Simplifying parts: heresy or a valid option?

[Jose EB5AGV]

As you know by now, I am a late starter on this game who wants to up his game. So my usual playing on covers, besides the occasional intro or outro, is mainly chords, adding some rhythm to them (I tend to play the root with the left hand, just an octave below middle and a proper inversion on the right, around the middle octave, and combine them on a rhythmic or arpeggiated fashion, depending on song and moment)

 

But sometimes I play just chord on left and then the right hand, using other sound on the splitted keyboard, plays another part of the original song, which usually has plenty of different sounds going on the studio record, so I try to cover things that are not played by other band members (sax and guitar). Usually, those are accessory parts which, if missing, the song is still perfectly acceptable. But, you know, we strive for perfection! 😅

 

So my question is: if my playing is still not up to par to play exactly that part, is reasonable to play a simplified one, or is better to wait until I can play it exactly as recorded?

 

Just yesterday night, while practicing I found one of those auxiliary synth parts and, to me, my version sounded just fine. But was not the orthodox part, so to say. Of course I am talking of secondary parts, not the riffs which everyone knows and would easily notice being different.

 

Your opinion? 🤔

 

Thanks!

 

Jose

[J.F.N.]

3 hours ago, Jose EB5AGV said:

As you know by now, I am a late starter on this game who wants to up his game. So my usual playing on covers, besides the occasional intro or outro, is mainly chords, adding some rhythm to them (I tend to play the root with the left hand, just an octave below middle and a proper inversion on the right, around the middle octave, and combine them on a rhythmic or arpeggiated fashion, depending on song and moment)

 

But sometimes I play just chord on left and then the right hand, using other sound on the splitted keyboard, plays another part of the original song, which usually has plenty of different sounds going on the studio record, so I try to cover things that are not played by other band members (sax and guitar). Usually, those are accessory parts which, if missing, the song is still perfectly acceptable. But, you know, we strive for perfection! 😅

 

So my question is: if my playing is still not up to par to play exactly that part, is reasonable to play a simplified one, or is better to wait until I can play it exactly as recorded?

 

Just yesterday night, while practicing I found one of those auxiliary synth parts and, to me, my version sounded just fine. But was not the orthodox part, so to say. Of course I am talking of secondary parts, not the riffs which everyone knows and would easily notice being different.

 

Your opinion? 🤔

 

Thanks!

 

Jose

 

I would say it depends on the importance for the song, and to some point the ambition of the band you're with. Some parts may be less important to spend graveyard time to master, while with others it may be worth it, and sometimes right out necessary.

 

Your good judgement totally (and the band's..).

 

Most importantly - Have fun and don't be a stranger to challenge yourself, this is what helps you evolve!!

[Baldwin Funster]

I play something as good as I can. When I can play it better, I do that.  If I waited to play something until I could play it exactly like some version exactly on a record, I probably would never end up playing anything. 

[JamPro]

For me, it depends on the song, who I'm doing that song with, and the where and when context.

 

By myself, I play a lot of classical piano music.  In this setting, I try to play the piece exactly as written.  Very often, my keyboard skills are insufficient.  Which means I will play glacially slowly to play get the notes and dynamics correct.  Here I cover the piece perfectly, if I ignore that the tempo is way way off.  Because I am playing by myself, I can set the tempo as I see fit.

 

Sometimes, when playing in a cover band, we do songs that have no keyboard parts in them.  So I make something up, or double a guitar or a bass part.

 

Let's say the cover band is doing Superstition, which has an prominent iconic keyboard part.  Because I want to be able to play an iconic keyboard part, I will spend time working to play that part as closely to the original as I can.  If I can get comfortable with it (if I feel like I am playing the original part solidly), I will also work on doing my own variations of that iconic part.  If I feel I cannot play the original part well (and playing with a band, I have to play the band's tempo), I will make up a simplified part that I hope will convey the feel and vibe of the original part.  Often, my band mates will freely give me feedback on how well my simplified part covers the feel and vibe of the original part (well....the free feedback typically is only offered if my arranging and playing offends - if no one says anything, I take that as acceptance).  Sometimes the band chooses a song that has a lame keyboard part in it: here, I will play something different, something I think of as better.

