Cover songs - original vs band version

[tothemax]

I've always been a fan of "original" style covers, where you pay respect to the original but make it you're own version. I'm sure part of this is due to my inability to play as well as the original musicians, but that said also believe it's tough to do a better version of the original song (music and vocals). I like to make sure that we learn the song and then play to our strengths, music, vocals, and arrangement. We have a couple of originals, but for most part play classic rock standards - some Steely Dan, Santana, Allman Bros, etc...
I realize it's a personal thing, but just wanted to see how others feel about it.

 

[dbsfgyd1]

I've always been a fan of "original" style covers, where you pay respect to the original but make it you're own version. I'm sure part of this is due to my inability to play as well as the original musicians, but that said also believe it's tough to do a better version of the original song (music and vocals). I like to make sure that we learn the song and then play to our strengths, music, vocals, and arrangement. We have a couple of originals, but for most part play classic rock standards - some Steely Dan, Santana, Allman Bros, etc...
I realize it's a personal thing, but just wanted to see how others feel about it.

Interesting question. I know that 90% of the time the bassist on the recording is going to be a better player, and the same can be said of the other players in my ensemble. Further the sum total of tracks on said recording is going to vastly out number the number of musician in my ensemble, not to mention the production techniques used on an equipment we don’t have.

So, if you try to note to note it, it’s likely going to sound out of context. Best bet is to A, keep the song form as close to the original, B, learn identifiable lines, C, work with the players you have. If you have to tweak some things that’s ok.

 

[Minimalist]

When you listen to the studio and various live version of a song from the band that wrote the song, they can be very different. Even if the lineup didn't change. If they make changes, so can you (or we ).

 

[JRA]

my philosophy:

...you pay respect to the original but make it you're own version...

 

[HardNHeavy]

always been a fan of making it your own, as long as everyone is on the same page, and not changing things on the fly live, unless your geared to improv like that...yeh its more fun and creative to mix things up.

 

[Killing Floor]

My opinion only.

If your band plays a set of songs exactly similar to the popular recording it’s way more fun to just have the radio on in the background. Or you can try to energize the crowd with less stiffness. Either way.

 

[andruca]

I guess it depends on your product/shtick. I had a cover band that turned Spanish/Hispanoamerican hits from the '50s thru' '80s into punk/HC stuff. We (me and the guitarist) arranged 20+ songs. I was literally the "musical director" for this ensemble, and the vocal arranger. We of course kept the hooks, but also added all sorts of winks to punk music. Much in the vein of what Me First & the Gimme Gimmes do, but with Spanish sung pop material. The song is always still there, not deranged really despite the outrageous aesthetics and occasional mashups. We did anything from festivals to corporate/wedding parties with this, a surprisingly wide audience enjoyed it.





I might be profane, but I really like when originals artists do, i.e., the acoustic thing gracefully, meaning, reformulating songs and not just playing songs the same, just on acoustic guitars. I don't mind original creators mutating their songs thru' time. I think as long as the song is still there and it's good sounding enough (meaning, not destroyed, or destroyed in a tasty way), the audiences will appreciate it. So my criteria for doing covers is even more loose in regards to "respect for the original".

 

[gln1955]

Are you entertaining? Is the audience engaged? Dancing, attentive, singing along, staying and buying drinks, however you want to measure it.

Are you making the venues happy? Getting repeat bookings, better pay, however you want to measure it.

If yes to the above, then what you are doing is good and what anyone thinks of your departure from a slavish note-for-note rendition is immaterial.

But since you asked, I do think it's a good idea to play to your strengths and do something interesting with your covers as long as the core of the songs are still there.

 

[micguy]

Interesting question. I know that 90% of the time the bassist on the recording is going to be a better player

A you gain ecperience, that percentage drops. Also, you realize at some point that, in most cases, the bass player on the record has played the song a half a dozen to a dozen times, and then they hit record. If you're dong that song for a lot of gigs, you will eventually get to where you have played the song a lot more times than the bassist had when the recording was made. Now, you face the same issue that the original bassist does when the band tours - the song evolves, because the players figure out better ways of presenting the song - better parts, better arrangements, etc. Why is the liver version different than the studio version? Because the band has learned what makes the song better.

