Cover Band annoyance

[electracoyote]

Context matters.

There you have it. And an open mind is always a good thing.

Below are two cover bands in the Denver Metro area that use tracks and have more work than they can handle. They probably play public spots about half the time (usually the best "A" rooms in town); the other half they're playing some high-dollar private event like weddings and corporate stuff. They are also comprised of some of the most talented capable musicians in the area. They're not posing on stage with their instruments by any means; when they go for it, it's a clinic in their respective instruments, and they routinely get ovations and accolades for their abilities. If they chose to go without tracks, they could still play rings around the majority of cover bands in town. But they choose to offer a unique product to a clientele who appreciates and demands attention to detail and ultra-faithful covers, "just like the original hit recording." So, to get that orchestra, or horn section, or unique percussion, or keyboard bleeps and bloops, or whatever the five of them can't attend to live, they augment their already tight and talented approach with tracks or sequencing.

Are there folks who don't like that sort of thing? Sure! There are also lots of folks who don't like a cover band that routinely alters or re-writes the parts and "makes it their own!" But those bands that use tracks could not care less; they're as busy as can be with their client- and audience-centered approach making some of the best money to be made as a musician in this town, and they are largely considered top-shelf entertainment. People who don't like it are not their audience, and their audience is not only relatively enormous compared to the average cover band, but generally more faithful and enthusiastic too.

6 Million Dollar Band: The Ultimate 80s Experience

That Eighties Band

 

[Omega Monkey]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with backing tracks for any type of band. But with that said, they should be used as sparingly and as tastefully as possible, and if you can make do without, that's great. Backing tracks are a way to AUGMENT the sound of the live musicians/singers, not a way to replace them (ie "lip syncing"). If you have a 5 piece cover band with guitar and keys, and you're doing an EWF song, do you really want to sacrifice the Rhodes and synth parts for the horn parts or vice versa? Of course not. Plus on a backing track, you can get REAL HORN PLAYERS to record, rather than having to rely on keyboard imitations (which are pretty good these days, but still not the real thing). And since you have the horns anyway, might as well add that barely there rhythm guitar part and extra percussion stuff and maybe a backing vocal or 2 to fill things out. It's still a LIVE band, just augmented a bit. And the more you can go with audio tracks (ie actual recordings) rather than sequences, the better.

But if it's one or 2 people and the entire thing is basically a backing track and they just sing a bit and maybe strum a rhythm guitar part, that's pretty weak usually. Might make sense if it it's more of an "electronic" act to begin with and the person is bringing parts in and out to control the intensity and vibe and all that.

Of course, I'm not too fond of using them personally because it's a lot of extra work and then you're locked into a click which can be tricky in a live setting (tricky enough for most people in a studio).

 

[electracoyote]

Tired of the "lack of integrity" moniker placed on cover bands. Mick Jagger has been playing the same songs for over half a century. You think he is worried about originality? You have bands with one original member still playing their "hits". Zep stole from everyone - everybody stole from Chuck Berry.

I've done both for decades - often the better musicians, doing more work, is in doing the covers. I've played in jazz bands - they do "covers" that start with the head and can go anywhere.

Good music is good music. Get off your !@#$~@#-ing high horse.

The vast majority of my playing experience over 38 years is in cover bands. I still see a big difference between me and Mick Jagger. No need to take it personal, some of us just realize that we're aping great music created by someone else, and there is a pretty significant difference between us and them IMO.

You have to admit that when you hear a guitarist say, "I play 'Sweet Home Alabama' better than anyone in town, with integrity" it's kind of funny. It's those kind of references to "integrity" that make me chuckle.

I get the same feeling when I hear a cover band musician say, "I'd never use tracks, I have too much integrity."

I don't think anyone on this thread is saying there is something wrong with being a cover band musician.

