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

[EricBarker]

Stank.

I've got a good day job, and did my time in the trenches making money in a dance covers band. Loved it, but been there done that, and don't really need it in my life. I like dropping some covers in my originals bands, but make them my own. I like to do non-traditional arrangements, switch up instruments, maybe switch up genre. I feel like there's an "Uncanny Valley" issues with covers. Either replicate it as close as possible (though I've always felt audiences care less than musicians think) OR completely change it and show how it sounds in a new light. I've done "Sweet Dreams" for years as a Stride Piano number, and people love it. If you're a dance band primarily playing covers in a bar, just play the tune straight with good energy and close-enough sounds, and you'll be fine. I do think every band should develop its own sound and be somewhat consistent over the night. If you're bouncing between 60s and 90s tunes, don't completely change guitar amps wildly between songs, consistency is more important than closeness to the original. The night will feel smoother in the long run.

But as I said, done that. Rather make it my own these days. If audiences don't like as much, they can go listen to the OG. But my current band is mostly an "original" band, so the audience shouldn't be coming out expecting to hear anything they've heard before. When I pull out familiar melodies, that's candy enough.

[CEB]

There is making a cover your own. There is also jacking with a tune because you aren’t good enough to learn the source material correctly. 

[niacin]

Depends on the gig.  Like Eric I've done Sweet Dreams as a stride number, also Black or White as a N.O. rumba, and so on.  Check out Postmodern Jukebox or Scary Pockets.  As a solo or duo I'd definitely be doing my own thing.

 

[D. Gauss]

 

[Krakit]

12 minutes ago, D. Gauss said:

 

Interestingly enough I watched DEVO performing with Neil Young on Hey Hey My My just this afternoon

 

[TommyRude]

I like to play this one faithfully, exactly as the record

 

 

OK.. I lied.  In a million years I could not play this. Fortunately we have Bruce, a treasure.

[bill5]

There's no right answer here. I respect a faithful exact recreation, but personally for me I'd far rather hear a cover done at least a little differently. 

[nursers]

4 hours ago, bill5 said:

There's no right answer here. I respect a faithful exact recreation, but personally for me I'd far rather hear a cover done at least a little differently. 

Agreed, depends on context. I love a bit of both. If my cover band is playing Jump, I'll try to match the sound as close as possible. But then we do Boys of Summer and we are doing The Ataris version so all bets are off.

 

Then there's the whole market for being as close as possible (although I don't think the keys sound is at all close):

 

 

 

[Spider76]

The OP's question is a bit moot because he'll be busking as a solo act, so obviously it won't be possible to recreate the songs as the record.

 

17 hours ago, timwat said:

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. 

 

There are certainly quite a few musicians who are just plain lazy.

...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

 

15 hours ago, CEB said:

There is making a cover your own. There is also jacking with a tune because you aren’t good enough to learn the source material correctly. 

 

In general, I agree with Tim and the others who essentially said "Reinterpreting the song can be a great way to inject your own artistry and creativity...but mostly will be an excuse for not being able to play it as it is (or not wanting to put in the effort)"

 

I don't consider myself an artist. I like to say I'm an artisan of music. It may be because I started with classical music, but I just LOVE playing covers note by note, recreating all the sounds, studying the arrangements etc. Why? Because it's the best music school you'll ever get. I have no ambition to be better and more creative than John Lennon, Prince, Bob Dylan or whoever. I know I'm not. So I don't see creating my own version as "making it my own". I call it "ruining the song".

 

People can say that "verbatim covers are stale, you can just as well listen to the record, those songs have been played to death", yada yada. But this doesn't change the fact that if these songs are so famous, it's because they were written and played by world-class artists that made the history of music.

I am not one of them and neither are, I suspect, any of my musical acquaintances. What's so bad in studying the masters? I find it hilarious that we make this argument for pop and rock covers, but not for classical music which is the very definition of "tribute band".

