Covers bands: is a three-piece band going to hack it?

[Fassa Albrecht]

I've formed a band and at the moment we're resigned to doing covers, mainly just to get some gig time and some playing time with each other.


Anyway, we're a three piece at the moment (bass, guitarist-vocals, drums) and although we can play our stuff relatively well, it feels sometimes that we're a bit limited.

So, is a three-piece COVERS band going to get anywhere? Or are we limiting our material by doing this?

[Ric5]

If you have good vocals then yes ... The Who and Led Zep were both basically 3 piece bands ... also zz top and many others ...

[Knifedge]

The only disadvantages to having a three piece cover band would be the lack of a second guitar player to fill out the empty sound while the lead guitar is soloing, unless of course you either play songs without solos, or you happen to have one of those rare guitar players who solos while putting in their own background fill (a la Eric Clapton, Ty Tabor etc). I prefer a 4 piece cover band, it just sounds fuller, then you have that option of playing songs that have guitar solos.

[derrico1]

A three piece works fine, but you all have to be very good.

[Essexbass]

It can be done - there's an excellent 3 piece covers band down here in the South East of England called "Be Sharp" www.besharp.co.uk - I've seen these fellas 8 or 9 times, & they're top quality.

What you have to bear in mind is the fact that these guys are full time pros, & the guitarist uses a guitar synth sound (for synth / keyboard sounds) on top of his regular guitar sounds.

If the three of you are up for it, you'll have to stick together & work hard at it, but you'll get there in the end!

Let us know how it goes.

Cheers,
Essexbass

[DeluxeRed]

Originally Posted by Knifedge

The only disadvantages to having a three piece cover band would be the lack of a second guitar player to fill out the empty sound while the lead guitar is soloing, unless of course you either play songs without solos, or you happen to have one of those rare guitar players who solos while putting in their own background fill (a la Eric Clapton, Ty Tabor etc). I prefer a 4 piece cover band, it just sounds fuller, then you have that option of playing songs that have guitar solos.

Ah...that would make an interesting thread. I believe a lot of the fill behind a solo is the bass player's responsibility (I play in a 6-piece, but 3 are singers, so it's a 3-piece backup). Often behind the vocal parts, I'm playing shorter notes (for example) to leave room for the vox, guitar fills, the snare drum, etc., but when the solo comes up, I'm playing louder, longer, fuller notes, filling in more of the sonic space. I'll sometimes roll in even more mids if I don't alread have them pumped (that's where the sound is, right?). I'm usually driving into just a bit of crunch, too, so those other overtones are there. I don't think people think they're missing anything. The sound changes a bit when solos come, but it is a good sound that drives and carries the song. We cover a lot of songs with--originally--2 guitar parts and/or keyboard parts.

So, yes, you can do it. But it's the bass player who has to step up. (It doesn't hurt that my gp is smokin', as well...)

[DeluxeRed]

And I might add: the drummer changes what he's doing, as well, often going to the ride (for example) during the solo, again filling in more space with the longer decay of the ride, and also changing the feel just a bit for the solo so that the lack of a 2nd guitar is not a noticable. We really enjoy those parts, cuz it allows us to lock in really tight together and add some little rythmic flourishes behind the solo (while keeping the focus on supporting the lead).

[Joe Nerve]

Musically there is no question that a 3 piece band can do it. There are lots of successful 4 piece cover bands where the singer doesn't play anything and the players don't sing anything. The good news is you can make a lot more money as a 3 piece than a 4 or 5 piece. The bad news however is...

for reasons still unknown to me (maybe the fact that they think they'll bring more friends) bars are hesitant to hire 3 piece bands. At least in NY. They like seeing a front man, and it seems the more people in the band the happier the bars are. When I was in The Nerve (3 piece original band who did some cover gigs in the end) we had more than one bar owner tell us he didn't like to book 3 piece bands.

That being said, I follow with screw the statistics or anything I'm saying. If you have a 3 piece cover band make it the best 3 piece cover band out there and change anyone's idea about what you can and can't do. There are NO rules, NO laws (maybe some ) and lots of new trails to pave. You may have to work a little harder than a bigger band, but so what. Go for it.

[droskobass]

90% of all of the gigs I've ever done were 3 piece or basically a 3 piece rhythm section.

be confident and dynamic and it'll go very well!

[PSPookie]

Originally Posted by derrico1

A three piece works fine, but you all have to be very good.

This.

No place to hide in a 3 piece.

[Kenny Allyn]

Our band is three piece ... but with a dedicated vocalist (OK four then)

Here is what is gonna help ... A REALLY GREAT VOCALIST

Nothing fires a crowd up like great vocals

Pick your songs well, we do all kinds of tunes that originally had way more players than 3, which brings me to the next point, and I'm gonna say this loud FORGET THE RECORD! This is where the word cover gets a bad name, make the song yours The Ataris did a cover of the classic Eagles tune "Boys of Summer" to my ear better and fresher than the original ... same thing the Beatles, Stones, Zep etc: did on many a tune.

Playing three piece can be a bass players dream, you have sooo much room to play! This applies to the drummer and guitar too. In our case we add a bit of "jam band" aspect to our playing it can mean we never play it the same way twice.

The guitar player and I have pedal boards and it allows me to do the same kinda thing he does, I can get fuzz, synth, and cool organ like vibe going along with the bass line (just be careful how and when you use it)

Finally work in some originals ... if that's where you heart is, no better way to road test our own tunes than throwing them in on a 4 hour gig and seeing how they play to the crowd, best acid test there is for your work.

... Get out there have fun PLAY HARD!

