By the Record or " With Our Own Twist"?

[SimonSays32]

We usually start by learning our parts to the record (or a specific live version of the song we like more) - but then we typically re-arrange the song when we start playing it together. I have always been of the opinion that note-for-note live renditions are boring - I would much rather hear an interpretation, even if it is the original artist playing it slightly different. I mean why would I buy a live album of note-for-note recordings which is going to sound a little thinner than the studio version and have crowd noise all over it.

There is a reason that I choose to listen to The Name of this Band is Talking Heads over the studio versions - because each song kicks harder, is a little wartier, and you can hear the spontaneity that makes it fun to play in a band.

Learning something note for note is fine, I do it quite a bit to stay sharp (and to learn songs I love, but wouldn't fit into the band aesthetic) - but if you are going to perform the same song the exact same way every single time you play it, at some point it is going to get boring and you'll start to resent it. At least that has been my experience so far.

 

[DWBass]

Can't be bothered to even listen to the song? Not the kind of band I want to be in. Never been in a band that didn't want to play songs correctly. I can see changing some things up and not playing note for note but to not even listen to the song?

I'm in the 'cover' band business and the bands I play in play things as close as possible. We do add a touch of ourselves but we at least learn the song first.

 

[turf3]

Do you really think all those famous recordings the individual lines and all the solos were carefully written out with the intention that subsequent generations of musicians would carefully duplicate them exactly? Or is it maybe the case that the band came into the studio; the instrumentalists played the song through once, then the studio musicians shoved them out of the way, laid down the instrumental tracks in a half hour and then the next five days were spent getting the vocals in tune; repeat for each song on the album?

I bet if you asked the bass player who actually played "the one true line" he/she wouldn't even remember the session, and if they did, it would probably be "you know, I think I would do that a bit differently if I had had a second run at it">

It ain't Beethoven, folks. It's African-American improvised music. You compose it in the moment. If the song is already created, then you compose your own parts in the moment. Even the idea that "if you're not playing it just like the record, it's not CORRECT" is inherently antithetical to the whole idea of the genre.

And if you think bar owners are carefully monitoring whether you play the songs as to what you describe as "CORRECT" i.e., just like the record, I think you've gotten confused between a gig at a bar to sell beer, and a juried senior recital.

Heck, with a lot of famous songs you've got to ask which record is going to be the one true version brought down on the third stone tablet from Mt. Sinai. I mean, how many people have recorded - oh, I don't know - Blue Suede Shoes? 20? 30?

 

[WashburnAB95]

IMO it is the lead vocalist and/or guitar players job to make the song sound "right" either be it note for note or their own version. It is the bass players job to make them sound good and fit in. However if there is a distinctive hook in the bass try to bring it.

Myself, doing church music, I will listen to the recording and try to get it as close as possible, but when I show up on Sunday I often have to throw it out the window and just fit in with what the band is doing.

Our Job is to blend the rhythmic and melodic/harmonic aspects into a one solid thing. If nobody else is playing it note for note, you are NOT doing your job if you are trying to play note for note.

 

[WashburnAB95]

If you want your mind blown.... listen to some Nina Simone. She NEVER plays her songs the same way. She will even change the key on the fly. Her musical intelligence was so high, music was as simple as having a conversation for her.

Being part of a conversation to me is away more satisfying that hearing someone read to you.

 

[Chickenwheels]

I completely agree. The question is... is it worth putting the effort in if other band members aren't or if that lick isn't going to sound right with the band.

Know it perfectly. Then play it at the gig with your ear glued to the rest of the band and fit in. Never be underprepared and lazy.

 

[buldog5151bass]

I completely agree. The question is... is it worth putting the effort in if other band members aren't or if that lick isn't going to sound right with the band.

If the band isn't putting in the effort, they don't deserve to be performing.

 

[Wasnex]

I play mainly for country artists locally. It's a mix of originals and covers. No one plays the covers by the record. I do not waste my time learning a bassline note for note if the guitarist plays his own solos and the band plays a song with an extra 5 here and no walk up to the 4 etc... I was really just wondering if this is normal or if others experience this on the regular. To me as long as I can have a solid practice or two with the rest of the band and the bass and drums are together and all chords are correct I have no problem not playing 100% to the record, but I was wondering what others thought. Thanks in advance.

