Cover Band vs Originals

[GravitiesBass]

I'm fairly new here, and I couldn't find this topic with the search engine so I figure I'd start it.

What is your prefered band style and why? If you'd rather be in a cover band tell us why, and if you think cover bands are nothing but glorified jukeboxes, I wanna hear that too.

Me personally, I'd rather be in a band that does Originals. I've played both now, and even though it's a lot harder to make it and get regular gigs doing original music its what I love. To me there is no greater feeling than seeing someone sing along with a song you wrote, or over hearing someone hum or sing your song.

With that being said, I have no problem with putting covers in our set list but I like to keep the mix at about 90% originals. Also, if we're doing a cover, I like to make it our song and not just a carbon karaoke copy of the original.

So, let's hear your side of the debate. Also, this is an opinion thread, so don't take it too personally.

[d8g3jdh]

I'd rather do originals because writing my own stuff is interesting and fun.

But when it gets right down to it Covers are going to have a much larger shot of getting me/us gigs, so I'll do covers.

[::::BASSIST::::]

Covers here. In my opinion originals are great for expressing your creativity and making you feel good about yourself, but that's where it ends. Unless you are an absolutely fantastic band, people much prefer to hear covers. They are what they know and hopefully (if you play the right ones) what they love. Out of 40 songs my band plays 3 originals, one which I wrote 100%. They are all good songs, but they just dont get the response from a crowd that Light My Fire or Highway Star gets.

The other huge benefit of covers is that you dont spend a ton of time working on songs in someone's basement only to have the band breakup (which they inevitably do). Now all those songs you have poured your blood, sweat and tears into are toast. Unless you can convince a new band to "cover" originals from your old band. Doesnt seem that likely to me. With covers, once you know them you can play them for the rest of your life, transferring them from band to band. This way you can build a huge catalogue of known & loved songs and always be in demand as a guy who "knows his stuff."

I guess it can be summed up by this:

If you are into music for the "art" - originals.

If pleasing the audience is your first priority as well as getting paid gigs - covers.

[superbassman2000]

true...i think that most people like to hear the songs they know...I however, as an audience member would rather hear an ok original rather than a perfectly played cover...i am not a fan of covers at all though
although one or two per set can be cool


my hypothesis is that most of the responses will be that we like playing originals over covers, but would be glad to play covers if it means $$

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by VEGANBASS

The other huge benefit of covers is that you dont spend a ton of time working on songs in someone's basement only to have the band breakup (which they inevitably do). Now all those songs you have poured your blood, sweat and tears into are toast. Unless you can convince a new band to "cover" originals from your old band. Doesnt seem that likely to me. With covers, once you know them you can play them for the rest of your life, transferring them from band to band. This way you can build a huge catalogue of known & loved songs and always be in demand as a guy who "knows his stuff."

This is the reason I chose a cover band. I have a full time job, and I dont' have the free time necessary to work on originals. Plus, in Nashville, like many markets, original bands are typically stuck with playing for tips until you get a significant following. That's the downside of living in a town full of bands and singers trying to "make it."

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

It seems that most successful musicians who do originals started out doing covers. I think that's a logical progression: sharpen your act with covers, develop a following, add more and more original material to the mix, and if it's good the the fans will want more original stuff.

Doing covers is good for songwriting because it helps you become aware of the tricks and techniques involved in crafting a song.

[Tajue17]

don't care for any full set cover bands. theres bands who know how to put together songs and then theres bands who don't and thats the cover bands.

may piss people off by saying that but thats how me and everyone else I know in Boston feels.
AND for the record you won't get very many shows as a cover band in the city doing covers, coverbands usually are in the Burbs with the drunk Townie crowds yelling **** at them all nite.

[Lazylion]

I like to play live. I don't have much desire to play in folks' basements. And I like to be paid to play. Therefore it's covers, mostly.
I like it the best when my cover band also has a few origs. In my current band the keyboard player writes with a friend of his, but he seems to have no interest in us doing his songs. I've been in the band for 5+ years, and we do 3 of his songs, once in a while. It was just 2, we learned #3 just a couple of weeks ago. Who the heck writes songs, then doesn't want his band to play them? I don't get that.
Anyway, back on topic, I'd be happy to play all origs, if there was work. That's a big "if"!

[zac2944]

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

It seems that most successful musicians who do originals started out doing covers. I think that's a logical progression: sharpen your act with covers, develop a following, add more and more original material to the mix, and if it's good the the fans will want more original stuff.

Doing covers is good for songwriting because it helps you become aware of the tricks and techniques involved in crafting a song.

