By the Record or " With Our Own Twist"?

[LBS-bass]

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.

This is so very true, and a real paradox for those bands who are living this reality because often the finished product isn't what came out of the studio and that makes it not what your die hard fans want to hear. This would be a bigger problem early on. Once you've toured that material a few times, it's easier to get away with changing it.

 

[Jon McBass]

I've always played covers note for note. I believe that people want to hear songs the way they know them and unless you're famous, nobody wants to hear your interpretation of a song.

That's been my experience.

 

[Jon McBass]

When I see a cover band and they don't play songs correctly, it annoys me. Unless they're really really really talented musicians and they do unique, killer cool versions of the songs.

Me personally, I learn songs note-for-note. I figure people (especially those on the bandstand) appreciate it more. This approach has brought me much success.

I agree. Plus, hit songs have usually been professionally and meticulously played and produced. So it's rare that a band "making the song their own" improves it. Usually it just sounds like laziness.

 

[Tony In Philly]

Always put your own twist on it and always try to make it a moment worth remembering. It won't always happen that way, but when it does the magic remains forever.

EDIT: For reference I always scope out live versions of the tunes by original artists to see what embellishments they do to make tunes stand out more in a live context. Sometimes the the techniques they employ are worth copping when a cover band does the same tune.

 

[Wisebass]

Hi Jarred Harris

I was wondering what others thought. Thanks in advance.

Does this answer your question?









Just rock it!

greetings

Wise(b)ass

 

[vvvmmm]

... a dead horse like Mustang Sally ....

I'm-a steal that!

On topic, I tried to be inna note-for-note cover band, twice. I lasted but a short while, not even to a gig. I play, I guess, "interpretations", tho' I still call 'em, "covers". Hell, I don't even play my own songs the same way twice.

 

[Ric5]

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 agree 100% … uh well I guess 95%

 

[Chrisk-K]

No one really cares about a local band's own interpretation of a famous song. Stick to the original.

 

[JW56789]

Inevitably, you're boxed into a corner somewhat as unless you're playing with very accomplished players who have all the latest and greatest equipment and know exactly how to get 'those sounds', most bands are going to have to shorthand the 20-odd tracks from the recording down to 3 or 4 or 5 pieces and make a recognizable rendition of the record. You hope.

I had more than a few times where I get a phone call or message, 'OK, we're ALL going to learn it EXACTLY LIKE THE RECORD', only to get there and find every stop, start, push, rest, I charted out and learned . . . . was completely out from what the drummer was doing, and the other parts as well.

For a lot of cover bands playing those places your momma warned you about . . . . . close is good enough.

 

[Chris Breese]

I have always believed there is a big difference between choosing to play something different from the original recording, and not being able to play it like the original recording…or not willing to put in the effort.

Unless you're Scary Pockets..

 

[Nev375]

I'm firmly in the "do it your way" camp.

If any given president were to give a speech and quote another famous president, I'd rather he just use his own voice and not try to cop an impersonation. Leave that for the comedians and actors.

Music is a lot like that. I understand that the jukebox is popular, but I'm an artist and I'm here to recite words and melodies in my own handwriting, so to speak. I hope the audience is not expecting me to be a human photocopy machine.

Although I still have massive respect for those in tribute bands that can pull off an undetectable forgery, or the Greta Van Fleets who can do their own thing, but do it in Led Zeppelin's font. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's very cool, but that's not my thing.

 

[zubrycky]

Depends of the song, depends of the band. With tribute bands, by the record is the way to go. With cover bands I prefer to make my own versions.

YMMV.

 

[Todd Hamby]

In cover bands I put a lot of effort into learning things as much to exactly as they were played originally. Those songs were successful for a reason. Also, doing this has gotten me other jobs for taking the time to recreate the original lines.

 

[Kipp Harrington]

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 play in a Classic Rock band (covers) and we have occasional Country or Blues songs we perform. We also cover some "modern" Rock and Pop tunes.