 

[Rocky]

I'm really surprised that this is so shocking to so many people. Today the DJ's who bring their playlist to the club and push a few buttons are the ones getting all of the money. So is it really surprising that some bands use the DJ crutch and play some pre-recorded instruments to flesh out their sound?

It's a performance, and the audience is there to have fun.

For those of you purists that would walk out on such an event, do you do the same thing in other areas of entertainment? Do you avoid movies with CGI?

I guess it depends on if you go to a show to see an artist perfom thier music live, without crutches, or you are expecting to hear your favorite songs played like the record. I'm of the opinion that those that rely on backing track for whatever reason have no place on stage passing themselves off as atrists. If a perfomer cant play it live then they are just another posser pretending to have talent. To many real artists have lost work or have been passed by in favor of some "mysician" that can dance a choreographed part, and can lip-sync to a record that had to be overprocessed to cover up the complete lack of talent.

 

[Johnny Crab]

We have 2 CD's of originals and covers.
No "backing tracks" except our keyboard/guitarist triggers a couple of sounds(2 songs out of 400+) via a pedal(laptop rig for his guitar and keys). Audience loves it, we don't feel degraded.

BTW: I heard there is a band in Austin Saturday night doing a whole show of RUSH covers. Oh wait! They're covering themselves!

 

[Rocky]

Tired of the "lack of integrity" moniker placed on cover bands. Mick Jagger has been playing the same songs for over half a century. You think he is worried about originality? You have bands with one original member still playing their "hits". Zep stole from everyone - everybody stole from Chuck Berry.

I've done both for decades - often the better musicians, doing more work, is in doing the covers. I've played in jazz bands - they do "covers" that start with the head and can go anywhere.

Good music is good music. Get off your !@#$~@#-ing high horse.

1) The stones wrote thier material.. No matter how many years they continue they are not playing covers..
2) even if only one original bandmember is left the band is not playing covers. They are not jumping all over the map attempting to play multiple hits written by other bands.
3) jazz bands, blues, are of such format that allows for improvisation. Unlike playing cover tunes that have didicated parts which for the most part must be played like the original or as close as possible. You could more than likely train a monkey to do that..
4) the better mysicians are playing covers? Haha.. Yea right.. The best musicians play jazz, classical, latin..etc .. Not whatever pop, rap, or crap some misguided teenage hoodlum thinks is cool

 

[buldog5151bass]

I've seen some pretty mediocre "original" bands, and some fantastic cover bands.

At this point, bands like the Stones, the Who (half the band is dead), Skynyrd (most of the band is dead or retired), etc. are cover bands, plain and simple. They are playing songs that were written before most of the audience was born.

Jazz bands play covers - they solo for hours over the changes, but it is a cover. So is an orchestra.

 

[Double E]

1) The stones wrote thier material.. No matter how many years they continue they are not playing covers..
2) even if only one original bandmember is left the band is not playing covers. They are not jumping all over the map attempting to play multiple hits written by other bands.
3) jazz bands, blues, are of such format that allows for improvisation. Unlike playing cover tunes that have didicated parts which for the most part must be played like the original or as close as possible. You could more than likely train a monkey to do that..
4) the better mysicians are playing covers? Haha.. Yea right.. The best musicians play jazz, classical, latin..etc .. Not whatever pop, rap, or crap some misguided teenage hoodlum thinks is cool

So...any musician that doesn't either play only original music or "jazz, classical, latin..etc .." is not credible? That position could not be more close minded and stodgy.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

Very normal these days. In addition to cover bands, one should expect to see it used by Worship bands at churches in major metropolitan areas as well.

sad, really.

 

[Double E]

Some folks just waste too much personal energy hating on what makes others happy.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Some people still think they are going to be rock stars.

 

[Double E]

The thing is...original bands are not competing for the same audiences as bands that play covers with or without backing tracks. So why the hate! Let your own performance and material speak for itself...bitching about other musician's methods will not move your cause forward one bit.

