Why play it like the album????

[Garrafon]

Someone started a thread on here about what sound to use on a SRV song. I responded with something to the effect of "use whatever you want to use." Someone else responded that crowds want to hear it like the album, so there should be no creativity.

 

Unfortunately, I have to agree that crowds like to hear it like it was on the album.

 

Personally, perhaps as a musician or perhaps just because I'm different, it annoys me when bands play it like the album. Every time I go to see a band and theye are essentially playing the album, I think to myself, "if I wanted to hear this version, I would have listened to the album. I want to hear what THESE guys can do; not whether they can sound exactly like someone else."

 

I understand there is a catch 22 - pleasing the crowd v. pleasing our musical interests. I have stopped catering to the crowd and we now play what we want to play. We do our versions of songs. For the most part, we are well received. As for people who can't accept a new sound, well they will just have to get over it

 

Does anyone else feel the same way? Have other thoughts on the subject?

[Sven Golly]

I play on both sides of this divide... on the one hand, I perform with an ensemble called Classic Albums Live , where the whole raison d'etre is to perform an album, "note for note, cut for cut". We have a fantastic fan base, both here in Canada and in some U.S. markets, who come to see us precisely because we play it exactly like the album.

 

The reward for me is being able to pull off a performance exactly as recorded; nailing every little part, sound, and nuance. It's especially worth it when a fan of the album comes up after the show and points out something subtle that I played that 90% of the audience may not have noticed.

 

Granted, it's not rewarding my creative impulses, moreso my technical side, but it's still rewarding nonetheless.

 

I have a number of other projects, both original and covers, that allow me to stretch out and let my creative juices flow. It's a great experience, starting a well-known tune in a completely alternate arrangement, and watching recognition slowly hit the audience. I've found you can't do it with every song, but the odd departure off the beaten path can be a lot of fun. :-)

 

Cheers,

SG

[cnegrad]

This topic really touches on a sore spot of mine. The concept of playing it exactly like the album has always ticked me off (no offense Sven), *unless we're talking about a pro tour*. But if we're talking about playing weddings, clubs, bars, partys, etc, I'm going to definitely insert my own personality into the performance. Of course, I'm not talking about making radical changes, but I have no regard whatsoever for "honoring" the original notes played on the original recording. For me, that's too easy and involves no creativity or challenge whatsoever. I consider that type of musicianship to be merely "typing". And I also acknowledge that there are times where it's completely inappropriate to deviate, such as on a club tune.

 

To me, learning "the original notes" is just a starting point. Once I know what's been played originally, then I can insert myself into the performance, just as the original musicians did.

[RABid]

I think you have to be careful about varying from the sound or arrangement of a popular hit. As Sven said, most of the audience expects you to sound like the record. As your band becomes more popular the audience begins to appreciate and respect you and not just your ability to mimic a record. At that point you can apply your creativity to a song, and maybe do a special arrangement of a few standards. The bigger your fan base and the more they like you, the more you can get away with and the more they will appreciate origionality. But if you start right out with the attitude of "I'm doing this for me, not the idiots in the crowd." Well, you will not have many idiots paying to hear you.

 

Robert

[Johnny1982]

Why argue? I's obvious that the public likes to hear it as the original... Only a small percentage of altered versions actually end sounding better than the original, what most do is ruin the music.

 

I can really speak with personal experience. In my band I play the music "as is", otherwise i'd be doing originals, and I really get pissed when other musicians don't do it also.

 

Not playing it "as is" is a lack of respect with my fellow musicians and the public.

 

If you want to "create", improve the song (and present it as your version, not as a cover) or do originals... Don't ruin it.

[Analogaddict]

Originally posted by Rabid:

Well, you will not have many idiots paying to hear you.

Lol! Never overestimate an audience..! I'm on both sides of this too; I agree with all of you. I usually go for nailing the important parts of a tune, I consider myself a lesser producer than, say, Quincy Jones or Bob Rock. However, if there´s a certain tune with parts that I either cannot play (tunes like 'There Must Be An Angel' or 'Hella Good' with four independent keyboard parts...) I try to go for the spirit of the song. One of the cover bands I play with usually throws a few curve balls such as playing one song to the groove of another... Great fun when people start singing!

[Analogaddict]

double post...