[Joe Nerve]

I want to add a bit regarding the success of a cover band. Doing original music is my passion, but over the past 15 years I've played in countless cover bands and done lots and lots of fill in gigs with different bands. I've learned that while some things might seem important, they're not NEARLY as important as other things that you would think would take a back seat.

Talent, tightness, and great musicianship are fine and help, BUT a charismatic lead singer with a lot of friends (even if he can't sing) is worth way way more than the most talented musicians on the planet.

When doing covers the only things that truly matter are that you play the music that whatever bar your in wants to hear (which is unfortunately usually Jessie's Girl and Livin on a Prayer), and that you somehow either involve the crowd or simply make sure they have a good time. You could be the most horrible band in town, but if you've got that going you'll get gigs and make money. So many bands put so much time into becoming the most polished band they can, playing music that they think nobody else plays, and wind up falling flat on their face becasue they either bore the crap out of everyone or just don't know how to engage a room full of people. Only other musicians care if you're playing Spirit of the Radio dead on.

My suggestion: Know lots of songs, have energy on stage, put on a show, get people involved, and do whatever you have to do to get as many people as you can down to the first few gigs. And know that regardless of what anyone tells you, people aren't there to see your band. They're there have a good time and hang with lots of people. Tribute bands might be an exception. You can have the greatest band on the planet but if only 5 people are coming to see you, bars aren't going to hire you, and others won't come to check it out. And if you're a 2 piece band that sucks but 200 people come to every one of your shows, every bar in town will hire you and pay you well.

[Richland123]

I have played in several very successful 3 piece bands over the years and my current one just reached our 600th gig and 8th anniversary. Success depends on many factors for any band but being 3 piece means you have to work hard, pick the right songs, create a full and tight sound, and play and sing well. My band has 3 lead singers, which really helps and we cover 6 decades worth of material. Many times, people are surprised at some of the tunes we do as a 3 piece band but they work for us.

There have been numerous well known 3 piece bands or bands with 3 musicians and a lead singer that made it big. Here are a few.

Cream
Buddy Holly and The Crickets
Jimi Hendrix Experience
Emerson, Lake and Palmer
Glass Harp
Led Zeppelin
The Who
ZZ Top
Motorhead
Rush
U2
Mahogany Rush
Pat Travers Band
Green Day
Blink 182
The Police
The Outfield
Poison
Motley Crue
Van Halen
Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble
Grand Funk Railroad
The James Gang
Los Lonely Boys
John Mayer Trio
King’s X
Beck, Bogert, and Appice
Hot Tuna
Triumph
Robin Trower Band
Johnny Winter’s Progressive Blues Experiment
Cactus
Nirvana
Blue Cheer
Stone Temple Pilots
Creed
Budgie
Primus
Zebra
FM
Klaatu

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by Fassa Albrecht

I've formed a band and at the moment we're resigned to doing covers, mainly just to get some gig time and some playing time with each other.


Anyway, we're a three piece at the moment (bass, guitarist-vocals, drums) and although we can play our stuff relatively well, it feels sometimes that we're a bit limited.

So, is a three-piece COVERS band going to get anywhere? Or are we limiting our material by doing this?

three piece outfits are the norm these days and economics,is probably the reason.......and while i've seen some excellent trios,i find myself yearning for a good old b3,or piano player,horn section,or other variants to change the scenery...

..no matter how good they are guitar led trios can still be a tad limiting,at least from my perspective ....two smokin guitar players bouncing ideas off each other.........a harmonica player that knows when not to play as well as when to play,and when is the last time you saw a santana like percussion thing.......some bands did without guitars.....bob seger system comes to mind

i understand why pared down bands are so prevalent but .........yeah,if you're really good,you will do well as a trio

[Bruce Lindfield]

I love the fact that this thread has been taken seriously...

[COOL AND DEADLY]

Sublime was essentially a three piece too. Our band has two guitars, bass, and drums. We have often played as a three piece.

[Phalex]

Absolutely! I myself play in a three piece coverband. Well, it would be a three piece band if any of the guys that play instruments (or the drummer) could sing. So I guess I have a three piece band, plus a singer. It really sounds like four, but the singer doesn't actually do anything other than sing. I mean absolutely nothing!

Oh, and we have a sound guy too. so we actually pay five people, but as far as the band goes, there's three of us. Plus the singer. And a sound guy.

[jaywa]

First: Everyone - please. The OP is not talking about 3 pieces and a frontman. It is 3 members. Period. Vox included.

Originally Posted by derrico1

A three piece works fine, but you all have to be very good.

And honestly, you all have to be able to sing. Including the drummer.

You can get away with a lead vox and one harmony on some songs, but on a lot of covers it sounds really thin. Great vocals are one way you can make up for the lack of instrumentation.

Now I'm going to ruffle some feathers... if you're all good enough and if your drummer has experience playing with a click and if you want to stay strictly 3-piece but still fill out the sound, you might want to think about sequencing some keyboard parts. You just all better be ready to rehearse with that thing a lot, cause if you get off with the sequencer live you're totally hosed. And you're going to have to be OK with the drummer having something in his ear the whole night.

[Bluesy Soul]

There are lots of good observations in this thread. I would add--at least for playing rock covers--that three-piece ensembles generally call for the bassist's playing to be busier than is typical when playing in a larger group. John Entwistle, Jack Bruce and Mel Schacter are just a few examples.

Being acutely aware of you sense of time is also highly important. If any one of the three of you is even a little bit out of synch, it will show; and it won't groove unless you're in good synch.

As described above, roles change in a 3-piece and everyone gets more freedom as well as more responsibility. PSPookie said it well: [There is] no place to hide in a 3-piece.

Bluesy Soul

[crijan]

I'd definitely recommend adding sequenced keyboards and rhythm guitar tracks to a three piece cover outfit if you want to come even close to the original recordings live.