By the Record or " With Our Own Twist"?

[BwanaDust]

I don't believe there is any reason to cover an arrangement note for note, unless you are in a tribute band. You kinda had to if you were playing the Holiday Inn circuit back in the eighties, when bands were expected to wear uniforms and play like human DJs.

Of course, if you are playing in an orchestra or big band, you need to follow the notes, but I see no reason why you need to cover anyone's "iconic" part, unless there is no way to get around it.

I believe that as long as the groove is tight and the vocals are great, the audience could care less if you recreate the record.

Although I'm not currently working with any bands, when I did I always tried to arrange the song for the band, instead of trying to recreate the record and falling short. The past ten years, most bands I've played in were trios, so there really is no way to recreate songs like "Head Over Heels," "Spinning Wheel," or "Good Vibrations" without some creative rearranging.

We would sing some lines. On "Head Over Heels" I had the guitarist play the keyboard parts and we sang the opening guitar lines. On "Spinning Wheel" we sang the horn parts. On "Good Vibrations" we left out the theremin part. On the chorus, we didn't play the chords. And I would have to jump from the bass vocal part ("I'm picking up good vibrations") to the high part (good, good good, good vibrations.) This didn't matter, because the bass part doubles the bass vocal so you can still hear it when the key changes. The drummer and guitarist sang thirds on the chorus ("good, ba-ba. Good vibrations") which also filled in the chords.

Even the big ending AHH, is a lot simpler than it sounds. It's basically a Eb/F (I lowered the key). So I played the F on bass and we sang the first inversion of an Eb triad.

In the three years that band was together I never once heard anyone complain that the theremin was missing. Or anything else. We just got lots of compliments about how unique the band sounded and lots of gigs.

I am currently just working solo (with three acoustic guitars [6 and 12 string steel and 6 string nylon) and I work the same way. Doing songs like that no one dares try as a solo. And people love it.

So... Do what you like.

 

[interp]

If "your own twist" doesn't suck, it's fine. The problem is that very many bands are incapable of recognizing that "their own twist" does indeed suck.

 

[BwanaDust]

If you don't have too many covers in your setlist to begin with, it probably isn't going to be all that painful copying a hit song note for note. A lot of times, when a crowd hears somebody else's song, they expect to hear it as they've heard it before.

I've been playing in bands and solo for 40 years and (aside from the early eighties) I've never had one complaint about doing songs the way I feel them.

 

[beatlebass64]

All depends on the style of music/artist.

I did country covers for a few years. I usually put my own spin on the songs, but made sure to do my best to match any key moments from the original recording like a prominent slide or walk up/down or anything like that. Most of the songs we were playing though just had a very standard country bass part. I would tend to try to lock in with the drummer and just hold my end down, so my playing was pretty traditional with the exception of a fill or little run to take me to the next part of the song.

I also have played a lot of Grateful Dead over the past few years. That is almost always a go with the flow situation, so I think it depends.

 

[RBrownBass]

I saw a band once that could do that scarily well, everyone would quiet down, including the drummer, and actually fade out, and they were good enough to pull it off, great dynamics control and practice.

At that point, I finish my beer and leave. Even on the rare occasions that a cover band could coax me out of the house, I don't want it to be that close to the recording...

 

[BwanaDust]

I notice a lot of posters talking about the main reason people don't do a song note for note is because they're too lazy or incompetent to listen to the tune and learn.

I'm certain there are many that fit into that category, as well as there being a lot of players who have no option but to play note for note, because they lack the facilities to create a unique new arrangement.

The only way to do a great, new arrangement is to pick the original apart. I usually write out a band arrangement on manuscript (virtual, using Staffpad pro). It takes a lot more time than just learning the original part, but if you are playing in a trio or other small group, if each player learns just their part and sticks to it, there could be huge holes in the arrangement created by the things you aren't covering.

 

[okcrum]

If we all played exactly like the record, half the songs we'd play would fade out at the end.

It's harder to do than you think. That's why most live bands don't do it.

 

[Clark W]

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.

This response could wind up a little long, sorry...