Everybody respects classical musicians because they put in a ton of effort to be able to play such a difficult repertoire.

So why don't we give the same credit to bands who are able to play Genesis, Queen or Beatles note for note?

Most of all, why don't we say aloud that -barring notable exceptions- the ones who DON'T play note for note are not romantic geniuses, but are simply not good enough?

 

I think the role of tribute bands is the same as that of classical musicians: perpetuate the legacy of great composers and performers for the future generations, giving them a chance to experience it live (not just on records and videos) and avoiding that it is lost in time.

 

That said, there is surely space for everyone and I actually love a good cover done by a real artist, that gives new blood to an old song. But I'm also quite critical and recognise that those covers are extremely rare (think Hendrix-Dylan, Buckley-Cohen, etc), while the vast majority of what you can hear online and in live venues is amateurish rubbish.

[stoken6]

8 minutes ago, Spider76 said:

Everybody respects classical musicians because they put in a ton of effort to be able to play such a difficult repertoire.

Quoted for emphasis. In the classical world, simplifications and arrangements exist, as well as reinterpretations ("...based on a theme by..."), but there is no shade aimed at the New York Philharmonic's note-for-note performance of Beethoven's Choral Symphony under Karajan (to take an - admittedly impressive - example) as "just a cover".

 

Cheers, Mike.

[cphollis]

1 hour ago, stoken6 said:

Quoted for emphasis. In the classical world, simplifications and arrangements exist, as well as reinterpretations ("...based on a theme by..."), but there is no shade aimed at the New York Philharmonic's note-for-note performance of Beethoven's Choral Symphony under Karajan (to take an - admittedly impressive - example) as "just a cover".

 

Cheers, Mike.

 

Fair enough, you shouldn't be changing many notes when you're performing Beethoven or Chopin -- but you still can interpret it!  Tempo, dynamics, etc.   Learning the material is tough, granted.  But the real artistry comes out when you put your own mark on it, which takes an ungodly amount of effort.

[Stokely]

Case in point for me, for whatever reason our singer wants to add Brandy (and I think this is not a bad idea since everyone that didn't already knows it after Guardians of the Galaxy 2, which had a story point about it being the best song ever written iirc   ).   Lots of horns in there.  I'm pretty sure I won't be playing those, as the RoC (Risk of Cheese) factor is high--instead I'll see how organ sounds playing that "role".   It's partly a lazy decision, since to get those horn parts right would be more work than just throwing in organ chords.    Obviously there's also the electric piano as well, which I'll play pretty much as I hear it.   Alternatively, I might consider strings instead of horns since those (IMO) can blend a bit better.  We'll see, first gig playing it is Saturday at a low-pressure, not-full (based on last time) bar where we are more background.   Other new ones for that night are Lido Shuffle--where I actually do play horns with organ layering, as they are more static pads/stabs than on Brandy--and Summer Breeze  Yep, Seals and Croft, don't like it you can throw fruit.

 

[Adan]

I like both Postmodern jukebox and Scary Pockets, but what's notable about both is they are using diifferent lead vocals and different musicians for each session.  There's more challenge involved in coming up with your own variations when it's just you, or you and the same other cats.  

 

Watching Scary or Postmodern always gives me ideas for how to take a tune somewhere unexpected.  Not copying them at all, but rather in the sense of locating the DNA of a tune that should stay identifiable, the rest being up for grabs to change.

[Lou Gehrig Charles]

11 minutes ago, Stokely said:

Other new ones for that night are Lido Shuffle (where I actually do play horns with organ layering) and Summer Breeze  Yep, Seals and Croft, don't like it you can throw fruit.

I'd like to hear that.  Summer Breeze is a favorite of mine!  Every time I hear it I flash back to being 8 years old enjoying that last summer before we packed up and moved from our childhood home.