[cnegrad]

Rabid,

 

I think the key lies in *how* you deviate from the original. There are musical ways to do so within the musical framework of the tune that don't hurt the audience's overall perception of the tune. There's definitely an art to it. Mind you, I'm not saying, "Hey let's do "Stairway To Heaven" as a 7/8 samba", though that could actually be cool . I realize that it's still necesssary for key parts of the song to be recognizable, and within reasonable expectations of the genre. But that said, I will "fight to the death" for my right to not play it exactly like the original, *except in the case of a pro tour*, like Madonna, EW&F, etc.

 

Johnny,

 

Not playing it "as is" is a lack of respect with my fellow musicians and the public.

I strongly (but respectfully) disagree. It is exactly this attitude that I rail against. IMHO, if they want to hear it exactly like the original, then let them hire a DJ.

 

I've been playing live parties for a very very long time, and our success speaks for itself.

[Johnny1982]

I'll keep respectfully disagreeing... too :-) I'm not saying it's always bad not to play it "as is", but I'm not pro neither are my fellows, and usually when people want to make it slightly different everybody wants to give their "contribution" and things often get messy. Personal experience. Even creativity benefits with organization.

[cnegrad]

Originally posted by Johnny1982:

I'll keep respectfully disagreeing... too :-) I'm not saying it's always bad not to play it "as is", but I'm not pro neither are my fellows, and usually when people want to make it slightly different everybody wants to give their "contribution" and things often get messy. Personal experience. Even creativity benefits with organization.

Then perhaps it's the "pro aspect" that separates us. I play in a band of all pro players that regularly play on broadway, television and on well known recordings. I agree that an entire group of non-pros "messing around just for the fun of it" could quickly become chaos. As "pros", we know where the line is drawn, and how much we can get away with. We know "where our bread is buttered", and wouldn't ever do anything to risk that. But that said, we deviate enough to enjoy ourselves without compromising quality. If anything, I think we get more work because of our originality.

[Johnny1982]

I believe it works for you, you all have your years of experience and musical sensibility backing you up and I believe you all do fine with that, but you must agree that's not for all.

 

You must believe me too when I say I hear a lot of people just ruining the tune... no sensibility.

[cnegrad]

Fair enough.

[RABid]

What I really hate is when the band that made the hit gets tired of it and starts changing things up. Changing a solo or altering an arrangement a bit is OK. But when they change the feel of a song it hurts. I remember buying a Heart live albume. My favorite songs were almost double time. Bottom line, they were tired of playing their big hits the same way over and over, and I was dissapointed in the "butcherred" versions that I ended up with on the CD.

 

Robert

[Jeff Irok]

The older and/or the more versions of the song there is, an audience will "permit" more flexibility of the song.

 

That being said, yeah, I'm on both sides of the fence as well. Let's be serious. If it's new, it's on the radio, if it's both now AND wow, the audience doesn't want to hear your group get creative. They just want to hear the song like they know it, so they can get into the groove that they do when they hear it on the radio or on their CD player. I've known a band who took they opposite approach - purposely - copping a bit of an attitude, saying that they'll play the song "their" way using "their" version. Well, ok, they're free to do that, but they got NO audience response. And "their" version usually wound up being a much simplified version. It's like they're screaming "We're not as good as the original!!"

 

Ok, I doubt that anybody here's got that attitude! But I belive that the audience needs to be kept in mind when performing. That doesn't mean that you can't experiment, and if the band's relationship with the audience is good, then the band doesn't have to emulate the album because the audience is there for the band.

 

So that's one side of the fence. The other side, as I stated above, has to do with older songs. And, yes, this drives me nuts. We play "I Feel Good". It's 40 years old. It's been played to death. True, the original is the most popular version, but half our audience wasn't born when the song was written. So why do we have to leave keyboards out just because there was no keyboard in the original? Drives me nuts...

[Garrafon]

Originally posted by Rabid:

What I really hate is when the band that made the hit gets tired of it and starts changing things up. Changing a solo or altering an arrangement a bit is OK. But when they change the feel of a song it hurts.

Robert

I don't think that Clapton's acoustic "Layla" sucked.

 

Anyway, there are no right and wrong answers here. You all raise very good points and identify the tension between the creative desires of the musician and the lack of creativity in the audience. It's kind of a bummer.

