What are the differences between Pro, semi pro,writers, performers, and hobbyists

[Eric VB]

Miroslav quite rightly points out that it is difficult to compare classical music to post-Elvis pop music. Wikipedia has quite a bit of information on "folk" music -- used to denote music that is not "classical" (not the modern genre of the same name) -- and its history.

 

Prior to Edison, the only way to record a song was by writing it down. Unfortunately, a lot of medieval folk music was lost because it wasn't written down. (Early on there wasn't even a method to do so.) Sadly, ancient music that came before was lost because people forgot how to read the notation.

 

So there may be a few tunes of debauchery that a lutenist may have sung in a medieval pub to his adoring fans that survives today. But we have no idea of the level of the performance. Certainly there were career musicians of this sort; it's not a stretch to imagine that there were some very good performers.

 

Even "Barbara Allen" , a folk song which dates back to "at least a century before" it was printed in 1780 doesn't tell us much about the level of performance at the time.

 

Anyway, some food for thought when trying to discuss guitar music when only looking at maybe the last 50 years, when guitar-like instruments have been around for some 5,000 years (according to Wikipedia).

[Eric VB]

Here's the crux of the matter regarding performers.

 

Modern technology has made it much easier to reproduce music. Not just CDs and mp3s, but synthesizers/sequencers and other electric devices like drum machines. What is the value of being "just a performer" when as such you can be replaced by a machine?

 

Miroslav get's to the point by calling a cover band a "human jukebox". I've certainly been to a lot of venues where a jukebox provides the music, or CDs are played on the house system, or a dj spins tunes for the dance floor. And I've been to a lot of house parties with lots of stereos, but few if any live musicians. For my own wedding we hired a dj instead of a band. (And I've probably been to 30-some weddings since then, and maybe only 1 or 2 had live musicians at their receptions.)

 

We're so used to recorded music in our lives now. In the 80s the clubs I went to more often than not had a dj. When swing dancing was a fad here in the 90s, it was refreshing to have a live band perform at every dance! (Pretty cool, too, when you consider that the musicians of the 40s -- including swing bands -- went on strike against the recording industry because musicians were being replaced by recordings, e.g. the radio station jingle bands.)

 

I imagine even the street performers are having a hard time competing with iPods and (just attention-wise) with cell phones.

 

Something similar has been happening with visual art. Portrait painting has given way to the photograph. (In fact, any kind of realism in 2-D art is devalued by photos.) Often times it is cheap, mass produced copies of art that we hang on our walls instead of expensive originals. Some home decorating stores are even carrying these things that are color photocopies glued to a piece of burlap stretched over a wood frame that are meant to look like a hand-painted oil on canvas. Faced with such competition -- and a public that can't tell "good" art from "bad" -- even the "starving artists" can't sell their oil-on-canvas, paint-by-numbers copies over a cheaper print.

 

And just like paintings, Joe Public can't tell a "good" performance from a "bad" one. Just listen to the recording guys tell you about the "quality" of CDs ... and don't even get them started on mp3s! So if you think that you can't be replaced by "mechanical means" because they can't match your level of performance, think again. The venue owner books you because his jukebox doesn't go out on the street promoting his bar to get a good draw. If they can fill the joint saturday night by advertising "live dj", why do they need to pay extra to have a live cover band?

 

Yes, there are tons of counter-arguments as to why performers and cover bands are valuable. They are. Just as there are still people that pay to hear their local symphony orchestra play the same old classical music in a concert hall -- because it's just not the same when listening to their mp3 on an iPod -- there will be people that prefer a cover band to a dj or a jukebox. And there will be people that applaud your performance of AC/DC's "You Shook Me All Night Long" as well as those that just needed the tune as a backdrop to, well, shake it.

 

All I'm saying is, imagine if Edison was never able to record "Mary Had a Little Lamb"? How would performers be viewed today without recorded music?

[Gifthorse]

Interesting post Eric, you have alot of cool information.

 

I think cover bands draw attention when they do it well. A cover band can move in 2 directions, they can play everything EXACT to the recordings, or they can play it as good or better in their own style (subjective of course). I don't have a preference, it depends on the band. Anyways, I thought I would toss that in. Nice post.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by flagshipmile:

Interesting post Eric, you have alot of cool information.

