NO Hotel, NO Brown Eyed Girl - that should be a planetary live music rule, unless you're the Eagles or Van Morrisson ! >

The article has alot of truth...unfortunately. Very good read.

Vintage Vibe wrote: NO Hotel, NO Brown Eyed Girl - that should be a planetary live music rule, unless you're the Eagles or Van Morrisson ! >

Yeah ?

I've learnt that it pays to have the widest possible spectrum of mp3s on your laptop (if that's what you use for your live sound). When I get really annoying requests (and I know I have it somewhere in the Now 23 or Goue Sokkie Treffers folder on the HD), I can politely say: "We'll play it later, OK". At the end of the set, I'll play the original track off mp3 during my break. This is invariably met with an exuberant high 5 from the dude, and I'll down the complimentary tequila courtesy of the grateful punter - knowing I've satisfied him (which is the actual job in this context :-[ ) and having avoided playing a song I really hate!!

Riaan C wrote: Be that as it may, the article has an interesting premise: you are an original musician pouring your heart out, and some drunken lout shouts: "Can you play Hotel California???". How do you respond? The author, IMHO quite correctly, resolves the issue by postulating: "The word you need to concentrate on here is not 'cover', but 'version'".

I'm starting to think it's a bit of a trick question. After all, when Mick Jagger sings "Under My Thumb" is it something that's still vital or relevant to his life? (assuming it ever was, and I think it was). Isn't he maybe a bit sick of it by now? Does Brooooooooos still sing "Dancing In The Dark" with real passion? I saw Martin Carthy in London last year, and in a career getting on 50 years he has written two songs - so you can argue that he's ALL covers (OK... he played one of his two compositions the night I saw him). Yet his performance had everything - great skill, commitment, wit, passion, energy, moments of laughter, moments of poignancy, moments of reflection, even occasional violence and darkness (in the lyrics, not his persona).

The problem is that in many cases the audience don't want the music, they want a familiar tune to trigger a memory that they've attached to a tune or it's era. Or they want fashion. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not about MUSIC. People use music as a peg on which to hang their memories, relationships, sometimes even identity. I'm not sure many of us want music for it's own sake.

God! I'm such a snob.

Rudolf wrote: The article has alot of truth...unfortunately. Very good read.

But not the whole truth. Somebody's got to make a splash playing original music otherwise there'd be nothing to cover.

If music has been warmed over often enough we call it classical music rather than pop. There isn't a classical musician in the world who thinks of playing Mozart like 'covering'. In fact, these people tend to frown upon 99% of all pop music, either 'covers' or 'originals'.
Then there's some who think that taking a good 60's record, sampling out the original heartfelt vocal parts and replacing it with primeval shouted rhymes is not rape. >

My conclusion is, this whole value system all comes down to the culture you're in (as in: a set of opinions that has been imprinted on you). There's very little debating it without imposing more opinions on more people.

The Truth of the matter is simple , playing covers makes money , pub owners or club owners part with there money quicker when you a good cover band than when you a good orginal band . i see this at alot of the pubs in my area if a good cover band is playing the place is packed .

Orginal bands need to build up a fan base which can take along time , no fun playing to an audience of 5 or your mates who heard you in your garage last weekend. but like anything you do in life , you have to take the good with the bad even if it is hotel california , cos if you do it well enough , he will be back demanding to hear you next week.

Bob Dubery wrote:

Rudolf wrote: The article has alot of truth...unfortunately. Very good read.

But not the whole truth. Somebody's got to make a splash playing original music otherwise there'd be nothing to cover.

Bob, nowhere did the article say you/we shouldn't play originals? ? In fact the entire article read that we should do just that...make the song original. I related very much to the article coming from my Club DJ background, argue it if you want but at the end of the day a DJ is just as much a muscician as any great guitar/drum/instrument player out there (Now let's not confuse the two versions of "DJ" out there, you get a jukebox and you get a DJ. For this one we're talking about DJ's). Unfortunately like mentioned above without fame selling all original work to the general public is unfortunately near impossible, in order to get to fame it take sacrifices but we don't need to see it that way at all.

I was/is a funky house DJ, I also dabbled in break beat and jungle mixed with a little hard house as I could double up beats pretty easily. Unfortunately to put bread on the table DJ's who focus on their genre alone had a tough time as they ended up in underground clubs most of the time where the money unfortunately wasn't. So most of us were forced to play to the ear of the crowds night after night. It didn't mean we couldn't play our loved music at all but we were simply forced to mix it all up, create an original song by doing mixes of commercial and whatever we wanted. At the end of the day we were creating once off original pieces and doing what every good muscician lives for by creating music. So much so that DJ's in clubs started copying each other's mixes even combining the same two/three songs as it created such a powerfull mix playing to a very wide crowd, covers essentially.

