Cover songs - original vs band version

[richntiff]

I think the reality is that there is no one answer. Some bands will do better staying as faithful as possible to the original. Some bands will do better putting a significant spin on the tune to make it their own.

I see two problem areas that bands get into, in my opinion:

1) The 'spin' they put on the tune isn't due to interpretation/creativity - it's more due to the fact that they didn't actually learn the original version to begin with, and just do it halfway.

2) They 'spin' every single song to the point where it just gets silly. It sounds like a cheesy gimmick after a while. Classic example is the power trio type thing where every song turns into a reggae inspired version. Please just kill me now.

 

[InhumanResource]

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

A little bit of inflection can really go a long way with this stuff! No need to get fancy most of the time.

 

[fhm555]

Sometimes, the idea of making it our own is a thin disguise for the fact that we're just hacks and we feel better by if we lower the bar.

The original recording has the benefit of a production "machine". Parts were chosen to fit together, to complement one another. Choices were made to make the song as good as they could to increase audience appeal. A bunch of part-timers just trying to figure this out on their own are unlikely to come up with anything that is better than the original.

You can learn the parts per the recording knowing they all fit together and sound good. Or you can spent a lot more time working with each other to try to make up something else. More time, less quality.

... My opinion. Not fact. I realize I'm probably in the minority.

The idea behind cutting a song with the goal of selling it certainly does take advantage of all the bells and whistles available in a studio, but you must also keep in mind that while all that technology is employed to get the best possible sonic outcome, it is also having the edges rounded to make it as appealing as possible to the widest audience possible. In my codgerhood I can still recall how processed and massaged most debut albums sounded, and for those fortunate enough to catch lightning in a bottle with that first release, would be allowed a bit more artistic freedom on subsequent releases until they proved they could be given some slack and remain profitable.
The thing I most enjoy a out being a han and egger is I'm in it for my gratification, if others enjoy it with me that's great, but it's not required because I'm not trying to hit number 1 with a bullet. If I can find a group of like minded players and we gel, my reward for my effort has already been achieved. If others dig it, that's great, but not a requirement for me to enjoy myself. All that takes is a tight band hitting on all cylinders. Everything else is just details.

 

[Akami]

Very few musicians can sound "exactly" like the original and especially in the case of singers can be more genuine if they work at sounding like themselves while following the general blueprint that makes a song what it is.
Everyone personalizes every news topic or joke they've ever heard abcs performers should do likewise. Keep it recognizable and have fun with it.

 

[Akami]

...sooner or later they all end up being my versions.

That's what I ascribe to, and having heard lots of bands playing other peoples songs over the years, including the ones who say they do it just like the record, I'm pretty well convinced that's what we all do, with the possible exception of a minutely tiny handful of tribute acts.

 

[groovepump]

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


View attachment 7010375

There are a couple of thoughts that immediately pop into my head when I think of "tribute band" and note-for-note copy:
First, which "version" of the song are we talking about? The first recorded studio version? or a recent live performance at a
stadium venue? Or do you take an audience vote before you play the song?
And then comes the boredom factor: note for note, same notes every time, all year long . . .
If I gotta play someone else's bass lines, they better be worth playing. Give me sheet music, a DB, and an orchestra. That's
fun... challenging ... and the audience will get what they expect. That's a REAL tribute band.

 

[groovepump]

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

At the show we played last month, two people independently begged us to play a couple of songs that weren't on our set list for the night, but we played them anyway, because they begged us. They said we do the songs better than the original. That's how I prefer to do covers!!!

 

[Strung_Low]

Man I totally agree. I've played bass and congas in multiple bands that played covers and I think creating original arrangements of them is totally the way to go. I'm not a fan of trying to play someone else's song exactly like them. It's not really gratifying at all imo.. We would keep the lyrics and basic chords but change up song structure and articulations to make it our own. People loved it, esp in my Cumbia and Latin rock bands.