 

I think cover bands draw attention when they do it well. A cover band can move in 2 directions, they can play everything EXACT to the recordings, or they can play it as good or better in their own style (subjective of course). I don't have a preference, it depends on the band. Anyways, I thought I would toss that in. Nice post.

Cover bands, like Vanilla Fudge, take music in unexpected directions.

 

Cover bands, like The BOBS, take songs like Strawberry Fields and Whole Lotta Love and surprise me, by being able to duplicate the records, even though they are an acapella group. And they also warp things considerably, as in their version of "Helter Skelter" .

 

Players like Lawrence Juber and Ed Gerhard just blow my mind, witht heir ability to play all of the parts all at once on solo acoustic guitar. (Ed's interweaving of "If I Fell"/"In My Life" is just amazing.)

 

These are all 'cover bands'. Playing it safe? hmmm..... I'd say that in all cases, the covers are used to make the artist accessable, and to showcase their talents; bringing those talents to a wider audience than they might otherwise expect to gain. Not a bad thing.

 

Bill

[Dr. Ellwood]

"Learning "Satisfaction" is a rather finite and basic thing.

Stringing 3-4 sets worth of that stuff and doing it well...is NOT...IMO...going to garner the same appreciation (well, depends on the audiences alcohol blood level) that 3-4 sets of all original music...done well..

 

Satisfaction! pretty insulting that! So I guess we have narrowed it down to how drunk an audience is? Cover bands depend on their audiences being drunk and not attentive to get by? I see where you are comming from. To dismiss the learning and talent gained to be able to play complex covers shows an off balance view of musicianship in general. I'm trying to find the link to your original material? maybe I could listen to it? I put my link on so the world could hear my shabby cover attempts, you know..the human Jukebox stuff. I'll see if we can work up satisfaction to demonstrate upward movement in our combined efforts to improve.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by ellwood:

To dismiss the learning and talent gained to be able to play complex covers shows an off balance view of musicianship in general...

Yeah, I knew we were going to get around to this... it sounded to me from the very start of this thread as if you were trying to publicly validate the fact that you play in a covers band.

 

Alright, you play in a covers band and it floats your boat. Cool.

 

Does everyone have your same high opinion of playing covers? No. Can the vast majority of people see the good and the bad sides of being a covers band? Yup, they do. And most bands play at least a couple of covers in their set. The faithfulness to the original, of course, varies.

 

 

Next!

[Dr. Ellwood]

Well ya, I guess you are right. is it valid to ask to hear originals that seem to be held in such high reguard? As far as I know there are no bad sides in playing in a cover band? Is it bad not to do original material? why would that be? That Satisfaction comment was silly when you are talking to experienced musicians. I would think that if a writer of original material was proud of his work and the level of musicianship and composition they might want to share, no? or am I wrong to say that? hummmmm? and validate? whats to validate? I think there are as many cover musicians on this Forum than there are original writers/performers?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by ellwood:

As far as I know there are no bad sides in playing in a cover band? Is it bad not to do original material? why would that be?

Now you've got me wondering what I meant by that...

 

I suppose the "bad" side of playing in a covers band is that you make a lot more dough but until you actually come up with some original material, you'll never sell records. Not that most originals bands sell that many records, of course.

 

I suppose I personally would dislike the idea of playing for the audience, who may or may not have the same tastes as I do. I'd hate to have to play whatever song, simply becuase it's requested a lot. It'd feel too much like work, I guess. On the other hand, that's just me.

 

So there you go... I've thought about it and that's the "bad" sides I can see. There's not many of them, is there?

[Billster]

Ellwood, before you get into high gear, remember that Miroslav has a looney side.

 

I don't think too many people treat a good cover band with tons of disrespect.

 

As for why isn't there an example of his fine original music available, one possibility is that he's withholding it until payday, if you know what I mean. I have some stuff available for free, but it's a lot of MIDI demo level stuff, or things I've already been compensated for (like soundtrack stuff) I have stuff that's never going to be online unless its on iTunes. I'm proud of all of my work, but from a business perspective, you shepherd certain stuff as an asset to be protected.

 

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

 

Edit: To add to what Vince noted about the "down" sides of cover bands, I think I already said it on page 1, but when it becomes just another job there's a problem. Maybe your passion lies more in playing and interacting with the audience within the frame of the familiar songs you do, and burnout isn't a fear. For me, the passion lies in expression and interpretation, and burnout on playing the same thing in the same way is a big factor.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Billster:

As for why isn't there an example of his fine original music available, one possibility is that he's withholding it until payday...