[Krakit]

31 minutes ago, Lou Gehrig Charles said:

I'd like to hear that.  Summer Breeze is a favorite of mine!  Every time I hear it I flash back to being 8 years old enjoying that last summer before we packed up and moved from our childhood home.

 

[Stokely]

LOL holy cow that is funny   

 

Ironically that band there would be a better fit for where we are playing Saturday.  It's one of those "hope we aren't interrupting their drinking too much" kind of joints, other than any friends of the band that might show up to listen and dance     And no, I don't take a ride on the stripper pole, although the wait staff and other patrons have been known to...

Lead singer definitely has that "things you tried when you were 14 but now are middle-aged and really shouldn't" look going...

[MathOfInsects]

The comparison to classical music really doesn't hold up. Classical repertoire's "original" version is what's on the page, not any specific recording or performance. And it sells short the art of interpreting that page, to claim all the performances are the same. You might as well say the same about a play, right? Is every subsequent performance a copy of the first one, or is it up to the artists (director, actors) to bring life to what's on the page in the way that matches their own relationship with and vision for it? (The answer is the latter. Same with classical performances.)

This is a constant calibration, it really just depends on the band and the situation. For a straight-cover band playing bars, they probably want to stay close to the recording that people know the best. This is still a bit of a fudge, since the singer won't sound like the original singer, so it's then a question of whether you want the band to be live-band karaoke under a singer who sounds different from the original, or if you want everyone playing to their strengths. In my mind, it points out everyone's shortcomings to try too hard to sound like the original, unless you're really nailing it...which you're probably not. It would often be better to make very clear you know and honor the original, while ensuring everyone is at their best, whatever that takes. 

[Stokely]

A lot (most?) album recordings have layers and overdubs that you aren't going to pull off short of tracks (which I will not use).  Sure there are exceptions, like older Rush where the taurus bass pedals played under the synth parts, because Geddy wasn't going to be able to do both at the same time.   Trying to do everything well can be worse than picking the "essence" and nailing it IMO.  We all have to do that with Superstition's clav part, right, because it was like six different parts doing less but adding up to more.

I've never actually been to see a tribute act (the whole idea kind of turns me off, I'd rather see a cover band do a variety of material honestly) but it must be a different type of audience than I'm used to if they actually get down to the point of caring about keyboard patches.  That would be a first for me  

[Spider76]

1 hour ago, MathOfInsects said:

Classical repertoire's "original" version is what's on the page

The original versions are how the original composer played it 😉

And that's why we're here talking about "conservatories", because that's exactly what they are: centers for the conservation of something that can only be perpetuated by practice and oral tradition, as no record of the originals exists anymore.

 

But "classical" music is a modern invention. It was just "music" at the time. Beethoven became famous by destroying other pianists in cutting contests. Mozart was probably the biggest rockstar who ever lived. They played for royals and popes as well as for the masses, just like Elton John can play for the Queen today and in Las Vegas tomorrow.

 

1 hour ago, MathOfInsects said:

And it sells short the art of interpreting that page, to claim all the performances are the same. 

I never remotely suggested that. Of course every performance can be wildly different - even when played by the original artists.

But still, I see a difference between trying to comprehend and interpret how some genius musicians and producers refined a unique arrangement in weeks or months of work... or just downloading the chords and lyrics from ultimateguitar and strumming along with it, claiming I'm "making the song my own"

[Adan]

My "thing that I hate" is mashups.  Give me the song, the whole song, maybe an interpretation of the song, but please, just the song.  Not a splicing together with several other songs.  Super Diamond has made a lucrative career of mashing it up.  They've got to be one of the most popular and lucrative cover/tribute bands in history.  They sound great and are super-talented.  I just don't want to hear 8 measures of Led Zepplin the middle of Sweet Caroline.  I don't think it's creative, I think it diminishes both songs.  But obviously there are legions of folks who disagree with me.