 

So I suggest there is no one way or rule: each song is unique and may require a different solution than the previous challenge.  My job as keyboard player is to use my skills - such as they are - to overcome musical challenges.  Sometimes I can do this gracefully, and sometimes my playing is more clumsy. 

[murphybridget]

Every song is different, so I adapt my approach to fit each one.

[cphollis]

There's only one rule for me -- does it sound good?  That's true whether I'm trying to play something note-for-note, or improvising, or whatever.

 

Let your ears decide for you.

[Tusker]

32 minutes ago, JamPro said:

By myself, I play a lot of classical piano music.  In this setting, I try to play the piece exactly as written.  Very often, my keyboard skills are insufficient.  Which means I will play glacially slowly to play get the notes and dynamics correct.  Here I cover the piece perfectly, if I ignore that the tempo is way way off.  Because I am playing by myself, I can set the tempo as I see fit.

 

 

Loved your post and I too am very flexible on pop music and try to be note-perfect and period-perfect for classical music like Chopin. I also treat tribute band music as though perfection matters. Many in the audience want an authentic rendition after all. Especially if it's prog or prog-adjacent. Not so for regular pop music. People just want to have a good time.

 

Recently though, I have been playing Bach a little bit more loosely. Kinda like it's pop music. It feels as though Bach transcends the conventions of any period. His intention comes through even if you play it badly. 😅

 

[Stokely]

I very rarely play a song exactly as recorded....sue me.   Talking pop/rock covers.   Signature parts--say like the intro of Don't Stop Believin', which we reluctantly added because we get asked for it so often--are as spot on as I can get but that's the exception....it's me and the bass and we have to be lock step on the bass parts or it sounds weird so I'm spending more time than my usual on it  

Most of them have a bunch of parts overdubbed in a studio and those get simplified.  Or they have three guitars playing and no keys, etc.   Often I look for live concerts (without tracks) or even covers to get ideas on how to go about it.   Or just make something up.

It's just effort that would be better spent on the groove, getting tight on endings,  getting harmonies tight and so on IMO.  Having confidence in what you are playing is far better than struggling to pull off the "real thing" that for all you know was comped from multiple takes in a studio.    Example--the damn strings at the beginning of Disco Inferno.  I am trying to learn it, but it's a challenge, and until I do get it down I play a modified version that sounds fine with what the rest of the band is doing.

[Lou Gehrig Charles]

I just ain't talented enough to play exactly as it is on the recording, especially given the limited time constraints we have before a show.  For example, "Southbound" by the Allman Bros....  I could spend the rest of my life trying to learn the Chuck Leavall piano solo exactly as it was written, or I can use the simplified version he makes available on his website (which was an ENORMOUS help).  But as long as I get the feel of it right it is going to sound pretty good.

[harmonizer]

Sometimes you can play a simplified version of what was in the studio recording and it will still sound good.

 

You might need to analyze some of the parts that other band members. Is there some important syncopation that takes place between the keys part and something else? Is the keys part carrying a significant part of the chords, or is the keys part merely providing icing on the cake?

 

There is another reason you might want to simplify some parts: Sometimes it is BETTER to leave out some voicings that might be in a studio recording, because they might make things too muddled for a live cover performance. Are you a 4 person band, or in a 6/7 person band? The sound space might get more crowded with a larger band. In the realm of chord playing, if you have rhythm guitar player who is doing a great job on the chords, you might want your chord playing on keys to be more sparse. In such a situation, I might leave out the 3rd or the root of the chord, if I am playing chords on an organ patch.

[cphollis]

58 minutes ago, harmonizer said:

There is another reason you might want to simplify some parts: Sometimes it is BETTER to leave out some voicings that might be in a studio recording, because they might make things too muddled for a live cover performance. Are you a 4 person band, or in a 6/7 person band? The sound space might get more crowded with a larger band. In the realm of chord playing, if you have rhythm guitar player who is doing a great job on the chords, you might want your chord playing on keys to be more sparse. In such a situation, I might leave out the 3rd or the root of the chord, if I am playing chords on an organ patch.

This!

 

My band plays a lot of 70s-80s tunes that tend to have elaborate orchestrations, and -- even if I had six hands -- it would sound like mud during a performance.  Examples would be The Voice (Moody Blues), or Every LIttle Thing She Does Is Magic (Police).  

 

What works in the studio doesn't always work well live.  I try to find live cover versions on YouTube, some of which are awesome in their energy and originality.

