Covers opposed to Originals

[XAxiomX]

I've always been a believer that you're not a real musician unless you're composing and performing your own music, but recently that sentiment has changed. So what do we think, do you enjoy playing your own songs or covers, and do you think it's a reflection on your musicianship either way?

[Tony G]

I prefer playing and writing original songs in a band context, but in my area those bands don't get nearly as many gigs as cover bands. So I do both. I gig regularly in a cover band, and get together with old friends to write music and jam and just have a good time. However, in the last 2 years or so, my original project has only gigged twice.

[Matthew Bryson]

Both. Some people only play originals, or only play covers, because it's all that they can do. IMO - real musicians can and do play both covers and originals.

EDIT - BTW - This poll should be edited to included the choices "both" and "carrots". I'll vote carrots.

[swohawk]

I love the crafting process of an original. Seeing it grow from a spark of an idea into a fully realized concept.

I also like watching the local college girls get into a sweaty, drunken, groping frenzy when we play covers.

Both are fun, both are music.

I like steak and I like hamburgers but not all the time for either.

[cdef]

We've done the occasional cover for special projects like movie soundtracks and 'tribute' albums, but they never turned out nearly as strong as our own material, and never stayed in our live set for long - we have hundreds of originals to choose from by now. Just as a hobby, though, I like making ratty cover versions of obscure songs at home on the computer.

[lonotes]

No reflection, either way. Many well known musicians don't write. Frank Sinatra, Barbra Streisand, Linda Ronstadt and Elvis Presley come to mind. Oh sure, they may have written some music, but that is not what they were known for. They were performers, whether on the stage or in the studio. They were known for their interpretations of the music. And they were most certainly considered musicians in their heyday. Yes I know that they are all from a bygone era, but I mention them as examples because they are what I know. I'm sure that there are contemporary examples, as well. I'm just not familiar with them. Then again, there are some excellent writers that aren't very well known as musicians. Bernie Taupin and Leonard Cohen come to mind. Then there is the whole sideman thing. I don't think I've ever heard of anything written by Pino Palladino, but IMHO, he's a pretty badass musician.

[XAxiomX]

Thanks guys, agree to all responses.

I've played in both cover bands as well as original acts, and it just seems that when playing originals strictly, even with a cover or two thrown in you just don't quite get the kind of response you do when playing songs people know. I think the musicians in the crowd like to hear your own songs and how they're structured, but the general public you're entertaining likes to hear the songs they know. Espeically when playing metal like I have for a good portion of my experience time, the original bands just don't get as many gigs.

[clockworkwar]

Do both! Its what all great bands did at first, and then as their music got better there was little need for covers.

[Phalex]

I swing both ways.

I like the creative process of originals, but have had nothing but trouble trying to get gigs and perform them. I don't know if people don't get me, if my original compositions suck, or if the public at large just has very little interest.

I find covers to be challenging (Nobody really knows if you don't play an original correctly) and most importantly they sell!!

With my original band, we did maybe 6 big well paying festival gigs in the summer, and maybe 6 or 8 other shows for little or no money.

My cover band has been turning down offers for gigs because we're booked into March of '08.

So, I like the creative process, but I really like playing in front of an audience as well.

[bradjonesbass]

Poll is currently 50/50. I like both but answered originals because I would rather be doing that exclusively. What's really cool is seeing people in the crowd singing along to your originals. Especially when you're the primary writer.

[::::BASSIST::::]

Most people who play Classical and Jazz music play "covers". Are they less as musicians because of it? No, not in my opinion. If you want to gig and make money doing it, most audiences much prefer covers.

[Jazzin']

In jazz, covers end up being originals anyways. Only the heads stay the same, and even those can be modified.

[Eric Perry]

My writing skills are not strong. I wish they were. Granted, I have come up with some cool lines and all, but I'm not a writer.

The last 2 bands I've been in have been full cover bands. Despite that, I akin playing cover songs to color-by-number painting.

[hawaiianbass]

I like to play both since I can use covers to get ideas for an original. And there are some songs by my favorite bands that I love to play so...

CK

[T-Bird]

Hi.

I used to write my own music, formed a band, tried and tried, nothing . I couldn't write catchy line of lyrics if my life depended on it, they just ended up bein' naive or stupid or both. Well I was 15 and naive as hell at the time, but still.

Now 20 years have passed, different time, different band and my lyrics, , haven't really tried since we play only covers but I am pretty sure I still suck in writing lyrics, so why bother?

As numerous other posters have pointed out, covers get You gigs, gigs give You visibility, visibility gives You a change to throw an original or a two to the set if You feel the need, just remember to have those originals of Yours in a CD if someone should ask for one.

IMO a musician is a person who expresses him-/herself through music, no matter what way.

Regards
Sam

[invader3k]

I like actually playing out, so covers.

[XAxiomX]

Thanks once more for the feed back, close poll!

The basic feeling here is that original songs can be much more gratifying when people dig them, but covers are going to score the most gigs, and get you the most attention.

I'm a semi-professional musician looking to go professional within the next few years, so gigs and pay is the priority for me.

In my experience, playing originals and seeing people get into them is the best feeling, but I'm looking for a steady work schedule and income.

[QORC]

I'm a firm believer in the following:

1. It takes talent to cover many different bands, bass players and eras. If you say it doesn't, try switching instantly from Van Morrison to Donna Summer to Heart to Creed.

2. "Real" musicians don't play originals. There are pretty much two groups that do -- 1. people who are trying to "make it" and the dribbling handful that actually will make it, and 2. the many tens of thousands who are so delusional that they believe they will.

3. I'll play what works. What is fun. I'm not trying to get a record deal. There is no shame whatsoever in doing covers. It's way to have a good time and put some coin in your pocket as well.

I play covers because you see I actually LIKE getting paid for playing.

4. If doing "covers" is a bad thing, I guess the world-class musicians in the New York Philaharmonic are not "real musicians" by your definition, since they are "covering" Mozart, Bach, Handel, etc etc etc.

5. This debate is meaningless and can't be resolved.

6. I don't begrudge people doing originals. Do whatever pleases you. But why the frequently arrogant attitudes about people that play covers?? Anyone that looks down on someone who is playing covers is a chump.

[Busker]

No shame in playing covers. Some of the best artists (OK, singers) in the world don't write good music. They do covers.

Some of the best songwriters can't sing a lick. Randy Newman, Kristofferson , Dylan come to mind.

[Cactusgrant]

Isn't the whole point of being an artist to express yourself? How well can you do that thorugh someone else's music?