+1


Bob is soooo on the money here. It is all about paying your dues, respect for musicians who are better than you, and learning from the greats. The best way to learn how to write and perform your own great music is by playing, performing and studying other peoples great music. You sharpen your skills, and learn what works and what doesn't work.

I find that too many young players aren't interested in playing covers. I'm not exactly sure why? I guess it's not cool or something? I didn't want too when I was young either.

Back on topic; I play in a cover band currently, but we do it with originality. We do play some originals, but only a few. What we do to be original with the covers is to change certain parts of the songs. We will add a different intro, or write a change that brings us into a totally new song. Sometimes we'll play a tune with a different style. For example we do "Lady Marmalade" and play the last 32 bars as a fast samba. We don't do it just to be original, but to put on a good show. Keep 'em guessing, but give them what they want.

I think that playing either covers or originals is cool, but the bottom line is your draw. If you're drawing a good crowd every night then it is all good. Playing in a band that cannot draw, whether you do originals or covers, is a waste of time IMHO.

[ctbass]

I get great satisfaction from both. However, when you do a diverse set of covers and people come up to you and say how similar the band sounded to the original, I think that is a testament to quality and versatility of the band. Nothing wrong with making a cover your own, but certainly nothing shameful and actually can really showcase your talent to be true to the original.

[tZer]

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

It seems that most successful musicians who do originals started out doing covers. I think that's a logical progression: sharpen your act with covers, develop a following, add more and more original material to the mix, and if it's good the the fans will want more original stuff.

Doing covers is good for songwriting because it helps you become aware of the tricks and techniques involved in crafting a song.

+ 1 again...

I love originals and have done the 'trying to get signed' thing. But just like any profession, you have to serve time in doing the entry level stuff to gain the experience and skill needed to move up the ladder.

I think the reasons for playing in a cover band for a while are:
1. Learning how to perform - being in a band that intends to do live performance means more then just playing your music - you have to be visually entertaining as well.
2. Finding out about yourself as a musician. You discover as you play a wide variety of covers the styles of music what turns you on the most, how certain types of songs effect your performance, how well you can or cannot do things like back-up or lead vocals, etc...
3. On the local level it helps your audience know you better. When you start of playing songs that people know, they come to your shows and get to know you. Then when you are ready to introduce them to your original stuff, they have an idea of where you are coming from and are more likely to 'get it' and want to support it. It is a way to gain their trust and confidence.
4. Band and personnel/personal management. You learn very quickly that being in a band is much more then just jamming with your buds... you have to be personally, financially, and generally a very responsible person. The music industry as a whole is very unforgiving and can even be cut-throat. If you are immature in anyway, you will be eaten alive. Playing some parties, bars, and weddings as a cover band is not quite as 'dangerous' but you get some experience dealing with bar owners, clients, other bands, etc...

I think young bands that start right off as original acts are a little delusional. I never want to discourage anyone from doing anything, but realize that you can always move up to the original world - it is not going anywhere - and the idea that you have to start that way is wrong-headed - in my opinion.

[Dirty Dave]

Originally Posted by Tajue17

theres bands who know how to put together songs and then theres bands who don't and thats the cover bands.

That statement was good for a laugh but that's about it.

That's like saying there are bands that want to make money and play more than ten songs a night and bands that don't and that's the original bands.

Originally Posted by Tajue17

may piss people off by saying that but thats how me and everyone else I know in Boston feels.

I've spent 34 of my 36 years in Boston, know quite a few musicians there and never heard any of them say that. There are many other mindsets to this decision making process than you are taking into consideration.

[Marcus]

I personally cannot understand the logic behind paying to see a cover band, nor do I understand investing the time and effort into "professionally" playing another band's tunes. For some of you guys I understand how it is financially lucrative, especially if you have more pressing matters than bass playing, but for the younger cats, is it really something to aspire to?

To me, it is simply not rewarding or original. As long as I have the ability to play and "live," I want to make sure I'm being me without living vicariously off some other band's tunes, no matter how good they may have been.

[zac2944]

Originally Posted by Tajue17

don't care for any full set cover bands. theres bands who know how to put together songs and then theres bands who don't and thats the cover bands.

may piss people off by saying that but thats how me and everyone else I know in Boston feels.
AND for the record you won't get very many shows as a cover band in the city doing covers, coverbands usually are in the Burbs with the drunk Townie crowds yelling **** at them all nite.

Whatever dude?

I sold out Johnny D's last Friday night with my COVER bad.

What did you do?

Not to sling mud, but you really sound silly making comments like that. Do you really think you can speak for everyone in Boston? I play all the time in the city and do very well playing covers.