Yeah, but that shouldn't be an issue anyway.

 

I don't have to have a degree in automotive engineering to decide whether I like a car or not, in the same way as I don't have to write better songs than in order to say I'm not into playing covers.

[Dr. Ellwood]

I didnt know he had a looney side, but I KNOW I do I understand the copywrite issues and the business side of the business very well. Well just anyting to listen too would be great from him. How about some covers!!?? I can only go so far in talking about music.. and when what I do is challanged and put down to a level of covering Satisfaction that really tears it. I see a whole lot of talking and not much showing is all I know. I would like to be able to judge a guys work like I'm judged every weekend...even if it's by just low brow drunk Canadians. I know one thing that has happened before with some guys who can talk the talk, they don't have much to say about my lack of ability after they stand on stage with me, one on one.

[miroslav]

ellwood...your are off in left field now...

 

I never said (nor did anyone else)or suggested that MY/OUR originals are better than any cover music YOU can play.

 

What HAS been said...is that doing typical "bar band" covers (you know exactly what I mean)...can never...IMO....be placed on the same level as doing originals of EQUAL complexity.

 

I have said that there are those bands that strive to perform covers in a completely original way...and THAT is another category...and IMO...cool.

Butlearning 3-chord R&R note-for-note (while initially somewhat of a challenge)...and then playing that stuff...over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...etc...

...ain't genius...ain't creative...and it sure ain't all that risky...is it?

All you have to do is put together a decent couple of sets to please the particular crowd...and that's it.

The rest is no different than popping $0.25 in the jukebox.

 

Doing that kind of cover music...you, the player...can surely feel "fulfilled" or challenged or even creative if you like...and it CAN be fun playing covers like that...

...but it is just NOT on the same level as original music, and it does NOT "bare your ego and soul" like playing original music before a live audience can do.

 

And, Ive been therein many a bar doing many coversbut it just became a grind and a false sense of accomplishment to me, as a musician.

 

Will my original music ever please a crowd like some of those played-to-death covers can?

Maybe notbut it sure is more fulfilling to me than when I was bangin out Satisfaction night after night...

 

PS

 

I'm working on an album's worth of music right now.

It's moving along slowly...but when the CD's are done...I'll make sure you get a copy.

 

Who knows...you may even want to cover a song or two of mine...?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by ellwood:

I would like to be able to judge a guys work like I'm judged every weekend...even if it's by just low brow drunk Canadians.

Clinch!

 

Seriously though, that argument makes no sense and I'm sure you realize it. The drunken Canadians are judging you on how you play a cover. They're not judging you on your own music.

 

The only way that your idea would work would be if the drunken Canadians judged how well you and Miroslav played your individual pieces. How well you played your covers and how well he played his originals.

 

But since they've probably never heard his songs before, they'd never be able to judge how well he plays them.

 

Does that make any sense?

[Lee Flier]

I've never understood the whole "cover/original" split. It's silly to me. I just want to play good songs. If I or someone in my band wrote them, great. If someone else did, fine too. If I like the song and enjoy playing it, that's what matters. My band would ordinarily be considered an "original band" but we know a lot of covers too and sometimes play cover gigs for extra money. We stick to covers we like, and not necessarily the huge hits. That doesn't net us as much dough as the bands willing to do the "standard playlist" at college or corporate events but that's OK with us, because we enjoy what we play.

 

I think most of my favorite bands started out as "cover bands" (back before that designation existed) and started developing their own sound which naturally led to writing originals. Now that bands seem to have calcified into one of those two categories, that organic thing isn't really allowed to develop that often. As others have mentioned, if you play in a "cover band" and you mention "the o word" it sends some people running for the hills. It's understandable to a point - after all, with a cover band you have the entire history of your chosen genre to draw from, and can pick the cream of the crop. Whereas if you start writing, it's a crapshoot and there really is a fairly small percentage of people who can really write well, and/or write stuff that lots of people want to hear. So you may not enjoy playing your band's originals as much, depending how good the material ends up being. And if someone in your band fancies him/herself a songwriter and their material just sucks, that can be a problem.