 

Indeed, many people need to hear the "album" version. I am also one of those - then rent a DJ - folks. However, we have been pretty successful in presenting our versions of these covers and getting folks out to listen to us, get up and dance, and comment how much they like our music. That being said, we don't get the same draw as the local "top 40" band that plays damn close to the record.

 

There is a time and a place for everything. Perhaps there is some space and time in between to accommodate everyone's interests.

 

None of us should be too rigid in our approach (i.e. it must ALWAYS be like the album, or it must NEVER be like the album). Again, there is common ground somewhere in the middle.

 

Understandly, too much meddling without any structure can cause chaos. But I have to agree with the statements that if properly arranged by people who know what they are doing, you can have quite a nice new song.

 

Look at the wonderful things Joe Cocker did to the Beatle's "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window" and "A LIttle Help from My Friends" and Dave Mason's "Feeling Alright." There he was, playing covers his own way. Those songs, done his own way, were quite different than the originals and certainly did not suck.

[Johnny1982]

Originally posted by Rabid:

What I really hate is when the band that made the hit gets tired of it and starts changing things up. Changing a solo or altering an arrangement a bit is OK. But when they change the feel of a song it hurts. I remember buying a Heart live albume. My favorite songs were almost double time. Bottom line, they were tired of playing their big hits the same way over and over, and I was dissapointed in the "butcherred" versions that I ended up with on the CD.

 

Robert

You said it all... Right now It comes to my mind that soft-orchestral version of bon jovi's "bed of roses"... YUC!

[Moon Zero Two]

Good topic.

 

As a player I left the rock/cover band thing behind because of the "do it like the record" mentality of most bands I was in - play those solo's note for note - now I do Jazz mostly - or a jazz take on a rock song - don't play out as much but have more fun - and don't have to wear ear plugs!

 

that said a lot of times musicians who are not that good will object to playing a solo off a record simply cause they can't or are just too lazy to transcribe it. So suddenly creativity rears it's head. For some things I would catch the beginning and end of a solo and do my own thing in the middle - worked for longer solos like Jessica or Riders on the Storm.

 

I am a musician not a juke box. I think that it is sad but true that the state of live music is such that people expect exact copies of records. They are better off with a DJ.

[Johnny1982]

If classical music players thought the same way, how it would be?

[LithoJazzoSphere]

I am also of the mentality that if you want to hear the album, you can just listen to the CD, or hire a DJ. I generally prefer live music where the band is more experimental with their songs.

[kanker.]

The most fun I ever had playing covers was with a group that never really played a song the same way twice. Each night was a different groove, and sometimes even different changes, all done on the fly. Granted it was a trio with a singer so there was less of a chance for clutter, but to take recognizable tunes and continually put your stamp on them was a really inspiring challenge, and most of the time it sounded pretty seriously good.

 

It has never impressed me to hear groups play tunes note for note, and it has never seemed important for me to sit and transcribe solos and parts note for note to prove my worth. To me that's like reading a conversation instead of having a conversation. Now this isn't meant to discredit the importance of knowing important melodic hooks for tunes, the right changes, and important rhythmic concepts of a tune, but so many great songs were played the way they were recorded only once, that day, that time, and just happened to be committed to tape. Some tunes are indeed crafted, and that's where getting to the meat of the tune is important, understanding what makes the tune tick - but playing it note for note reduces you to the level of a human sequencer.

[kanker.]

Originally posted by Johnny1982:

If classical music players thought the same way, how it would be?

Classical musicians used to do the same. Bach, Motzart, etc..., all great improvisers. It is a more recent phenomena that classical musicians do not generally understand improvisation.

[BluesKeys]

I am on both sides of the fence much like Sven. Although the Clayton Tribute I play in is structured tight to the arrangements and to signature licks, we do let the solos go without a note for note on them. Just as Billy Preston or Clapton himself would do in a live show. I have listened to myself recorded live and said wow I need to remember that part.

 

I think everyone has a point, because the Slowhand gig is limiting as a place to shine for a keyboard player. That's why I play in a soul and R&B band. I sing more and definately have more room for expression.

 

What I hate is to go hear bands that can't pull off the feel or even create a feel of the material they are doing. The fact is people will go hear a band because of the matterial they do not how well they do it. It is unfortunate but often true.

[cnegrad]

Originally posted by kevank:

Originally posted by Johnny1982:

If classical music players thought the same way, how it would be?