I ran a country band for a couple of years. Instrumentation was bass, drums, keys, guitar, and one or two vocals.

Most studio recordings have multiple tracks of layered guitar and key parts, so there is no way we could do a note for note record lift. But we were a cover band, so my goal was to imply the original artist's intent, especially with current top 40 hits.

We captured the feel and basic sound of the original recordings and also exhibited a reasonable amount of artistic freedom within that framework. We played a lot of the guitar solos and hits note for note, especially the iconic lines that everyone expected to hear. But we also spread our wings and fair amount as well. I believe this is pretty much what headliners do when they tour.

IMHO, if your playing covers, get close but also have a little fun with it. As long as all the parts are tight and you play the iconic solos, pretty much everyone will love it.

If your playing in an originals band, you have a lot more latitude. If you play an arrangement of a hit song that is basically unrecognizable, no one will expect the iconic solo.

 

[fhm555]

Might not be the case with modern country, but even big name country bands play covers and I've never been in a country band that tried to do note for note covers. It only seems to matter for rock and top 40, which is good because I don't play that stuff.

Yep, most country bands I've played with could not even tell you what key, so note for note is not even a consideration. As the crowd can dance to it they are happy. As for note for note off the record, I've seen plenty r&r bands live and I can think of maybe two or three that played anything exactly like the record. When I first started out I played everything just like I heard it on a recording and could not vary from that much. It was all rote back then. As i progressed I got to where I cold take lyrics with cord changes over the words where they occur and play it well that way, then came Nashville numbers and then came playing for a guy who booked jobs then got on the phone and rounded up a band. It was nothing special but the BL played differently every night depending on his mood. Changes were different tempo was different, even key could change so you have to be quick or you were dead. I learned a ton about how to read tells and how to communicate on stage while playing. If you want to learn note for note then that's what you should do but you also need to know how to learn on the fly.

 

[Wasnex]

Yep, most country bands I've played with could not even tell you what key, so note for note is not even a consideration. As the crowd can dance to it they are happy. As for note for note off the record, I've seen plenty r&r bands live and I can think of maybe two or three that played anything exactly like the record. When I first started out I played everything just like I heard it on a recording and could not vary from that much. It was all rote back then. As i progressed I got to where I cold take lyrics with cord changes over the words where they occur and play it well that way, then came Nashville numbers and then came playing for a guy who booked jobs then got on the phone and rounded up a band. It was nothing special but the BL played differently every night depending on his mood. Changes were different tempo was different, even key could change so you have to be quick or you were dead. I learned a ton about how to read tells and how to communicate on stage while playing. If you want to learn note for note then that's what you should do but you also need to know how to learn on the fly.

It takes a lot of study to memorize and maintain a song note for note. I used to have about 4-6 hours of music memorized with the various bands I worked with, and lot of the tunes were relatively true to the original recordings, so essentially note for note at least where it counted.

A bassist who plays with a bunch of pickup bands will need to have at least 3-4 times that amount of music committed to memory, and be able to play in multiple keys. Note for note is not reasonable under those circumstances IMHO, because there is just too much material to memorize and maintain.

The point is the answer varies by the situation you find yourself in. Some people need be a bit truer to the original recordings and some people need to be able to play a whole lot of tunes. Neither is right or wrong as far as I am concerned. Adjust and adapt if you can.

 

[fhm555]

It takes a lot of study to memorize and maintain a song note for note. I used to have about 4-6 hours of music memorized with the various bands I worked with, and lot of the tunes were relatively true to the original recordings, so essentially note for note at least where it counted.

A bassist who plays with a bunch of pickup bands will need to have at least 3-4 times that amount of music committed to memory, and be able to play in multiple keys. Note for note is not reasonable under those circumstances IMHO, because there is just too much material to memorize and maintain.