There is no black and white answer to this, but there is plenty of gray area in the middle for sure.

Me, personally, I'm a note for note person, and at home learning the song, that's fine. But in reality, it doesn't work that way about 97% of the time, even for those who originally recorded the song in question.

Example of that last statement:

Kenny Wayne Shepherd's "Blue On Black"
I needed to learn that song for gigs, so...
I learned the song, note for note, as it was recorded.
Then I watched a video of it live on youtube. Uh oh, the bass line is different from the original.
I then watched another video of it live, but this time the Kenny Wayne Shepherd band was using a different bassist than in the other live video. And this time the bass line was different from both the original recording, and the first live video that I had watched.

My solution to this dilemma?

I took parts of the bass lines that I liked best from the 3 versions, and combined them into one. Now, the roots were all the same, but there were little riffs here and there that were different from each other. And all 3 versions contain a "bridge" of sorts where the song drops to F near the end of the guitar solo.

To me if you're playing the basics of the song as far as chord progression, and that's for all instruments, and you include the drop to F near the end of the guitar solo, you're fine. But if you don't include that F, then you're leaving out a piece that is integral to the overall feel of the song, especially the ending of the guitar solo. I've seen bands play it both ways, and I choose to include it, and my bandmates agree with me. It's not the same without it.

---------------

Then there are songs, that as a bassist, I feel you better play it note for note because the bass is so standout, the line so recognizable, that even a slightly inebriated bar room audience will notice.

Example: Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean"

Aside from the vocals, the bass and drums are the meat of that song. Can you get away with not playing it note for note in some parts of it? Yeah probably, but the meat of it, no, definitely not.

I've seen it done once where it was not done as the original, but yet it was as good as the original, and that was done by a soloist acoustic guitar player in Eastern Europe. That's one of those exception's, not the norm. And not something you're most likely going to run into when out gigging in bars.

------------------

As someone who considers themselves to be a music aficionado, a note for note player, and a complete arse of a perfectionist to the point I tick people off sometimes, a lot of times actually, I have had a hard time accepting these "modifications".

No, No, No, you're doing it wrong, it's like this, now do it again or get off my lawn!

But I'm changing, and for the better I might add.

Aside from starting a band last year, and reinventing it with a new lead vocalist/rhythm guitar player in the last 6 weeks, as well as starting another band during this time that just fell through the cracks... I've written original bass lines for several local artists and their recording projects as well as going out on a Friday or Saturday night when I'm not playing, and being invited to sit in with other bands for a song or two.

I even get the occasional call, hey we're throwing something together for a show, can you play bass? Yeah? Great! Be there in 6 hours. Why do I get such calls? Because other musicians know that I'm really not an arse and I can be flexible. And that as a bass player I can hold the bottom end down however they want me to do it.

If you had told me 42 years ago, yes 42, that I would be improvising bass lines, or heaven forbid, playing a little country even, I would have told you no way and walked off laughing. Guess I'm not getting the last laugh there as I'm now doing both of those things. I started playing at a very young age, 11, and everything has been set in stone for me for so long that the last 16 months of change has made me a very different person in music and in life.

This "jamming" with such a diverse group of musicians has made me appreciate the "do what you gotta do to get it done while doing your best, and being a professional" vs "we have to do it note for note as it was recorded." It has opened up not only my playing, but my attitude about life.

----------------

Learning to live with a gray area, and that not everything is always black n white, actually makes life easier. In music, sometimes it works for the best, even better than the original and sometimes it doesn't. Only you, and your bandmates, can decide what works and what doesn't, when it comes to covers that you do.

 

[BwanaDust]

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.

I've always found that to be a load of BS. The only people I've come across who get upset about a band deviating from the originals are musicians who think they need to play note for note, or no one will like them. Club owners and booking agents for the Holdiay Inn circuit used to demand that back in the eighties. They also demanded uniforms, and then they realized what they really wanted were DJs. That's the past.

I've never had anyone complain about a song not being an exact replica.