The real irony lies in the fact that, once the original band is considered a true success, their music will be played by some cover band somewhere.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Again, I saw the Beach Boys. Other than one song, the entire concery consisted of songs written over 3 decades ago. They had about a dozen backing musicians behind them. Good show, but tell me how that has more "integrity" than a good cover band, often putting interesting spins on songs written by others, and sometimes playing it better than the writers.

 

[Billy C.]

1) The stones wrote thier material.. No matter how many years they continue they are not playing covers..
2) even if only one original bandmember is left the band is not playing covers. They are not jumping all over the map attempting to play multiple hits written by other bands.
3) jazz bands, blues, are of such format that allows for improvisation. Unlike playing cover tunes that have didicated parts which for the most part must be played like the original or as close as possible. You could more than likely train a monkey to do that..
4) the better mysicians are playing covers? Haha.. Yea right.. The best musicians play jazz, classical, latin..etc .. Not whatever pop, rap, or crap some misguided teenage hoodlum thinks is cool

Rocky, I hate to be the one to tell you this, however the ROLLING STONES actually recorded (somebody elses) 24 cover songs on their first 3 albums. only about 11 were "originals". Should you have knowledge about how Publishing companies & record companies worked, you will realize that most major artists were recording someone elses already recorded songs as part of their agreements on their early releases.

 

[I am Soma]

IN my Porpcupine Tree tribute band, we're lucky to have 4 vocalists who work on their harmonies, so it's not a problem, although we sample a good bit of PT's ambient noises.

you just made my day for having a porcupine tree tribute band.

 

[jive1]

As a guy who prefers to play with live musicians, and has only limited experience playing along to tracks, I have a few thoughts...
I'm not referring to lip syncing along to tracks, but live musicians playing along to tracks.

- First, using tracks is a substitute for musicians, not musicianship. Even the solo singer that sings to a karaoke track still needs to be able to sing well along with the tracks, and I've seen enough karaoke to see that it's not usually the case. The acoustic duo still needs to be able to play along with the prerecorded rhythm tracks, and I've been to enough open mics to see that not everyone can play along to a beat.

- IMO, IME, it takes talent to play along with a backing track. It's not a place for hacks. The drummer who rushes after a fill, drags a section of a song, etc. will totally trainwreck a song with a backing track. Keeping time consistent with the click is essential, otherwise things will fall apart. Your bandmates can adapt and cover up your mistakes, but the backing track will not. For example, if you forget the bridge and sing the verse, your bandmates can cover for you, but the backing track will continue to the bridge. This also means that if you're playing with a backing track, you should know the arrangement, because fudging it can result in a trainwreck. The guys I know that perform with tracks are top notch, and I would never want to perform a song with tracks with guys who aren't proficient because the possibility of a trainwreck is higher than if we just played live without tracks.

- Sometimes backing tracks are more practical/profitable. There's not as many stages that'll fit a 4 piece band, let alone a 6-9 piece one with horns. The pay for musicians is dismal for a 4 piece band, let alone trying to make sure sure a 7 piece band gets more than gas money for the gig. And sometimes you don't need horns, synth, strings, percussion, etc. for every song, and it makes more sense to use a backing track than to hire a keyboard player to just play on 'Don't Stop Believing' in the 3rd set.

- Backing tracks are not plug and play. Someone has to create them, and even if they are bought, you still need to set up your sound and monitoring so that the click can be heard by the drummer and not the audience. Although not a necessity, most bands that use them also use in-ears.

- If you want to stay true to the original, you may be more true if you played with a drum machine and synth bass than an acoustic drumset and electric bass. Lots of contemporary artists use plenty of electronica on their recordings, and it shouldn't be a surprise if cover bands use the same technology.


In the end, I like to improvise and have the ability to extend a song, so I'd rather not use them. But, I don't disparage the use of them either because it still takes some talent to be able to use them, and they can serve practical and musical purposes.