I usually play pretty darn close to the original recording but find myself feeling a little "creative" at times and go with it. Thankfully, the rest of the band is ok with this... in fact, they encourage it.

So... as far as I am concerned, your approach is AOK with me. Nothing wrong with incorporating a little creativity with your craft. Keep on keepin' on, my friend

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I have always believed there is a big difference between choosing to play something different from the original recording, and not being able to play it like the original recording…or not willing to put in the effort.

there are more options than this:

* Not willing to put in the effort because it makes no material difference to the song and effort is better spent elsewhere
* A radical interpretation requires a new bass line
* The original contains errors
* The original can be improved on
* The original was improvised and even with that line up it varied live or in other recordings by that group.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I've always played covers note for note. I believe that people want to hear songs the way they know them and unless you're famous, nobody wants to hear your interpretation of a song.

the latter would spell the end of folk music. I've heard some great interpretations of existing material, and some largely unknown acts have had hits with covers. Almost no one in te UK my age knew the Cohen version of Hallelujah until the then unknown Jeff Buckley covered it. And id rather hear Buckley's version, or just about anyone else doing Dylan other than Dylan.

 

[TrevorR]

No, you have to go with the flow and make the song work, especially if your a hired gun and not a permanent member.

I used to play (occasionally) with a lead singer that was a little scatterbrained. He would sing verses out of order, so you would just have to lay back and see if the chorus, bridge, or another verse was coming next.

I used to point out to people that in the band I used to play in (format: singer playing either acoustic or electric, bass, sax and drums) we played songs by Lynyrd Skynyrd (3 guitars, bass and keys), The Doobie Brothers (3 guitars, bass, keys, two drummers, percussionist, horn section) etc. In that context it's daft to obsess on cloning the recorded bass line note for note. Much better (for the audience) to take the essence of the bass line and then adapt it to make the song really work in the context of the band format.

That's not "laziness" or "can't be bothered". That's band skills and arrangement.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I agree. Plus, hit songs have usually been professionally and meticulously played and produced. So it's rare that a band "making the song their own" improves it. Usually it just sounds like laziness.

It depends on the original and band. I much prefer The Byrds' version of Mr. Tambourine Man and The Bangles' version of Going Down To Liverpool. And the original version of Heaven 17's Temptation is fairly awful compared to its own reworking of it.

 

[TrevorR]

I've always played covers note for note. I believe that people want to hear songs the way they know them and unless you're famous, nobody wants to hear your interpretation of a song.

In my experience, this is a complete fallacy unless you're playing on the specific "tribute band" circuit where delivering the "as if it was really them playing" experience is the USP and the audience attracts a higher proportion of anorak-wearing nit pickers.

To be honest, on most songs, most people in the audience can't tell, as long as the whole resembles the song and retains the feel/groove.

...Some really need to be nailed, tho...

...None of the musicians played the parts correctly, nor were they trying to put their own twist on it. But all in all they sounded enough like each song, that I don't think too many people besides me and maybe a few other musicians really noticed, or cared.

This nails my real world experience of playing covers and function gigs over a couple of decades. Audiences at pubs, clubs and covers gigs want songs they recognise played well with energy and engagement and, frankly they simply don't have the musical expertise to recognise, understand or appreciate much beyond the basic rhythm and melody.

in fact, some of the songs where we needed to tweak the most to fit the band and the singer's voice were the ones audiences consistently complemented us for nailing and sounding just like the record. Go figure!

Of course there are some songs where the best way to deliver them is by sticking as close to the formula and there are "signature parts" which need to be replicated as well as possible. But, honestly, I don't think anyone is ever suggesting playing Pink Floyd's Money with just root notes or a rock and roll walking bass line...

 

[smtp4me]

I may get flamed for this, and I don't mean any disrespect - I think people who obsess over playing the original song note-for-note, every time, all the time (unless they are in a tribute band), are losing sight of the purpose of playing music. Music is a form of expression, not a Xerox machine. And... even the original artists don't always play note-for-note live, and over the span of their career they change things.