I think some folks have started facing the fact that it's becoming increasingly difficult to create an original piece that would appeal to the folks willing to spend the money. I'm not saying it can't be done, just it's getting tricky you know? Hehe. Sometime in the near future so much music is going to be created over the ages that no matter what you create it will unfortunately sound like something created already, as original as you would like to convince yourself it is.

Of course, this is just my opinion. ?

well i must say ...playing covers is a great way to learn your art as a musician... cos you forced to play parts that were written by successful artists...you learn chord structures....and get to work on improving your soloing skills by playing Hendrix or Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughn .

believe me i played covers 6 shows a week for 15 years of my career... and i can recognise musical structures by just hearing the 1st two chords ...and solo's become so easy when you played em like 1000 times... and if you learn to play great jazz/blues/rock solo's in your covers by mimicking the creme de la creme of guitarists .... you will find that if you absorb this all into your personal style.... you will not become a clone but be a musician who has basically "had master classes" from the best ... and if you take little bits you like from everybody eventually you become a "whole" guitarist who was merely influenced by these people....

as for me... i now play purely original world music and jazz but thats always done in my own style.... and it is more satisfying for my soul than covers ever were........

so i would say yeah play the covers... learn the licks and get to play in time, learn various styles...and when you ready find your own voice on your instrument and play original music

oh and one last comment ..BACKTRACKS SHOULD BE BANNED .... i saw a cover band recently who even left the guitar solo's in on the backtracks...... and just strummed chords...and often the wrong ones...while the solo was played on a crappy midi keyboard sound by the backtrack ... so if thats your mindset call yourself a Kareoke Band and i have no problem with that ... but don't advertise "LIVE MUSIC" and it's one guy strumming chords to a backtrack and singing....

i'm so relieved to see that the solo guitarist genre has been resurected... and see many muso's around jhb just playing acoustic and singing .... with NO BACKTRACKS i will pay my R60 to go see that... NEVER a band with backtrax

( ooh that felt like a good rant on backtrax...hehehhe ok time to get off my soap box and rehearse)

peace and light
Keira WitherKay

Keira WitherKay wrote: oh and one last comment ..BACKTRACKS SHOULD BE BANNED .... i saw a cover band recently who even left the guitar solo's in on the backtracks...... and just strummed chords...and often the wrong ones...while the solo was played on a crappy midi keyboard sound by the backtrack ... so if thats your mindset call yourself a Kareoke Band and i have no problem with that ... but don't advertise "LIVE MUSIC" and it's one guy strumming chords to a backtrack and singing....

What? That is SO wasteful! I saw an act a while back that consisted of a guy singing (only) over backtracks. It was billed as live music too. I am pretty sure the guy was alive. I'm less sure that I was after 20 minutes or so.

LOL...yes I've experienced that in the local pub. I honestly enjoy a good kareoke evening more. At least with kareoke you get to have a giggle and wale along (If the budget was good for the evening). ? ?

Rudolf wrote:

Bob Dubery wrote:

Rudolf wrote: The article has alot of truth...unfortunately. Very good read.

But not the whole truth. Somebody's got to make a splash playing original music otherwise there'd be nothing to cover.

Bob, nowhere did the article say you/we shouldn't play originals? ?

No it didn't. My point is that the covers that we cover were once originals. So, for those who want to try, there has been and still must be a market for people who produce original work.

However there's long been markets for artists who DON'T perform what they themselves have written. In other days or genres they talk about "the canon" or "standards". Maybe we need to stop being so hung up on the c... word. In the sort of jazz/big band world there are "standards" and they keep on getting re-recorded, hopefully with a new interpretation each time. Nobody thinks that's a cop-out or making one a slave to the audience.

Personally I have a line somewhere but I can't say exactly where... I see a lot of people playing covers (not necessarily "rock" or "pop", might be bluegrass for example), and I don't necessarily reach for the bell, book and candle every time. As long as there's some kind of spark, something other than sheer imitation, a bit of vitality and novelty I usually survive.

Well, depending on what's being covered. Some songs are, in my opinion, so mawkish or just plain bad that they are beyond redemption.

But in the hands of great musicians... you should hear Richard Thompson's version of "Oops! I Did It Again."

In fact there's a great example. Thompson has a side-project (now starting to accquire a life of it's own) called "1000 Years Of Popular Music." The story goes that late 1999 Playboy invited a panel of current stars and artists acclaimed by the critics (Thompson is squarely in the 2nd category) to submit a list of what they considered the best songs of the last millenium. Of course what they really wanted was the best songs since about WW2. Thompson gave them exactly what they wanted - going back to the earliest surviving song in some kind of English, and also chucked in some Gilbert and Sullivan, some olde Englishe proteste songes etc. They declined his list, but he said "hang on! There's the making of a good set list there."