[Stokely]

We do a bit of mashups but not such disparate material.  In the middle of funky music we'd extend it by having our drummer at the time rap over Rapper's delight, Ice ice baby and a few others while the bass kept doing the riff.  He left and we can't rap so we instead play a few other tunes in E.  I think that's the only mashup we do.  We attempted a pretty awful mix of All Right Now into White Room and back again once..

Mostly though we do segue between full songs to eliminate down time.  I think a little mashup goes a long way and I agree can easily be one of those things where the band thinks more highly of it than the audiences (extended solos, especially with nobody else playing, on any instrument being the top of that list for me personally...)

[TommyRude]

46 minutes ago, Adan said:

My "thing that I hate" is mashups.  

I love mashups.  Especially when they are very complementary style wise, great wholesome family fun!

 

[Docbop]

Even Classical music the big names all put themselves into how they performed the pieces how they interpret tempo, phrasing, dynamics, and etc same goes for conductors.   Notation isn't an exact it's a sketch because of the limitations of notation.   We have no idea how Bach, Beethoven, et. al. sounded because there was no form of recording so it was all word of mouth left behind.   Once recording became available then we could start to he the composer play or conduct their work.   

 

When I listen to music I what to hear the person interpretation not someone trying to parroting someone else.  One of the things I like about Jazz is many name artists have favorite tunes they have been playing their whole career like Miles Davis and Autumn Leaves,  Coltrane and My Favorite Things, it so interesting to hear over the years how they change how they play the songs.  You can hear their stages of evolution.    

 

Funny people talk about tributes bands and trying to be a Xerox copy of <fill in the blank>  I remember seeing BeatleMania when it first came to L.A. and it was okay.  It was more about the memories it triggered than the music being exact.   I later got o know the guitarist who play George.   Back then guitarists talked about the Beatles the "special" guitar voicing they used on some songs, so when I was talking to the guy about BeatleMania I asked he if they were given any charts with voicings are other info.    He laughed and said they gave each of us a song list  at stack of  albums and told learn them the best you can.   After BeatleMania the guy formed his own band had a huge hit record that still pops up on playlists now and then.   A55h0le borrowed my DI and never returned it. <grin>

[ProfD]

This thread is indicative that there is no one size fits all approach for musicians.

 

Hopefully, the takeaway from this thread is striving to find your lane as a musician. 

 

Sharpen and utilize your skillset to become proficient in whatever role you choose to play as a musician. 😎

[Krakit]

I remain of two minds on this. On the one hand I have always enjoyed recreating as faithful to studio recording performance as I could. It offers challenges that are unlike anything else. 

 

But, I like to be free to make my own decisions and take my own approaches too. 

 

I guess this is how it will always be. 

[MathOfInsects]

2 hours ago, Spider76 said:

The original versions are how the original composer played it 😉

And that's why we're here talking about "conservatories", because that's exactly what they are: centers for the conservation of something that can only be perpetuated by practice and oral tradition, as no record of the originals exists anymore.

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."

But to that point...I'm not sure you really mean this, right? Composers wrote for a variety of contexts--for choirs, for soloists, for operatic singers, for entire symphonies, in Wagner's case for instruments that had yet even to be manufactured, in halls yet even to be conceived or built. They 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). It is in the repeated and different interpretations of those compositions, that such music is kept alive and relevant. In fact, a soloist or entire symphony being "too careful" would be a pan against a performance, not a review in support of it. The interpretation is the point.

 

More to the point, though...the songs we hear on the radio didn't sound like that either, when their composers wrote them. That's many iterations later, and captures a moment in time in the ongoing progression of that song. It's definitely the best-known moment, but may have next to nothing to do with how the original songwriter wrote or played it.

If you've ever played the song "Valerie" on a gig, you've heard someone clarify that they mean (for example) the Amy Winehouse version, not the Zutons version. Neither one of those sounds like how it was originally composed. But both are great and also different versions of that same song. 