 

[RBrownBass]

At that point, I finish my beer and leave. Even on the rare occasions that a cover band could coax me out of the house, I don't want it to be that close to the recording...

One such occasion was a few years ago when I had to take my mom somewhere and a band called Electric Avenue was in town. They did pretty much note for note and I had a great time. I was hoping they'd play The Working Hour, but they didn't.

 

[BwanaDust]

We try to get the songs as close to original as we can. We're a cover band and the bar owners tend to prefer that the bands at least try to get it close. I don't mind if we don't get it perfect except for the hooks. If you don't get the hooks correct then the audience won't get the same feeling like as if the original band did it.

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. If the groove is intact and the vocals are killing it, they don't give a rat's bottom if you change things around. Of course, you can't mess up a bass line like "Billie Jean," but who the heck wants to cover that anyway?

 

[Clark W]

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. If the groove is intact and the vocals are killing it, they don't give a rat's bottom if you change things around. Of course, you can't mess up a bass line like "Billie Jean," but who the heck wants to cover that anyway?

Hey, don't be knocking "Billie Jean". As a bass player I love that song even though I'm not a Michael Jackson fan. But I don't know any vocalists or bands that cover it.

 

[BwanaDust]

That's been my experience.

Really? People come up to you and either complain that you didn't play the song exactly like a DJ, or compliment you on sounding just like the record? Odd...

 

[BwanaDust]

Hey, don't be knocking "Billie Jean". As a bass player I love that song even though I'm not a Michael Jackson fan. But I don't know any vocalists or bands that cover it.

I'm not dissing Michael or Billie Jean. It's a great song and a great bass line. I used to play the song back in the early eighties when you actually did have to cover a song note for note, although I was playing keyboards back then. I'm intrigued now. I'm going to make a solo guitar arrangement of it.

 

[BwanaDust]

I think it depends. But in many cases, saying you never care to learn, for example, something like Deacon Blues, note for note, is saying you lack musicianship and you know so much that you simply cannot learn anything from great players who've gone before.

If you put "your own spin" on things, which has its place and I have done, it needs to be very different from the original, and very good.

Otherwise you're not a musician, you're a lazy hack. And it doesn't matter if the audience doesn't know. YOU will know.

Steely Dan has so many chords going on that if you don't learn them, you are screwed. I learned Gaucho on piano a few years back and I had to get the sheet music. There are like almost forty unique chords in that tune.

 

[Biggbass]

It's my feeling that people who enjoy cover bands like to hear the songs performed pretty close to the original recording. They've heard the songs a thousand times and the riffs, vocals, etc are burned into their brains. So if you choose to change it up then it needs to be creative and executed well. Then they will embrace it.

 

[40Hz]

Original artists often don't play note for note.

Glad somebody said that.

I've yet to hear any band I've heard live play anything note for note off their album. Songs evolve over time. And what works for a recording session won't necessarily work for live performances - and vice versa.

A sufficiently qualified, talented and confident musician doesn't need to feel chained to a given arrangement unless he or she has specifically been told to "play it from the score."

 

[Passinwind]

I also have played a lot of Grateful Dead over the past few years. That is almost always a go with the flow situation, so I think it depends.

There's an actual market for Deadhead bands that play "tribute shows" more or less note for note. So if I wanted to go out and hear my first show replicated, 04/06/71, theroretically I could. Not my cuppa at all, but if you build a market they will come, I guess.

 

[Clark W]

I'm not dissing Michael or Billie Jean. It's a great song and a great bass line. I used to play the song back in the early eighties when you actually did have to cover a song note for note, although I was playing keyboards back then. I'm intrigued now. I'm going to make a solo guitar arrangement of it.

I was just picking at ya. Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[40Hz]

Usually a bands "version" of song is a result of a lack of talent, a lack of rehearsal or just not caring enough put forth any effort.

That's a sweeping statement asserting something you have no actual way of knowing. While it may be true of some bands I don't think it stands as being the norm.

I'm there to sell alcohol like everyone else, but it doesn't say anywhere I can't be any a good band, too.

I'm not. So it's not everyone.