So now he has this show with himself on guitar and vocals, a percussionist and a singer. And they do that list of songs. The show (well the DVD version) starts with a very old song Sumer Is Acumen In, travels through the middle ages, into the industrial era (the scary old union song "Blackleg Miner"), through Victoriana (music hall, Gilbert and Sullivan) and keeps on going more or less chronologically until it climaxes with Britney's big hit (current versions of the show avoid "Oops!" for fear of looking like cashing in on her problems). All covers, but great playing, loads of wit and vitality, and I don't go to sleep.

Shows what you can do with covers.

Sure, some guys use backtracks as a crutch, but I'm of the belief that talent will out. I know some one-man cover musos that I can truly admire their skill. Awesome playing skill and great with an audience. Creating a backtrack from scratch to sound like the original can be an art in itself.

I think we are forgetting that the original singer/songwriter or band is a relatively new phenomenon - for hundreds of years before that, the people that crafted the music and those that wrote the lyrics were usually different from the people that performed it - in fact the pendulum has swung again with most popular artists not writing their own music or lyrics either - doesn't that in effect make them cover artists? In the days before recording, the important thing was the song or the music, not the person performing it.

Singer, lyricist, musician, composer... It's all music, regardless of the path you take.

I remember watching a Jon Bon Jovi interview and he said something like "we've become a Bon Jovi cover band and I hate that and we want to re-invent ourselves by playing the songs different every time we perform".

I liked that.

This basically means that being an original songs performer and playing the same songs the same way 20 years later (like the Rolling Stones does) is as much a sell out as being a cover band.

All great musicians / band back in the 60's started as cover bands. Eric Clapton started off doing blues covers. Bob Dylan did Guthry covers, etc etc. Eventually they started to do originals when they recorded their own albums and got famous.

Even lately the cover songs are getting back. Guns 'n Roses did it. Billy Idol did it. Chilly Peppers did it. There is no shame in doing covers. It is just musically frustrating to be doing it the exact same way for 20 years, wether it is your own song you cover or wether it is somebody else's song.

So, my opinion? Do covers, but do it your way.

So, would Coldplay then be seen as a cover band? (Reffering to the Satch vs Coldplay saga "making it their own") ???

Keira WitherKay wrote: i saw a cover band recently who even left the guitar solo's in on the backtracks[/b]...... and just strummed chords...and often the wrong ones...while the solo was played on a crappy midi keyboard sound by the backtrack ...

Whoa ? - I thought you'd seen my show 'til I noticed you're in Joburg!!! ? ?

Seriously, I loved reading all the posts, guys. Really nice insights. Perhaps the issue is the word "cover" and the connotations that go with it. Playing well crafted songs certainly hones your own craft, whereas I also believe it is unfair to call only singer-songwriters "original".

Thanks for wading in with such a wide selection of viewpoints. Certainly made me look at the issue from a different angle ?

Personally i love it when a band can give a classic song a facelift. I dont support bands who play covers that sound exactly the same as the original, that defeats the purpose; the purpose being to give one's own interpretation of a song that has influenced you musically.

Take the local Durban band Sheep Down, they play an amazing cover of The Final Countdown with a punk feel to it and the audience appreciates the originality of the cover combined with the feel of the original.

What i also love is when covers are made of songs from different genres. Take for instance the cover of Coolio's Gangsters Paradise from the hardcore band In Fear and Faith, that again is an artists original interpretation of a song and the bridging of the gap between genres that seldom meet each other is very refreshing. In my opinion, good covers serve to prolong the enjoyment of songs that we may have relegated to the back of our cd racks...

For the bands i've mentioned, playing covers is neither a sell-out or survival skill. Bands such as these already have a steady fanbase and playing the occasional cover is just merely for fun ?

doc-phil wrote: I dont support bands who play covers that sound exactly the same as the original, that defeats the purpose; the purpose being to give one's own interpretation of a song that has influenced you musically.

For the bands i've mentioned, playing covers is neither a sell-out or survival skill. Bands such as these already have a steady fanbase and playing the occasional cover is just merely for fun ?

@ Doc-Phil: Your point is taken. Your comments are, of course, not valid for bands who exclusively play covers as a particular segment of the entertainment market (tribute shows, pubs & restauants). In those segments success is measured by how closely the cover resembles the original recording. Experimentation and adaptation in that particular market segment would soon equate to no work - the punters simply wouldn't stand for it.

But bands who either play original compositions, or exclusively play different arrangements of other compositions, quite rightly, can show their innovation and chops by coming up with a fresh take on a well-known standard. I agree with you 100% that releasing or performing a carbon copy cover in such a scenario is pointless. What value are you adding to the listener's experience? First Cut is the Deepest IMHO is a good example. Rod Stewart's 70's cover of the original by Cat Steven's was entirely different from Cat's recording, and had an independent reson for being. Sheryl Crow's recent cover was exactly like the Rod Stewart one, simply replacing his vocals with hers. Pointless.

Whats more of a sell out for a musician: playing music for money, or working a desk job at a bank for money?