 

All that said... the best of both experiences is really satisfying in different ways. It's fun to play a cover that you really dig, and have an audience recognize it and get really into it or else go "I've never heard that before, that RAWKS! Where's that from?" It's also really gratifying to write a song, and/or work up the arrangement for a bandmate's song, that you really like. In my band the arrangement and writing process is a LOT of fun, because it's a real back and forth thing...we work really hard at it and spend a lot of time beating ideas into submission, and everybody's ideas are welcome. We enjoy the finished product AND the creative process. And there really isn't anything like the feeling of writing a new song and hearing it get fine tuned and hammered into shape and ultimately performed/recorded.

 

If you like the song, that is. If you don't, then the experience sucks and is like polishing a turd. And the same goes for covers - if you like the songs and have good chemistry with the players, it's all good. If you don't, it's just a job and it can suck. That's what it all boils down to for me - whether I like the players and the songs we're playing, not covers vs. originals.

[miroslav]

It's not a really question of any "split" between covers/originals.

 

Doin' covers can be fun...even cool if you can get beyond the "note-for-note" mentality.

This debate is more about doing nothing BUT covers all your musical life...VS. eventually branching out and writing originals too...and/or playing originals or a mix of covers/original music.

 

Are covers-only musicians less "Pro" than those that write music?

Well..."Pro" is a relative thing, and it use to mean someone who did something as a profession...that is, they got PAID for it.

So with that in mind...many cover bands can be considered "pro".

 

However, as far as creative depth and breadth...you really can't achieve as much bangin' out the same ol', note-for-note, 3-chord R&R...as you could if you wrote and/or interpreted in an original way the same kind of R&R.

 

A few people are bugged by the "comfort/safety" comment. Well...cut it anyway you want.

You learn a bunch of cover tunes...and then just regurgitate them in note-for-note fashion for the next 20-30-40 years of your "covers-only" musical life.

Seems kinda' creatively comfortable and safe to me...doesn't it?

 

Art...has always been about creating...about interpreting...about breaking new ground.

 

What kind of art is being created/interpreted, and what kind of new ground is being broken...

...if you're just playing "Satisfaction"...as a note-for-note cop...4-5 nights a week...

...for the rest of your musical life...???

 

Even if you ARE getting paid for it...

...IMO...after a few yearsafter the fun factor gets dull

that's almost like punchin' out widgets on an assembly line.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by miroslav:

...IMO...after a few yearsafter the fun factor gets dull

that's almost like punchin' out widgets on an assembly line.

Agreed, that's why I said it's like a job if you're not doing stuff you enjoy. But I think that could apply just as easily to original songs - you could write a hackneyed sounding song and play it the same way every gig and that would get old and "safe" too - and chances are the song isn't even as good as "Satisfaction" in the first place. Or you could be doing covers in a way that you enjoy and has creative arrangements. Either way... the key point is enjoyment, and enjoyment usually does require some degree of creativity and "motion" - if you keep doing the same old thing all the time you get stale, and again that has nothing to do with covers vs. originals really.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Either way... the key point is enjoyment, and enjoyment usually does require some degree of creativity and "motion" - if you keep doing the same old thing all the time you get stale, and again that has nothing to do with covers vs. originals really.

Yeah...though I would say that the act of "doing original music" tends to keep things generally in a state of forward motion...unless of course, you turn your few originals into "covers"...and just play the same few...over and over and over...

 

I think most songwriters do evolve over time and constantly "upgrade" their writing skills...

...or at least they write new stuff, even if the style stays somewhat the same.

 

I've heard and known too many "cover only" musicians that go from band to band...pretty much draggin' their memorized set list with them...only to do all the same covers all over again...in their "new" band...with maybe a just few changes, 'cuz one of the other guys brought HIS memorized set list!!!

That...IMOis about as fucking dull as music can get...without riding an elevator!

I JUST DON'T get that?

 

Yeah...I went through that many years ago...when I first got into bands.

We all worshipped out heroes...so the next step was to learn their music and to try and sound like THEM.

But...I would think that musician's would wanna' get past thatat some point in their musical lifespan...???...wouldnt they?

Wellmaybe not everyone

 

No matter how well we played those covers...

...after a thousand rendtitions of "Freebird"...etc...