 

I listen to the piece as the audience would, and try to pick out the parts that sound great to my ears -- and not cover all the notes. 

 

Simpler, tighter parts usually work better than elaborate keyboard presentations.

[Jose EB5AGV]

1 hour ago, harmonizer said:

Sometimes you can play a simplified version of what was in the studio recording and it will still sound good.

 

You might need to analyze some of the parts that other band members. Is there some important syncopation that takes place between the keys part and something else? Is the keys part carrying a significant part of the chords, or is the keys part merely providing icing on the cake?

 

There is another reason you might want to simplify some parts: Sometimes it is BETTER to leave out some voicings that might be in a studio recording, because they might make things too muddled for a live cover performance. Are you a 4 person band, or in a 6/7 person band? The sound space might get more crowded with a larger band. In the realm of chord playing, if you have rhythm guitar player who is doing a great job on the chords, you might want your chord playing on keys to be more sparse. In such a situation, I might leave out the 3rd or the root of the chord, if I am playing chords on an organ patch.

 

Thanks for your hints. Our band is a 6 people one (drums, bass, guitar, sax,  singer, keys). Sometimes guitar plays chords, but not always. As I am the less experienced player, if I see there is crowding, I get the back seat and play more pads and such supporting sounds. But I will be more careful about that 👍🏻

[BluMunk]

I think you have the right idea.

 

One additional approach for you might be to consider that sometimes, you don't need to be playing chordal harmony or bass notes at all. It's also fine to not be playing at all moments.

 

Maybe take a song and only play melodic and 'aux' parts. See what it feels like when you let the bass/drum/guitar give the rhythmic and harmonic backbone. I know for me it can be hard psychologically to not play all the time (particularly if I'm feeling like I need to show the other musicians that I'm good enough to be there).

 

Try starting with less and add when appropriate.

[zukskywalker]

What the perfect place and oh the pain!

the expectation of “parts” especially for us: strings,horns, woodwinds, all the unobtainium keys and can you sing some background too? or the bass player couldn’t make it. So….

 

 

if the “part” is yours please KILL it,OWN it with a vengeance.

 

i say this because i once crashed as bad as it possibly gets….because I was finding a new pocket and missed my exit and went into the wall.
 I had the horn break duty on Tighten UP(. You know…”hi my name is Archie bell and de are the drells”)

missed it and got rightfully fired .

7 notes that fell into a black hole as the dance floor stopped in a dead limbo.

 

“parts”

 

no redemption for that one until the sax player leaned over to me and said “superstition” for which I was able to recover and have a dignified good time.

(lotsa pedal)😎

[ProfD]

As it relates to the subject of the thread, learn the most dominant parts of a song to the best of your abilities.  Work down to other parts from there. 

 

There's no heresy in doing whatever it takes within your abilities and pay scale to make the song sound great.  Playing music should be fun.  

 

The constant connundrum of KB players in bands doing Rock and Pop music is what to play on songs without KB parts. 

 

The 1st question I'd ask is why does the band need, want or have a KB player if they're going to pick songs with no KB parts. 

 

OK...so if the band really wants a KB player that provides latitude to create KB parts within your abilities to serve the song(s).

 

A lot of it depends on one's muscial abilities too.  Better musicians have more choice in the situations they play, arrangements, etc. 

 

Then, there's Jazz where the KB player always gets to play. 😁😎

[CEB]

You are covering a tune that was originally 186 Pro Tools tracks, you do what you have to do. 

[David Emm]

5 hours ago, BluMunk said:

One additional approach for you might be to consider that sometimes, you don't need to be playing chordal harmony or bass notes at all. It's also fine to not be playing at all moments. ...

Try starting with less and add when appropriate.

 

 The biggest lesson I've learned is to pull the hell back. Sometimes I even halfway follow my own advice! There's only so much spectrum available and if you pile up everything you've got, you get a pile. Sitting at any keyboard and expecting to sound like Yes is a pointless burden on everyone. Synths in particular only play well with others if you make it happen. I'm rarely impressed with single-oscillator synths, but its engaging to see how often that can be the right choice. I've preached the gospel of the Juno-1 and MKS-50 for a long time. If you think "band support" about your role first, it'll free you up to polish your solo moments more. Chuck Leavell isn't the focus of a Stones show, but part of the bottom would drop out without him.