I play church gigs. A lot of the tunes that we do are recorded with fairly simple parts - the artists know their songs will be played by players in a lot of cases aren't very proficient, so they intentionally dumb things down a bit. Sometimes more than a bit. Some of the churches I play in, the players are very proficient, often as good as or better than the folks on the record. We also are playing to a live audience, and what works for that audience is not what's on the record. I play with a bunch of different worship leaders, and lots of vocalists. My job is to support what they're doing, and what's happening in the room - the part I play depends on what's happening around me. If I play the part on the record, it's never the ideal part for the situation I'm in. If I play the same part for 3 different worship leaders, the part I'm playing is wrong at least 2 of those 3 times. It might be close sometimes, but most of the time, what I come up with is something that fits the situation better.

 

[bigboy_78]

In a covers band, you cover it the way people want to hear it....as close to the original as possible

Originals band should cover it in the style people expect your band to play it.

 

[40Hz]

I prefer that bands put their own respectful spins on cover tunes.

Truth is, most of the original artists I’ve heard in concert didn’t play note for note off their albums either. Good songs (and bands) evolve and often improve over time. Which is one reason I tend to like recordings of live performances better than the studio versions.

 

[Tim Skaggs]

Depends on the song for my band. Some songs are so iconic, we play as much like the original as possible. Other songs, especially those that have been recorded by several bands, we play our way or at least some version of one of the covers.

Some bands have to re-learn their own songs before touring due to the songs “drifting” from the original version while the band was previously touring. I heard an interview with Randy Bachman of Bachman-Turner Overdrive back in the 90’s where he said their tour prep was to play through their tour setlist and get the songs “back to original”.

 

[Tony In Philly]

It's an interesting proposition, and one that's been around quite a while. For example, Yes did a great deal of unique covers with their own arrangements on their early albums. Also, these days I hear a lot of jam bands putting their own unique spin on existing tunes. Simply doing every tune note for note can be a bit of a cul-de-sac.

 

[hrodbert696]

I think the thing to bear in mind is that what you are "creating" is a performance. People who focus on originals-only often miss that, assuming that there's no artistry or creativity in playing a song you didn't compose. I would argue performance is an art in itself, distinct from composition.

The question, then, is crafting a performance that is the best possible for this set of performers in front of this audience. One factor is certainly that you may not have the same mix of instruments, and the same chops, as the original artists. Another is the audience's expectation. If I'm at a bar or club and want to dance, I'm going to be ticked off if the band plays a progged-up cover of a pop song that I can't dance to. If I paid money for tickets at a concert venue, I'm probably going to be ticked if the band plays a cover just like a bar band would without any creative arrangement of their own. It's a judgment call.

 

[InhumanResource]

I've always been a fan of "original" style covers, where you pay respect to the original but make it you're own version. I'm sure part of this is due to my inability to play as well as the original musicians, but that said also believe it's tough to do a better version of the original song (music and vocals). I like to make sure that we learn the song and then play to our strengths, music, vocals, and arrangement. We have a couple of originals, but for most part play classic rock standards - some Steely Dan, Santana, Allman Bros, etc...
I realize it's a personal thing, but just wanted to see how others feel about it.

I’ve always liked the idea of making it your own, and to an extent you always do at least a little bit, but I’ve found that in terms of actual work (and running the band) it’s easiest and most effective to just say the goal is to do it like the record.

 

[murphy]

These thoughts will all fly out the window as soon as you become a Tribute /cover band
The audience will expect note for note reproduction..........or there's going to be trouble

 

[buldog5151bass]

1. Most patrons want to hear what they know.
2. Depending on the song, an original cover can work if done well.
3. Toomany bands use this as an excuse to half-@$$ it.

 

[Five or Six]

As long as as a song is relative to the original, with a bands touch, all is good.

 

[edencab]

we do a harder version of Steppin Stone by the Monkees ....exact same song/key etc. just louder and a tad faster ....just with more rock n' roll ooomph I'd say...crowds love it

 

[pepj]

I'd need to hear them in context.

Some people have imagination and quirkiness to make a well known song work.
Some try for the record version and fail badly.
Depends what the band has in its back pocket, imo.