Orignals Bands vs Cover Bands, Open Discussion

bluewine · #1 12-19-2011, 09:48 AM

You probably saw this topic coming.

While it's an open discussion, the topic is driven by what I have seen on the forum,that being, originals bands and musicians are just a little bit better than those playing covers

There just seems to be a bit of snobbery from some of you originals enthusiest.

I recently switched to more of a cover band (blues/rock) from my last 2 bands which were originals.

My position is, there are some really good originals & cover bands out there as well as marginal to poor.

Which one is for you?

I think top notch originals bands are great for young guys that have a shot at making it. (Whatever that means )

I don't think original bands, for the most part are for guys in their 40s, that want to play out a lot and are looking to get paid for their services. ( depending on the scene in their region)

Your thoughts/ opinions?

mambo4 · #2 12-19-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewine

there are some really good originals & cover bands out there as well as marginal to poor.

yup. Genre never determines quality. You be awesome or suck at any music, original or not.
"covers vs originals" is just another pointless dichotomy that goes in the box with "technique vs feel" and "theory vs groove."

On second thought, I take that back. The biggest hill to climb for originals is trying to create music that's actually good, and that's a big challenge.
So big that many original bands never make it out of the basement. You can practice till your parts are flawless, get up and execute the songs without a hitch, and still be mediocre because of the material.

For learning the ropes of actually gigging, the practical skills needed to book/prepare/play a live show, not to mention the fundamentals of executing a song correctly, a cover band is the more efficient road.

BassChuck · #3 12-19-2011, 10:11 AM

Age has nothing to do with it. An original band creating their own music should have something to say or present musically that is worth hearing.

As far as original vs. cover... that had been done to death around here. Both have pluses and minuses. Do what you think you can do best. No shame or glory in doing a poor job of either.

ABravado · #4 12-19-2011, 10:14 AM

Both.
Originals as a creative outlet.
Covers to make money.

AfroCubanFunkMa · #5 12-19-2011, 10:16 AM

Methinks someone... Cough, Cough... is looking for another lame Internet argument.. Hence the tired old rehash of covers vs. originals.. As an added bonus this time our humble narrator is taking the other side of his argument... LOL

TinIndian · #6 12-19-2011, 10:22 AM

Primarily, we are a cover band. But like a great many we have originals in our sets as well. Not a real good original music scene around here anymore. 20-25 years ago it was huge.

Don't understand the argument that an originals band has better players than cover bands. Did I all of a sudden lose my skills because most of what we play in my current band are covers rather than the original music I have done in the past?

bluewine · #7 12-19-2011, 10:26 AM

For learning the ropes of actually gigging, the practical skills needed to book/prepare/play a live show, not to mention the fundamentals of executing a song correctly, a cover band is the more efficient road.[/quote]

Agreed, I wish I could impress this on my former guitar mates.

They both refuse to play covers, both are killer lead guitarist. They both complain about wanting to play out more and get paid.

Now I'm talking to them about my gigs and all they can say is, " yeah, I'm just working on some of my stuff"

Febs · #8 12-19-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewine

I am an an originals band guy, I am a rock guy.I know what I am and that will never change.

bluewine · #9 12-19-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AfroCubanFunkMa

Methinks someone... Cough, Cough... is looking for another lame Internet argument.. Hence the tired old rehash of covers vs. originals.. As an added bonus this time our humble narrator is taking the other side of his argument... LOL

No arguments needed here, there are two sides on this topic, neither is right or wrong.

I happen to see the value in both.

However, it's the cover route that fills my needs as a musician right now.

Passinwind · #10 12-19-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewine

You probably saw this topic coming.

While it's an open discussion, the topic is driven by what I have seen on the forum,that being, originals bands and musicians are just a little bit better than those playing covers

There just seems to be a bit of snobbery from some of you originals enthusiasts.

You dished it out for years, my friend. Hope you enjoy the other side of the fence...

bluewine · #11 12-19-2011, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs

Yeah, well I change positions a lot. I will say covers are best for me right now. In 2-3 years, my position might change.

Passinwind · #12 12-19-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewine

Yeah, well I change positions a lot. I will sat covers are best for me right now. In 2-3 years, my position might change.

Hey Blue,

I meant what I said -- hope you are enjoying your new direction.

BobaFret · #13 12-19-2011, 10:36 AM

If you are in an originals band but don't write the material it's kinda the same. You are just playing covers written by your band mate.

bluewine · #14 12-19-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passinwind

You dished it out for years, my friend. Hope you enjoy the other side of the fence...

You might be misinterpreted what I was saying at the time. I have never been a snob on either side of the fence.

DBCrocky · #15 12-19-2011, 10:37 AM

I am not looking to make lots of money.

I am not looking for fame and fortune.

I just want to play some nice gigs in front of decent crowds and have fun.

So either type of band works for me. As long as there is not someone in the band trying to tell me I have to play note for note

But right now, I am in my 40's, in an original band, and playing out 4-6 times a month. Works good for me.

bluewine · #16 12-19-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passinwind

Hey Blue,

I meant what I said -- hope you are enjoying your new direction.

So far I am, first gig was Saturday night and I had a blast. It's good to be out playing again and I really like the bar crowd, very responsive and appreciative.

Febs · #17 12-19-2011, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewine

Yeah, well I change positions a lot. I will sat covers are best for me right now. In 2-3 years, my position might change.

There's nothing wrong with that. Variety can be a good thing.

Oneirogenic · #18 12-19-2011, 10:44 AM

It is entirely plausible that some musicians play in cover bands because they lack the skillsets and creativity necessary to make a "successful" originals band. This does not mean they aren't great players. I know an amazing flautist who couldn't improvise to save her life but could play any music you put in front of her. By most standards she would not be considered a lesser musician for that. Since money is tipped in favor of cover bands originals guys can get bitter about that, myself included. I am certainly disheartened by the fact that a mediocre cover band can get a good gig faster than an excellent original band. I knew that going in though so I try not to complain too much.

bluewine · #19 12-19-2011, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBCrocky

But right now, I am in my 40's, in an original band, and playing out 4-6 times a month. Works good for me.

That's outstanding, 1 gig, 2 tops per month is the average for Originals in Milwaukee.

Joe Louvar · #20 12-19-2011, 10:50 AM

I don’t care - I just don’t like bands that work for chump change.