...that kinda' made me wanna' get past all that and move into somethig a little more creative...a little more original.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

I have great fun playing music, and 'covers' create the common ground around which we can all play together. So from a strictly selfish standpoint of having great fun playing (jamming, if you will, ...); 'covers' serve to get you and I together quickly.

 

I have great fun writing music. Different passion.

 

Would I like to play in a 'cover' band? Maybe. 6 nights a week? Probably not. Been there, done that, had a great time doing it. I just don't think that I would enjoy that scene anymore. That doesn't make it a bad scene, and has nothing to do with my writing or not writing... it is just not something that I care to do any longer. I'm 'with you' in terms of goals and where my head is today, I'm just not willing to put a negative value connotation on those who's end goal is playing in a cover band.

 

Bill

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

We have to keep in mind that this is all just opinions....nobody's really right and nobody's really wrong. Miroslav's opinion is just that..an opinion. Just like Ellwood's and LPCustom's and Lee's and mine and (too many to list) everybody else's...and we're all entitled to them. Just because someone has a strong opinion doesn't make it right...or wrong.

[miroslav]

Right on Sas!

 

Just like you Bill...I make my most of my comments as they apply to me, my thinking...at this point in my musical life.

 

I've said it a few times that covers can be fun!

And I'm sure for many of you...you are at a point in YOUR musical life that is different from mine...from others.

So...go with what you like...now.

 

My comments are not intended to pull everyone away from playing covers! I only suggest that...at some point...?...it does get played out...IMO.

 

And I'll also say this one more time...

There are many ways to play covers that takes them well beyond that "wanna be like so-and-so" kind'a of cover band.

Or where you are just playin' like a human jukebox...almost on-command.

 

So...covers CAN be fun...and CAN be cool to play!!! You can always put an original twist to ANY cover!!!

 

But I do stand by my comment that for some folks...the manner in which they pursue their cover band "careers", is rather dull, and it does provide a certain level of safety/comfort for them.

I don't think THAT is just MY opinion.

I think we ALL know of musicians that fall into that mold.

[musicalhair]

Hey Lee nice to see you here!

 

I think "the split" is a rhetorical device used to stir up trouble and give some a chance to nip at each other's heels here. It has no validity in the real world.

[fantasticsound]

Someone mentioned jazz singers, such as Tony Bennett and Frank Sinatra. Has anyone addressed whether Tony Bennett is any less an icon and an amazing talent because he doesn't write his own material? For that matter, are the musicians in such bands any less than those who compose if they don't write music?

 

The fact that this is more accepted in Jazz and other styles is exactly my point. Why, in R&R and some other genres, do many musicians in original rock bands look down on those who play covers, in large part because they're not writers and have no interest in writing music?

[musicalhair]

I'd rather turn away from this supposed rift between playing covers and playing someone's originals and see if there is a similar "rift" in other fields.

 

Photographers and models have no differences do they?

 

Screenwriters, directors and actors never have differences, do they?

 

I think when you play your own song you are being your own director or acting in your own screen play and which of those tasks is the primary one is up to the individual.

 

I think when you play classical or jazz or rock "covers" you are sufficiently distanced from the writer to not worry about what they think. When playing on a recording for someone you do have these considerations. When playing in a cover band you do have the expectations of the rest of the band and your agent to meet.

 

In any event there are different roles involved in the production of any performance art. Very few people can do all the tasks involved in music well: writing, arranging, producing, recording, booking gigs, "managing", playing. For people involved in either cover bands or originals, they each are drawn to some or one of these tasks more than others. Some come more natural than others and for each of us it is different.

 

AT the core of this thread is a huge disrespect assumed between the various roles needed to perform music. There are those among us that feel they must write, of coarse that means they feel they must write their own material-- regardless of how they feel about performing it. The songwriters I know are driven from deep within to create something from withing themselves. I know this drive but for me it is a drive that makes me play guitar. The other day I was looking through a book I picked up of Barry Galbraith chord melodies. I turn to his My Funny Valentine and start mixing and matching his chords and ideas with mine. It was really a lot of fun and I saw into the tune a little more deeply and saw the guitar a little more deeply. It is just that kind of thing that makes me tick. For songwriters it is just that. What ever it is for each of us is only important in that we identify it for ourselves but it should have no bearing on how we view each other here. it is a kin to "which are hotter: blondes or brunettes?"

 

The fact that guitar is a vehicle both for writers and for performers and for various tasks is no surprise. The fact that there are differences between people drawn to these different tasks is no surprise either. Agitating those differences is stupid, IMO.