The mark of a song's quality has always been the way it can stand up to repeated different interpretations. The reason "Yesterday" is (or was) the world's most-recorded song, is not because tens of thousands of people played it the way the recorded version sounded, but precisely because it remains a beautiful song practically no matter how someone performs it. 

I still think cover bands in "cover-band situations" probably need to keep close to the best-known recorded versions. But I think the comparison to classical music just doesn't hold up, or at least not in the intended way. 

[o0Ampy0o]

"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" ~Lloyd Bentsen

 

When/if you get that far you can do it however your heart desires.

 

FWIW, from an audience POV I like the jam band approach like Gov't Mule. I don't like Warren Haynes's voice but it doesn't matter. Other than Gov't Mule and Allman Brothers songs he doesn't attempt to replicate anything. It is Gov't Mule doing someone's song. I like hearing them play songs I like. I think "that is a good song to do" and I can enjoy it.

 

If you are going to aim at "exact," hope you get everything as good as the original band with a replacement singer (Foreigner, Journey). (They don't do "exact" but you as they do could do it like they would do it live). Close causes people to compare you to the original. It isn't just doing the song. There is a lot of vibe required. The real deal has developed a polish from performing so much to an audience that is comprised at least partially of fans familiar, welcoming and responsive which leads to confidence. Would you be at your best without a favorable audience's contribution? Without the vibe you might do it perfectly but I wonder whether the audience would listen with their ears or go by overall senses. Cover band or tribute band, one of the greatest hurdles is that fact that you are a stand in and not a real deal.  I apologize if it offensive saying it. You could be 1,000,000,000 times the musician that any great famous hit machine is. ❤️

[CowboyNQ]

@Stokely - “I've never actually been to see a tribute act (the whole idea kind of turns me off, I'd rather see a cover band do a variety of material honestly) but it must be a different type of audience than I'm used to if they actually get down to the point of caring about keyboard patches.  That would be a first for me”

 

Sorry mate the “quote” widget failed!  Some thoughts on this below:

80% of a tribute audience is seriously in love with the band being paid tribute to.  The other 20% are partners or friends who have been coerced into coming along and may have some casual familiarity with the band.

 

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

What the audience does care about is that the tribute act sounds like the band they remember, know and love.  In their prime.  The musicians I work with spend a good deal of time making sure this goal is achieved as a collective.  Of course that requires getting patches close enough, but it’s not the patch, it’s the effort of the collective that creates the illusion the audience is chasing.  
 

And it is an illusion.  I could give you multiple examples where audience members have thought certain things were “exact” that weren’t.  However for the audience to be able to mentally colour in these gaps themselves, a good deal of what’s played must be as they remember it, or the magic spell is broken.

[o0Ampy0o]

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.

[KuruPrionz]

13 hours ago, Spider76 said:

People can say that "verbatim covers are stale, you can just as well listen to the record, those songs have been played to death", yada yada. But this doesn't change the fact that if these songs are so famous, it's because they were written and played by world-class artists that made the history of music.

I am not one of them and neither are, I suspect, any of my musical acquaintances. What's so bad in studying the masters? I find it hilarious that we make this argument for pop and rock covers, but not for classical music which is the very definition of "tribute band".

Everybody respects classical musicians because they put in a ton of effort to be able to play such a difficult repertoire.

So why don't we give the same credit to bands who are able to play Genesis, Queen or Beatles note for note?

Most of all, why don't we say aloud that -barring notable exceptions- the ones who DON'T play note for note are not romantic geniuses, but are simply not good enough?

When Beethoven wrote a symphony, he had every note for every instrument charted on paper. Then, an orchestra could play it. 

When George Harrison decided to play 12 string electric guitar on A Hard Days Night, there was no chart to indicate that decision. He did it primarily because Rickenbacker gave him the 12 string guitar and he though it would sound good. There was no music notation for that song until it became a hit and there was another way to monetize it. 

 

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