brother-in-law is from and still lives in Uzbekistan... tactfully told me a few years ago, via translation, that Western / European music sounds like noise to him.

Hahaha exactly.

I'm from Trieste, in the extreme northeast corner of Italy which is a melting pot of Mediterranean, Austro-hungarian and Slavic cultures.

My Serbian friends tell me that for them is REALLY difficult to play in 4/4, they have to practice real hard because they just can't "hear" music in even time signatures!

 

Ok, the topic has definitely gone awry,  from a fairly simple matter to philosophical questions about the whole history of musical languages all over the world. I plead guilty for contributing to that, now back to discussing the pros and cons of cover bands! 😅

[octa]

Own stank, if possible. 

 

K.D. Lang once commissioned a band I was in to record a different version of one of her tunes, using just her original vocals. We did it exactly like her version, maybe a little slicker. She didn't respond when we sent it in. It was long ago and I was just the shy keyboard player and the newest addition to band. Wish we could redo that one, with some of our stank on it. 

 

Have been occasionally recording some covers with some old friends. (a memorial album for another too-soon-deceased old friend) They are trying their best to do faithful versions, but luckily we aren't too good at that hehe. The stank is stinking and it's turning out to be a pretty cool lp. 

 

The Musical Box (mentioned earlier in thread) would be an exception. I'd like to see their faithful recreations of PG Genesis albums sometime. That material could fit into several genres including classical. 

[Stokely]

Hope I'm remembering right, and that its true, but I recall that the Talking Heads keyboardist purposefully didn't listen to the original "Take me to the River" because he wanted to put his own spin on it.  Granted, that's the Talking Heads and not Midnite Delite playing covers at the local lounge  

[ProfD]

3 hours ago, Spider76 said:

My Serbian friends tell me that for them is REALLY difficult to play in 4/4, they have to practice real hard because they just can't "hear" music in even time signatures!

That's sad and unfortunate.  The Funk and music that brings people closer together lives in 4/4.😁😎

[TommyRude]

On the faithful side of things, thankfully this band is simultaneously faithful to Reggae, Led Zeppelin and Elvis. 

 

[TommyRude]

here's a cover with a little stank

 

[MathOfInsects]

I also want to say that even within the "tribute" context there is room for individualized approaches. I run a side project that does the music of Pink Floyd not as as tribute band, but more as a "tribute to"; it's just "musicians playing music." Everyone in the band has come through or is still in one or another higher-profile West Coast Pink Floyd tribute bands, so it's not that we just can't be arsed to learn the source material. Quite the opposite: we love this stuff and want more people to hear and enjoy it.

 

I've found that once the audience leaves the arms-crossed "let's see how well they nail this" land and comes over to, "Let's see what they do with this" land, good things happen there.

This is from a show last week. I had the crazy idea to do "Goodbye Blue Sky" as an a capella number, or close to it. I think that song is Pink Floyd's "Blackbird." It's a slightly deeper cut but I think it's massively underrated. In the end the guest singer used a guitar, but the effect was the same.

You can hear the soundman say "Oh wow" at the beginning. (Then later you can hear someone try to deliver some french fries to him.) 

We had a rapper in the middle of a couple of songs too. Funny enough, all the "break from the cannon" moments were the ones people mentioned after the fact as the highlights; at a certain point people actually seemed slightly less interested in the versions that were closest to the original recordings and more intrigued in what the "show" was about.
 

 

[CowboyNQ]

This is a great version @MathOfInsects! Kudos to you and your team.

 

Songs from The Wall do tend to lend themselves to different arrangement approaches, due to the fact the album was so dense in the way many of the songs were layered.  My feeling is people watching a live (say) six-piece band will understand that natural limitations are imposed by the number of musicians on stage, provided the band still manage a great job of executing the emotional intent of the original.  

 

A case in point - here’s us having a crack at “Vera”.  Very much our own arrangement.

 

When PF toured this album in 1980 they relied heavily on backing tracks and a boatload of musicians.  It was the first time they really tried to make their songs sound “just like the record” (ish) in a live setting.  The tour infamously lost a heap of money due to its ambitious production goals.

[MathOfInsects]

14 minutes ago, CowboyNQ said:

This is a great version @MathOfInsects! Kudos to you and your team.

 

Songs from The Wall do tend to lend themselves to different arrangement approaches, due to the fact the album was so dense in the way many of the songs were layered.  My feeling is people watching a live (say) six-piece band will understand that natural limitations are imposed by the number of musicians on stage, provided the band still manage a great job of executing the emotional intent of the original.  

 

A case in point - here’s us having a crack at “Vera”.  Very much our own arrangement.

 

When PF toured this album in 1980 they relied heavily on backing tracks and a boatload of musicians.  It was the first time they really tried to make their songs sound “just like the record” (ish) in a live setting.  The tour infamously lost a heap of money due to its ambitious production goals.

Gorgeous.

[El Lobo]

My main band usually rehearses 3 or 4 new songs before each gig, then we try them out and see which ones stay on the set list and which ones don't. At the gig, all songs are adapted in the moment in response to audience response. Yesterday's gig: we added Certain Girl, Nothing But A House Party, Polk Salad Annie, a rearranged Money (closer to Barrett Strong version in recognition of his passing). Audience dancing and sing along participation made us extend some in the moment, add more choruses, emphasize horn parts. Money is corny cliché frat-rock but audience loved it and sang along. Polk Salad and House Party went over great and we'll work those into bigger and better arrangements. We did a great version of Certain Girl, faithful to the Ernie K-Doe original recording. I love that Allen Toussaint song but it probably won't survive on the set list. Nobody danced, I think a few people recognized it, but it's not a rave-up like House Party. We've been doing Right Place, Wrong Time which is a killer song, funky as you wanna be. It gets pretty good response but I don't know if it will survive on the set list because it doesn't get as good a response as it deserves. The point: all cover songs are re-arranged in live performance.

[Iconoclast]

Does it sound like you're cheating?  That's my razor.  Did you just not try to get the vibe that made the original a song you wanted to copy?

If you headed in a completely different direction, then cool! if it works.

In summary, don't get caught in the middle. Either sound like you made a professional effort to capture the original emotion of the song, or take it in a different direction, but don't sound like a lazy version of a popular song.

I do love it when an iconic riff or solo is played very close to the original, but I also love the artist who takes you somewhere unexpected, even if it arrives at the same destination.