 

If it is all about creativity then nothing here in this thread is to the point anyway. you can be completely without any creativity or talent and write a song and you can be competely without any creativity or talent and "cover" a song. If you're happy then that is all that should count to you.

 

If you take your work out into the real world and no one likes it there are steps you can take. All that counts is taking those steps whenever they are needed or not. This forum is about helping each other take those steps and not fabricating a lack of respect for the sole purpose of watching a 4 page thread grow over differences between songwriters and performers.

 

Very few of us are living out our "plan A", some are still working on it, some are way into plan B and C, and some never had a plan. Regardless of where we are or what we do, we should help each other here and not just divide each other.

 

Good God, is this a "Tony Bennett vs Nick Drake" thread, or a "Tony Bennett wannabe vs a Nick Drake wannabe" thread, or are the main protagonists of the thread too stupid to see that difference between writing and performing has nothing to do with their quality of participation in the forum.

[Dr. Ellwood]

"Good God, is this a "Tony Bennett vs Nick Drake" thread, or a "Tony Bennett wannabe vs a Nick Drake wannabe" thread, or are the main protagonists of the thread too stupid to see that difference between writing and performing has nothing to do with their quality of participation in the forum."

 

Quality of participation in the Forum is not at issue? When did it become a question of quality of anything? It is simply a matter of participation through putting forth ideas or opinions on anything. Still another facet of participation is posting original questions that will garner activity on the Forum. Things that will promote discussion no matter if you personally think the discussion is "stupid" or not, I would simply not contribute and separate myself from the stupid conversations. For a thread to go on for four pages I think that there was some meat to the subject. It is easy to read through all the comments after the fact and sit back and snipe at other peoples opinions. If there had been no interest in this subject the thread would have consisted of one post and died. When I asked why it is not valid to have a writer of original material make sound files available I only had one comment eluding to maybe copyright problems are the reason there are no postings? I think that is NOT the problem at all. Instead there where lots of comments about how writing is a high art and aloof above it all rhetoric. I say put it out there in the world of critics and not just rely on the family pet and maybe relatives to access original writing efforts. I do covers and thats all I do, but I am not shy about sharing it, letting the chips fall where they may as far as assessment is concerned.

[Gruupi]

You can make an analogy between painting and playing music also, not every aspect of this analogy works but it is related. When you are learning to paint, one way to gain skill and understanding of art is to copy the old masters. You learn how they use color and how to draw, it is similar to learning songs. You study art history and go to galleries and see all the art that you see. This is a way to discover what you like about art and it it can lead you to the path of becoming an artist.

 

You could probably make more money selling a good copy of the Mona Lisa than you could from anything that you created yourself. You could gain alot of satisfaction and enjoyment from making these copies, but could you really call yourself an artist? You have learned the craft and skill of painting but I don't think at this point you are an artist.

 

The next step could be that you start to paint in the style of Monet or Rembrant but not an outright copy. You are taking some creative liscense and thinking some original thoughts even if it just on the subject, not the style. Then you start to mix and match different aspects of all the different styles you have studied, now you are really getting the creative juices flowing and are starting to be an artist instead of just a painter.

 

The anology to music is that the learning of songs is similar to the building blocks of learning to paint. Some of the boundaries between being a musician and being an artist overlap. Someone mentioned Frank Sinatra, this is a good arguement. He didn't write the songs but he tranformed them so much with his style and character that I think he was an artist. If he had just sung the songs straight with out his swinging rhythm and his particular swagger, he would have been just a singer.

 

So playing music covers just like the original, even though it is a valid form of expression and can be quite enjoyable, it isn't art. Copying music is a skill or craft. If you take those cover songs and transform them with your own style, you are making it art. Jazz guys use the song as a loose harmonic structure and ideally never play it the same way twice, it would be hard to argue that this isn't art. I can't make the arguement that being an artist is better than just being a painter or a musician, but there is a certain deep inner sense of tapping into the universal feeling of what humanity is when you are an artist. I don't think a person who just copies taps into this feeling, even though by copying, they may better understand the humanity of the person they were copying (I know, I am starting to sound like I am full of shit, and I haven't even been drinking).

