more personal success with covers or originals

[seamus bass]

im just wondering since i am doing both between 3 bands what you my fellow bassist's have found to be more sucessfull, or are they both breaking even for you

[mike costelow]

I have written,recorded and gigged with an original band for 15 yrs. with no regrets at all, however,I always had side projects that were cover bands or a mix of mostly covers and some originals.Where I live if you want to gig every week and get paid you have to play covers,fri and sat night people want to hear familiar songs to get them on the dancefloor unless your originals are that good and appeal club owners and patrons.I now play with a group that does 25% originals and 75% covers.We do try to cover obscure tunes and put a unique spin on those not so obscure which makes it interesting. Dont think I would be very satasfied playing in all cover band for long!

[PRUNEFACE]

I think this is a little OT. try the "Band Mangement" forum.

[bassfears]

Ive done both , and it depends on what you consider success...weve made more money doing the cover shows for sure ...people seem to want a live DJ , but weve also played a lot of shows with major artists doing our originals that we didnt get paid for , but we shared the stage with some of our heros ...i say it the old quick nickel or slow dime ...if you want some pocket change for the week or do you want to tough it out and play your tunes and take over the world (which isnt a sure thing and really hard to do)

[Zooberwerx]

I love doing covers...the more obscure, the better. Funny this topic should come up as I'm in the middle of drafting an arrangement for "Maserati GT (I Ain't Got You)". Nice little boogie-woogie tune once covered by BOC.

OTOH, I hate Top 40.

Riis

[your idol]

i do covers of originals from my prior bands that had much more creative talent than my current band. which wouldnt be a problem if it wrote it..but i didnt. my ex bandmates hate me for it but im much bigger and ominous than they are so they just have to stand there and watch.

on that note this belongs in band management or misc

[JazzyJames]

I personally hate playing covers mainly because Im expected to play the original bassline. Id much rather groove on the drummer. In all my original songs, I seem to play more melody which does seem to step on the guitar player's toes but I seem to prefer it.

[rosanne]

I find it so much more satisfying to play originals. The internal satisfaction is enough. But also there's no comparing the feeling of getting a compliment for something original than for getting one for simply reproducing what someone else has done. For me that's success (monetary success is probably not in the cards).

[seamus bass]

yeah i realized after i got a subscription in my email i posted in the wrong place my bad sorry guys, thnks for the info though, i personally havent really had much success with originals until after the band breaks up, and then its "hey your that guy from ***** when are you playing next?" with covers its been good so far but the list is redundant even when you add more to it, its just not your own. the $$ is nice though

[Zooberwerx]

Originally Posted by JazzyJames

I personally hate playing covers mainly because Im expected to play the original bassline.

There's the catch. I usually learn covers without benefit of listening to the original recordings. I get a feel for what's going on by listening to the vocalist / guitarist and improvise from there. When I finally do get around to listening to the CD, my response is usually "jeez....I wasn't even close!" 9 time out of 10, I prefer our impromptu arrangements. Granted, this practice does not bode well when dealing with tunes that embrace signature bass lines.

Joe Cocker's success has been based heavily on covers but you'd be hard-pressed to find any similarities between his renditions and the originals.

Riis

[Pilgrim]

I'm in a surf band - which pretty much defines covers as our main fare. We have about three originals, but they're all surf music as well.

I like it all - but the audience responds to the covers, so they in tuen make me happy. We just added "Telstar" to our set, which is a number no one plays - people LOVE it!!

[chrisisnotevil]

I couldn't feel successful playing other people's music, but I don't play jazz, blues or other genres where there are "standards". It was ok when I was 16 mind...

[Phalex]

Original stuff was fun, but we never seemed to play out much, and when we did attendance was spotty. Not to mention that the singer song writer was an egotistical prick in a t-shirt and sport coat.

My cover band is pretty popular. We play to large appreciative crowds on a very regular basis, and we even make a little money doing it.

A mix of the two is the ideal situation, but I would rather go to the dentist than play in an all originals band again. Of course: YMMV IMHO etc etc....

[WalterBush]

I made more money in one year playing covers than I did in fifteen of playing originals. For a while, I supported a family of five.

This year looks to be even better. There are places in the desert southwest that pay thousands a weekend for a good tribute act.

[JulienJeff]

Originally Posted by rosanne

I find it so much more satisfying to play originals. The internal satisfaction is enough. But also there's no comparing the feeling of getting a compliment for something original than for getting one for simply reproducing what someone else has done. For me that's success (monetary success is probably not in the cards).

exactly how I feel. I never, never, play covers

[Basshappi]

Where I live original bands rarely even get booked much less paid.

I don't mind playing good cover music. I am not playing Rush or Yes tunes so I'm not concerned with exactly duplicating the basslines, I only incorporate 'signature' lines or hooks.

Truth be told, doing a good, different arrangement of covers can be every bit as challenging and satisfying as doing original music. Most bands I see tend to do exact (or nearly so)versions of covers and in my experience the only way that works is if you are a tribute act or else your stageshow is absolutely fantastic...and 99.9% of bands aren't.

The only way (IMHO of course) to make doing covers satisfying and have any chance a being successful, meaning regular bookings and decent pay, is to really make them your own. Many great bands/performers do cover tunes (hell, even Rush put out a CD of covers - and toured on it too!) but they do their own arrangements. No reason you can't do the same thing and your audience will probably appreciate (if you don't suck of course)

[Benjamin Strange]

I've been really lucky - I've managed to make a living playing music for several years without ever having to resort to playing covers.

It's a sad state of affairs that audiences are so unenlightened that they only want to hear the same damn songs that they've already been listening to for the past 40 years.

[NKBassman]

For me, I've had more monetary success with covers, but for personal satisfaction, peer respect, advancement in technique/ability, networking, touring, and overall being-in-a-band experience, I'd say originals.

So I voted for both.

[nutso42]

My band primarily plays covers, but seeing as we never get paid I voted for the last option.

[baba]

Originally Posted by NKBassman

For me, I've had more monetary success with covers, but for personal satisfaction, peer respect, advancement in technique/ability, networking, touring, and overall being-in-a-band experience, I'd say originals.

So I voted for both.

This is my experience.