Cover band vs. original band?

DeadGoonz · #1 11-22-2011, 03:45 PM

In light if the recent post "Is your band a cover" I was thinking, what differences and what things do we have in common? Funny, mean, rude and borderline obscene whatever.

I am in an original band and was simply shocked how the poll on the other post was so lopsided.

Well have at it and I look forward to reading your responses.

JohnMCA72 · #2 11-22-2011, 03:59 PM

A cover band is at least pretty well assured of having good material to play. An original band that can't write good songs has a steep uphill climb.

lowfreq33 · #3 11-22-2011, 04:15 PM

#1- cover bands make money pretty much immediately. Original bands may never.

bassbully · #4 11-22-2011, 09:35 PM

Uh No big can o' worm's opened here.Basically cover bands are quicker to start up and get gigging. They make money and are easier to promote and manage IMO.
I have nothing against covers and have done them in the past. For now for me they don't wet my musical appetite.I like writing ,arranging and producing original music and it motivates me. Covers only would bore me. It is worth the trade off of low the pay and long hours I have worked promoting my band and music ..I find it tough but rewarding in the end.

rtslinger · #5 11-23-2011, 09:53 AM

I have been on both sides of the fence I still write songs, but the cover band scene is the one you need to use as a stepping stone to get your music out to the crowds. Clubs that have just original bands in my area always bs the bands with oh you have a free place to get your music out there so you play for free at some open mic nite or you pay to play or worst some promoter screws you on selling tickets. At least if you get your foot in the door as a cover band you can throw in an original here or there and club owners usually do not have a problem with that. It is just another means to the same end. Lastly you can save the money you make in a cover band to pay for your recording time and other things like that. Many bands started out as cover bands including the Beatles is a fine example

Muttleybass · #6 11-23-2011, 10:03 AM

I did originals when I was younger. Much respect to those with the dedication to drive an hour to play a 40 minute set (knocked down to 30 because the first band went over time) for free, with 3 other bands who don't stay for your set. I've been on the road and now I watch my son slug it out and just shake my head. Touring is a younger, single man's game. Plus, the original scene in Vancouver seems like it's all punk and screamo. I think I look ridiculous screaming like cookie monster to a bunch of 22 year old head bangers. I'm old enough to be their dad! Plus, after playing a song I wrote 30 years ago for the umpteenth time, it might as well be a cover anyway.

I love to play live. Unless I'm offered a gig in an established, mature original act with a following, it's covers for me. I like the packed dance floor, the money, and playing almost every weekend.

bunkaroo · #7 11-23-2011, 10:15 AM

I've done both although for years I swore I'd never do covers.

Most cover bands I've been in I had to get paid at least $150 a gig or I was out, as it just wasn't worth my time. Plus I mostly feel like a live jukebox playing in bands that do "a little bit of everything".

The exception to this was when I was in a Queensryche tribute band. I didn't care what we got paid - we were out playing Mindcrime in its entirety. That kicked ass. Not to mention playing songs like "Screaming in Digital" and "The Whisper" out. We were doing stuff no other cover band was doing.

Even in my mid-30's I still get off playing originals. Even if I didn't write the material, playing bass lines I crafted myself is just way more rewarding than playing "Livin' on a Prayer" for the 1,000th time. Thankfully I do well enough with my day job that I don't need to make money from a band.

**Howlin' Hanson** · #8 11-23-2011, 05:09 PM

The Who, The Stones and The Beatles (and tons of others) started as cover bands. The writing took them to the next level.

tekdiver500ft · #9 11-23-2011, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howlin' Hanson

The Who, The Stones and The Beatles (and tons of others) started as cover bands. The writing took them to the next level.

Add KISS into that mix (Beatles tribute band). Covers are the way to go at first (maybe forever). Gradually mix in some originals, and if your writing is good enough, you can play all originals eventually.

nitrofix · #10 11-23-2011, 06:40 PM

I've been in both and enjoyed then both for different reasons..Right now I'm in an original band they just happen to be someone else's original's...

Phalex · #11 11-24-2011, 10:56 AM

Originals are fun, and I do like the creative aspect, but only up to a point. Coming up with a song while I'm screwing around at home is great fun. Sitting down with a group of people with the express purpose of writing a CD's worth of material, is wretched tedious work, IMO.

Then there's the ego aspect of the whole song writing thing. If a song doesn't go over, scrap it. I really hate having to trot the same tired old dog out over and over again because the singer claims it's a great song.

I like to play. I'm a bass player first. I have no great interest in being a composer or songwriter.

I get off on playing my heart out to topless chicks. I could care less about what I'm playing or who wrote it. The money doesn't hurt either.

Floyd Eye · #12 11-24-2011, 10:57 AM

Original band.

No wait, cover band.