The point is the answer varies by the situation you find yourself in. Some people need be a bit truer to the original recordings and some people need to be able to play a whole lot of tunes. Neither is right or wrong as far as I am concerned. Adjust and adapt if you can.

Yep, I've always tried to do whatever it took to fit in but I can honestly say if I ever learned a song note for note it was an accident. I can nail the structure and changes and any signature licks but in between I just try to keep locked in with the drummer. And you are spot on about the amount of study, something I have no discipline for when it comes to bass playing. I'll learn what's required if I'm working but otherwise I just play whatever seems to be the best fit when it's off the cuff stuff.

 

[Thumpin6string]

I like to learn as recorded and then add my own twist. Pretty much how the original bands play it live.

 

[Samatza]

Yes and no. We used to try and do it note for note from the recording and then Youtube came along with all these live videos and we noticed most original bands don't do it like the record, they change it up live.

Now we stick to the original if it's really important to the song otherwise we take a little artistic license with it.

 

[LBS-bass]

Note for note on which version? Even the original artists often don't play live note-for-note what was done in the studio.

I think if you're a well-paid tribute band you owe it to your audience to do a faithful rendition. If you're a gigging bar band, you owe it to your audience to do a rendition that they'll enjoy. If you're mainly an originals band, you're probably doing covers sparingly and you're probably doing new arrangments.

All of that is fine.

 

[JimmyM]

It's all a case by case basis for me. If I think a song requires a more note for note approach, I'll do it. If not, I won't. And the last thing I think about is what other musicians think unless they're in the band. If they want to come do my job for me, they're welcome to, but most don't since I don't split fees. And if they want to say something to me about it, I'll just kindly show them where the exit door is.

 

[LBS-bass]

There are certain cornerstones in most songs.
If they are missing, it's really not the same song, imo.
In my last band, the drummer never got even close to the song essence, which drove me crazy, because while I'd learn my part, it never sounded coherent. The guitar player could pound out very good solos, but was lazy. I had to be the one to say, "Hey Frank, there's G on the top of that chord", which sometimes would be the difference in a good cover and a bad one.
One night I just said "that's it, I'm done".

There are signature licks. These are the iconic lines that make the arrangement what it is and they are 100% non negotiable.

There are correct chords. These are the actual chords that were played and they should not be dumbed down or otherwise made "easy" just because someone can't play them properly.

You need to have the basics of the song. You need to have the right licks, you need to have the proper chords, you need to have the correct groove.

After that, you might have some room. But those three things you need to get right, unless you're doing a new arrangement.

 

[WashburnAB95]

Another thing to consider.... when bands are recording, they are under a lot of pressure to get the work done. There are time constraints, and artistic limits put on them by producers/executives. There is a good chance that the band doesn't even consider the song "done" when they leave the studio.

Now when they are on tour they have spent a lot more time with the song. They rehearse like crazy... often what you hear on the road is closer to a finished product that what you get on the album.

 

[okcrum]

Can't be bothered to even listen to the song? Not the kind of band I want to be in. Never been in a band that didn't want to play songs correctly. I can see changing some things up and not playing note for note but to not even listen to the song?

I'm in the 'cover' band business and the bands I play in play things as close as possible. We do add a touch of ourselves but we at least learn the song first.

That's right. You can't put icing on the cake until you bake the cake.

 

[bigswifty1]

Plenty of bands don't do their own material "by the record". Things change over time - voice ranges, equipment, players' physiology, boredom, familiarity, finding better ways to do stuff, general restlessness, personnel churn. My feeling is if you're in a tribute band, you better do stuff by the record. Otherwise suit yourself. If people want to hear stuff exactly how it was originally, they should see the original artist, see a tribute band (boy are some of them good, even if it's not my cup of tea) or else hire a DJ

I have been in bands who want to do stuff note for note and while I can summon the mental discipline to learn it and perform it (to the extent my personal limitations allow) it rarely feels like much fun. Which is ok, some stuff we don't necessarily do for fun.

 

[2BitHack]

the paradox of talkbass orthodoxy: how do you play it just like the recording if they did not use a P with flats and tort?