 

[electracoyote]

Again, I saw the Beach Boys. Other than one song, the entire concery consisted of songs written over 3 decades ago. They had about a dozen backing musicians behind them. Good show, but tell me how that has more "integrity" than a good cover band, often putting interesting spins on songs written by others, and sometimes playing it better than the writers.

Well, I think if there is still an original hit songwriter in the band, or someone who composed and performed a signature musical part in the studio, that certainly gives them something that the average cover band doesn't have. I'm not sure "integrity" is the right word. Originality? Ownership? Property rights? Bragging rights? I dunno.

Again, this is not to say a local cover band is not credible, as was suggested above. Local cover bands have a vital place in the entertainment industry. The vast majority of my performing has been in cover bands, and I'm damn proud of it. But in reality, all I've been doing is trying to imitate the songwriters and studio performers who came before me.

Even though I might play "Fun, Fun, Fun" in a cover band, I am not where Brian Wilson and Mike Love are in the music and entertainment industry, and chances are I never will be. In that respect, taking yourself, and the musicianship you are merely copying, too seriously in a pop cover band is a bit odd IMHO.

 

[dtsamples]

We use tracks for 90% of our covers and the audience loves it. We play to packed rooms, people dance, and we have fun. The bar owner doesn't care when the frowny-faced original musician leaves his bar cause we are using tracks. It took me 15 hours to get the sounds perfect for "when you were young." We don't use tracks for songs that don't need them, but playing to a younger crowd requires playing younger songs, and lots of them feature heavy electronics. They don't want to hear a version of a song, they want to hear a song. So they hear it with tracks, with live vocals, live drums, live bass, and live guitar. We pocket our $200 each and go buy groceries. Sure, we could hire 4 other members and do our best to actually recreate each sound live, but what about when we play tiny stages or places with smaller sound systems or when we play songs that don't require anything but guitar bass and drums? Furthermore, do you think Oscar-winning actors are hacks because they didn't write their script? What about a stage actor doing Shakespeare? Does his performance automatically get discredited because he didn't write the lines he's speaking? If not, then knock it off with the cover musicians aren't real musicians nonsense.

 

[morgansterne]

the band I play keys in does baba o'riley, the first half of the song only. I programmed an arpeggio on my keyboard so that I hold down a single note and it plays an approximation of the opening sequencer thing. I can just hit the key again to restart the loop to stay in time if the drummer starts to drift off tempo. No backing tracks, not even a click track, and it's a staple of our set.
I did play in an original band where we used backing tracks because we could not find a decent fourth member who would learn the tunes. The lead singer played guitar or keys depending on what drove the song, and the other part was on a backing track. Just rhythm parts, there was never a guitar solo with no one playing it.
I saw a local cover group do "caribbean queen" which was embarrassing enough, but then the saxophone solo started with no sax player on stage. They were instantly and mercilessly heckled by the audience. It was awesome.

 

[Double E]

Well, I think if there is still an original hit songwriter in the band, or someone who composed and played a signature musical part in the studio, that certainly gives them something that the average cover band doesn't have. I'm not sure "integrity" is the right word. Originality? Ownership? Property rights? Bragging rights? I dunno.

Again, this is not to say a local cover band is not credible, as was suggested above. Local cover bands have a vital place in the entertainment industry. The vast majority of my performing has been in cover bands, and I'm damn proud of it. But in reality, all I've been doing is trying to imitate the songwriters and studio performers who came before me.

Even though I might play "Fun, Fun, Fun" in a cover band, I am not where Brian Wilson and Mike Love are in the music and entertainment industry, and chances are I never will be. In that respect, taking yourself, and the musicianship you are merely copying, too seriously in a pop cover band is a bit odd IMHO.

I think any musician taking themselves too seriously is silly. All music is about fun and non-life-essential pleasure. Anyone with the gift to play, write, perform or appreciate music in any way should be thankful for that and not begrudge other's participation, no matter how much their methods may differ. Now THAT'S artistic integrity for you!