No wait, aw who cares? Play what you like.

bunkaroo · #13 11-24-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phalex

Originals are fun, and I do like the creative aspect, but only up to a point. Coming up with a song while I'm screwing around at home is great fun. Sitting down with a group of people with the express purpose of writing a CD's worth of material, is wretched tedious work, IMO.

Then there's the ego aspect of the whole song writing thing. If a song doesn't go over, scrap it. I really hate having to trot the same tired old dog out over and over again because the singer claims it's a great song.

I like to play. I'm a bass player first. I have no great interest in being a composer or songwriter.

I get off on playing my heart out to topless chicks. I could care less about what I'm playing or who wrote it. The money doesn't hurt either.

No offense, but you've obviously been involved with the wrong musicians or have the wrong approach to original music. Writing music should never feel like that. I'd stop too if that's what it was like for me. Plus, not everyone is cut out for originals. I've played with some great players who couldn't write their own solo let alone a song. So be it. They'd be my first call if I needed to put together a corporate wedding band.

Good collaborative songwriting comes when the musicians working together have a mutual respect for each other, and have wisdom enough to know when something isn't as good as they thought it might be. I also think it's important to collaborate with people who don't have the exact same influences. If five guys who all love Metallica get a in a room to write, you can bet the final product will sound a lot like Metallica. Variety is key IMO.

Probably the most rewarding experience as a musician has been bringing in material to a band and seeing how it evolves in a way I hadn't imagined because of collaboration. One man can't do it all.

mboogiemanusa · #14 11-25-2011, 09:09 PM

Done both over the years. Either can be lots of fun. I think that a band should learn 30 or 40 covers together first to jell as a band and then concentrate on writing originals ala Beatles or Stones. Also learning covers improves one's musicianship over the long run. I've played with some "originals only" cats and frankly ......they had to write their own songs because they did not have the chops to play a lot of covers. That fact actually limited the song writing down the road because they were limited on their instruments. One drag about originals is in the local music scene .....originals are more of a young man's game. I'm in my 50's and would be very tough to get any traction in a band of 50 year olds playing originals. I am gigging every weekend still in a rock cover band. If you don't expect to play live very much then go original.

SolidFooting · #15 11-25-2011, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunkaroo

Even if I didn't write the material, playing bass lines I crafted myself is just way more rewarding than playing "Livin' on a Prayer" for the 1,000th time.

And all I'm gonna say to that is few people have played "Livin' on a Prayer" more than Bon Jovi.

bunkaroo · #16 11-26-2011, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolidFooting

And all I'm gonna say to that is few people have played "Livin' on a Prayer" more than Bon Jovi.

Your point?

Joe Nerve · #17 11-26-2011, 08:29 AM

People who play only covers are musicians. People who play originals are artists. To me it's like the difference between draftsmen and an architects.

fokof · #18 11-26-2011, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Nerve

People who play only covers are musicians. People who play originals are artists. To me it's like the difference between draftsmen and an architects.

Ouf!!!!

A jazzman interpreting a Miles Davis standard is only a musician not an artist ?
While JoeBlow doin' one of the Million rap on Youtube is an artist ?

Joe Nerve · #19 11-26-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fokof

Ouf!!!!

A jazzman interpreting a Miles Davis standard is only a musician not an artist ?
While JoeBlow doin' a Millionth' rap on Youtube is an artist ?

If they're reinterpreting something and making it their own, I would consider them an artist. If they're just playing covers and adding an embellishment here and there I'd consider them a musician with their own technique. If they write crap music I'd call them a crappy artist.

Ahh... I'm just lookin to start trouble. I think generally speaking my initial statement is true. But there are tons of exceptions.

I do find, and I've posted about it before that there are definite differences between cover band people and people who do original music. And I'm not saying one is better than the other. I get along much easier and connect way more with people who do original music than cover band dudes. In fact, I don't think I've ever become close friends with any of the guys in any of the cover bands I've played in. And that's gotta be at least 20 bands. On the other hand I usually become pretty tight with people I do original music with.

A think a different mentality goes into each, and there are plusses and minuses on both sides. Generally speaking... cover people tend to be more practical, put other (often more important things) like family and jobs before their music, and seem more organized. They also often seem to have bigger egos, at least in my experience. People doing original music tend to think a little more outside the lines, fit a little less into society, and are a bit more open minded. Music usually takes priority over other things, and they have a different commitment to it than I think the cover band people do. In short, they can't live without it, while I feel the others can.

It's definitely not black and white, and there are plenty of people who fit into both categories, but my personal experience has shown me the above more often than not.

SolidFooting · #20 11-27-2011, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunkaroo

Your point?

My point is that just because you play originals doesn't mean you don't have to play them thousands of times. The best way to get around that is to never have a hit. But that's counterproductive, isn't it?

Personally, my dream is to be a one-hit-wonder, tour the country for a year opening for some schmucks, retire, and do what I want for the rest of my life, making occasional appearances on VH1 when I need some extra dough.