[McHack]

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

It seems that most successful musicians who do originals started out doing covers. I think that's a logical progression: sharpen your act with covers, develop a following, add more and more original material to the mix, and if it's good the the fans will want more original stuff.

Doing covers is good for songwriting because it helps you become aware of the tricks and techniques involved in crafting a song.

+1...

We're working on covers, w/ the intention of growing into originals.

[superbassman2000]

just a question, but do you guys think that cover bands will be around for much longer? I mean, it seems to me that most people can just get a DJ for cheaper, and rather than some local guys doing it, you can hear the actual version, and i'd go so far as to say that 9 times out of 10, people would rather just hear the actual version...

just wondering what you guys think

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by superbassman2000

just a question, but do you guys think that cover bands will be around for much longer? I mean, it seems to me that most people can just get a DJ for cheaper, and rather than some local guys doing it, you can hear the actual version, and i'd go so far as to say that 9 times out of 10, people would rather just hear the actual version...

just wondering what you guys think

DJ's have been around for a long, long time, yet they don't seem to have taken much away from cover bands. Around here, getting a dj is considered a step DOWN from getting a live band.

[agreatheight]

I do 50 : 50.

I play in a cover band - it's good money, and hell, why shouldn't I make some money on the weekend using a talent I spent decades honing! And it's generally fun and easy - playing covers takes a lot of the ego driven power struggle out of a band. All everyone has to do is learn their parts and show up to practice and perform them, simple as that. We keep it pretty down to earth and so far it's pretty cool/

I also create original music. I don't do this in a band anymore, though, for a number of complicated reasons. I played in original bands for a long time and it was never as fulfilling as I'd wished. So after some internal debate I decided to work on my own material on my own. It's a slow and tedious process, but more worthwhile (for me).

The two are so different that a head to head comprasion seems somewhat futile.

[zac2944]

Originally Posted by Marcus Alan

I personally cannot understand the logic behind paying to see a cover band, nor do I understand investing the time and effort into "professionally" playing another band's tunes. For some of you guys I understand how it is financially lucrative, especially if you have more pressing matters than bass playing, but for the younger cats, is it really something to aspire to?

To me, it is simply not rewarding or original. As long as I have the ability to play and "live," I want to make sure I'm being me without living vicariously off some other band's tunes, no matter how good they may have been.

IMHO, the logic is that people like to see cover bands, and I like to play for packed clubs and make good money. It may not make sense to you, but you can't deny that it is true. Cover bands (at least in Boston) pack bars, get steady gigs, and make great money.

I wouldn't say that someone should aspire to become a great cover band player, but I do think that young musicians should have respect for the great musicians that came before them and be willing to learn from them. You don't have to play in a cover band to do that, but it is a good way to learn. Learning from great players while practicing in your bedroom is one thing, but when you have to do it on stage you take it to a whole other level.

[tZer]

Originally Posted by Marcus Alan

I personally cannot understand the logic behind paying to see a cover band, nor do I understand investing the time and effort into "professionally" playing another band's tunes. For some of you guys I understand how it is financially lucrative, especially if you have more pressing matters than bass playing, but for the younger cats, is it really something to aspire to?

To me, it is simply not rewarding or original. As long as I have the ability to play and "live," I want to make sure I'm being me without living vicariously off some other band's tunes, no matter how good they may have been.

Going on the assumption that the band is a group of young people (college age or younger) or are new-ish to the idea of being in a performing band, and that they definitely have other things occupying their time, like school or jobs, then a cover band make sense for lots and lots of good reasons, professionally, musically, experience-wise, and so on...

Now I am in my late 30's - been there, done that, and even though I am currently playing in a cover band to earn a little mad money, I am also working diligently with my musician friends on lots of original projects. This keeps the artist in me very happy while I still get to perform for LOTS of people and get paid. I don't know what it is like in your neck of the woods, but here in the mid-west people just do not turn out in droves to see local, original acts. It is unfortunate, but true. So if you enjoy the vibe you get from playing to a large room filled with shiny, happy people, you really need to dust off the covers and get up there and shake yo arse.

The market for original acts it there, but it is far less energetic and populated, not to mention the fact that there is no money to be made. So being a realist, I definitely plan to do originals with my friends live at some of our more 'original friendly' establishments, but I have no delusions of 'making it' or getting signed... I am doing THAT scene for the love of the music.

So I feel that there are really good reasons to consider both worlds. They both offer rewarding experiences and neither is 'more correct' then the other.

I guess it is similar to asking if I should just go straight into running my own business or get some experience working for other people before I try to run my own thing...