 

Now, are classical musicians artists? After all, they are for the most part just playing covers. YoYoMa is basicly playing the same notes that Bach wrote hundreds of years ago. But music is more than just the notes on a page. Glenn Gould recorded two different versions of the Goldberg variations 25 years apart. They are both wonderfull but radically different from each other. At that level of interpretation, it becomes art in my opinion. If I were able to learn to play Bach just like Glenn Gould or YoYoMa did/do, I could be considered a good musician and entertainer. But if I wanted to be an artist I would have to do my own interpretation of the songs. Another example would be Hendrix cover of "All along the Watchtower". He wasn't just copying the song, he was making it something else entirely, I would consider that art.

 

Alot of this is in a gray area, where does copying stop and art begin?

[miroslav]

Originally posted by ellwood:

When I asked why it is not valid to have a writer of original material make sound files available I only had one comment eluding to maybe copyright problems are the reason there are no postings? I think that is NOT the problem at all. Instead there where lots of comments about how writing is a high art and aloof above it all rhetoric. I say put it out there in the world of critics and not just rely on the family pet and maybe relatives to access original writing efforts. I do covers and thats all I do, but I am not shy about sharing it, letting the chips fall where they may as far as assessment is concerned.

 

ellwood

 

Comparing how well you play a rendition of a well know cover...against someone's original piece of music...is not really much of a comparisonof anything.

All that would show...is if your licks sound as good as "so-and-so's licks...that's it.

While someone with an original song has to show their song, their recording, their playing, their arrangement, their production...etc.

 

You are so eager to drop your pants so's we can measure our dicks!

When you write and record a song all by yourself...let me know.

 

See...you say that this tread is supposed to be about everyone putting out their thoughts and opinions...but 'cuz my opinion cuts you to the bone...you get all pissy about it, and you want to have some kind of contestto prove something.

 

Man...I feel like I'm back in a grammar school playground!

 

Your eagerness to prove how great you play covers...only demonstrates that you do have some sort of complex about not doing anything else but covers.

 

Hey...it's cool...you can play only covers...no need to prove anything to me.

 

Whatever cover song you got to put upIve probably already heard it a thousand timesdone by the original artistsand then also by lot of wannabes

WhyI probably played the damn thing a few times too, back in my bar band days!

[Dr. Ellwood]

QUOATE from Miroslav:"You are so eager to drop your pants so's we can measure our dicks!

When you write and record a song all by yourself...let me know."

 

Man you sound like a pig! what's the matter with you head man!! I have no complex about playing covers, it's what I do. On the other hand nobody has any real indication that you write at all? the quality or quantity of writing or the musicianship shown in your writing. I'm not interested in your writing, I just want to hear the writing you keep referring too? There is no cutting anything to the bone here? This is only dialogue, it doesn't change anything one way or the other for me. I'm not the one saying vulgar things am I? We are of coarse not in grade school, but as far as anyone knows your writing may sound like it? who knows? nobody can hear it can they?

[Guitar55]

There are two approaches to playing "covers":

 

1. Copy - note for note reproduction

2. Interpretation - creating a new arrangement

 

My band does a mix of both. Although it's sometimes fun to learn a tune exactly as on record, I find the second approach more enjoyable. Although we do consistently get our best crowd response to our cover of Black Magic Woman. We do the Santana arrangement from Abraxas. I play the intro, firt solo and outro almost note-for-note. I do my own thing on the second solo.

[Dr. Ellwood]

Hay! on second thought, I think I am going to become an artist on the Forum! I know how to do it from examples by Miroslav! First I talk about writing and elude to some work I have done. I cannot display any of this work though, well because someone might want to steal my work, so I'm covered there. Hay this is very easy, I should have done this along time ago! This ain't workin, this is how ya do it!

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by Guitar55:

There are two approaches to playing "covers":

 

1. Copy - note for note reproduction

2. Interpretation - creating a new arrangement

 

My band does a mix of both. Although it's sometimes fun to learn a tune exactly as on record, I find the second approach more enjoyable. Although we do consistently get our best crowd response to our cover of Black Magic Woman. We do the Santana arrangement from Abraxas. I play the intro, firt solo and outro almost note-for-note. I do my own thing on the second solo.

Very cool 55! I seldom stray too far from the original, unless I have it nailed then sometimes I do. But remember your not an artist though, I can tell ya how to be if you wanna be! Directions are in the post above this one