Classical musicians used to do the same. Bach, Motzart, etc..., all great improvisers. It is a more recent phenomena that classical musicians do not generally understand improvisation.

It really is a remarkable phenomenon, isn't it? If I understand correctly, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), isn't the goal of classical musicians these days to perform a composer's piece in such a way that most recreates the way the piece was meant to be heard back in the composer's era?

[cnegrad]

Slowhand gig is limiting as a place to shine for a keyboard player.

"Slowhand gig"? Please translate.

[b_3guy]

This topic can go on forever. I once said we should do something with this old & tired cover tune and the band leader goes "I don't want to do a basterdization of the song, I want to do it like the record." I don't play with them any more. I think a certain flexibility is required. Even when you start out covering a tune, after playing it for a couple of years, it often morphs into something more/other than the original.

[BluesKeys]

quote:Dream

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slowhand gig is limiting as a place to shine for a keyboard player.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote cnegrad

"Slowhand gig"? Please translate.

=================================================

Translation... Slowhand is a nickname for Eric Clapton.... Hence we call the band "Slowhand a Tribute to Eric Clatpton."

 

Sorry, I just use that term thinking everyone knows it. But as a keyboard player I didn't until we started the band. Check out the website for more info.

 

B3guy, I agree with you on the point that over time songs morph. As you get tired of playing them it's often refreshing to put a new spin on it. As someone said earlier even the Big names do that from time to time.

 

 

--------------------

-cnegrad

[The Soundsmith]

If you're playing a tribute concert, or are in a 'cover' band which attempts to sound like the cut, by all means play it like the album, as close as you can get. That is what that audience is expecting, and especially in a tribute situation, that's what should be played. (I just saw the Funk Brothers tour - only one was left, and the band sounded NOTHING like the originals, very strange feeling.)

 

If you're in a group of amateur musicians, or are trying to learn from the song, by all means copy the parts, there;s lots of good learning to be had.

 

If, however, you are good enough to create musically interesting alternatives to the original, go for it! If someone in your audience doesn't like it, they can go find a cover band, you will always lose some people and gain others when you take chances. That's what happens when you deviate from the expected.

 

And frankly, that's the way I prefer it. If the only way you can hear a song is like the record, go buy the record and leave me alone...

[Garrafon]

Originally posted by dream:

What I hate is to go hear bands that can't pull off the feel or even create a feel of the material they are doing. The fact is people will go hear a band because of the matterial they do not how well they do it. It is unfortunate but often true.

Excellent points! "Feel" is much more important than the actual notes.

 

And, the unfortunate fact of the matter is, most audiences don't know a good band (or musicians) from bad ones. One of the most popular bands around here....sucks

[MikeT156]

Quote by Analogaddict:

----------------------------------------------

I usually go for nailing the important parts of a tune, I consider myself a lesser producer than, say, Quincy Jones or Bob Rock. However, if there´s a certain tune with parts that I either cannot play (tunes like 'There Must Be An Angel' or 'Hella Good' with four independent keyboard parts...) I try to go for the spirit of the song.

----------------------------------------------

 

That's what I try to do. I've played classic rock cover tunes before the were considered "classic". I listen to the orginal song enough times that I get the drift, I play the most important parts note for note whenever I can, but I like to put some of my own stuff in the song if there's room, and it's appropriate. But club crowds base their opinion of your act by how well you cover songs they like, so I never go to far away from the original arrangment. I NEVER mess with the basic beat, I try to do the drum parts as accurately as I can. But throwing in my own stuff during a KB solo is fun for me too. I use to play some original some years ago, and the people seemed to like them, but I didn't play to many live, so not to over do it. I think you have to strike a balance, but I don't want to be a human jukebox.

 

 

Mike T.

[Steve in KS]

I think that you really have to take it on a case by case basis. If it's purposely being done differently from the album and really IS different like the example of Joe Cocker doing a Beatles song, then I can appreciate it.

On the other hand, sometimes a group will claim to be doing their version when it's really obvious that they're either too lazy to figure out how it's really supposed to go or they're just not good enough to do it 'right.'

The same goes for solos.

Generally, I think that if you're trying to perform the song anything like the original, you should learn it that way first and then alter to to fit your 'style.'

Another point about solos: In some popular music what some might call a 'solo' I would actually consider a 'part' that shouldn't be altered. Not because everyone's used to hearing it that way, but because it's integral to the piece.