• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Guys Who Only Play Covers: What Happened?

Can't speak for bluewine but I've been in those types (top tier/agency booked) of bands (many years in NYC) and gigs paying even remotely close to that were few and far in between.

Having said that, I'll move my arse to Chicago or Maryland in a heartbeat if there's a bass chair open for me! Realize I'm extremely sceptical and will do some researching and detective work in order to be convinced! It's just my nature.

You and Bluewine are cracking me up on this tangent. No offense. Be skeptical. Maybe there is just one guy doing this here. Glad it's me. Most of the people I work with are full time professional musicians. This is how some of us do it.
:D

I'll save you some legwork. Here's one of the booking agencies I work under, Sam Hill Entertainment.

www.samhillbands.com

The main band I work with under this agency is The Mustangs out of DC. Mainly old school R&B/Funk/Rock mixed with newer stuff. I've also worked with the Storytellers, a band out of NY.I work with the sax player and trombonist often. I work regularly with a couple of other agency bands that book with other agencies like East Coast, which also cross books the Mustangs. And I sub with other groups. This week the Mustangs are double-booked again so we'll have one version in Keswick, VA and I got switched over to the DC gig. i also work with Blue Funk, which does lower dollare weddings (four piece plus a couple of vocals, $3k range).

You'll see booking price brackets on the Sam Hill website along with lots of videos and recordings of various bands. You'll see me with the Mustangs. Most wedding bands IMO are okay at best. It's not like you have to be amazing to pull in big dollars. Most of the videos will make you wonder who in the world would pay that much for that...? Guess what... people do pay for the whole package (as Boris mentioned), which includes competence all around: business, music, social, etc. Strangely enough a lot of musicians can't handle that.

And yes, the higher dollar ones may not be booked every week but if you do what I do, juggle a few of these you can stay busy. For example this month I have two Mustangs hits, one with Invitiation and one with Night Rhythms. That doesn't include two hits at the Half Note with Power Source and other club dates I do as necessary. And then there's church.

I avoid conflicts by letting everyone know my prioritization: because the church hit is the most consistent, they take first priority. I had the manager of what was my main band, the Mustangs, upset because I was already booked for NYE when she got the date in October. I explained to her that I had booked NYE at the church in April when I took the job. We're on the same page now. After the church, if you want me, make sure you book me well in advance... I might not be available.

And not bragging, I'm in demand because I know a ridiculous number of songs, can play them in any key and couple that with being a professional and band leaders love people they don't have to worry about. Zero drama. And I do the simple stuff like responding immediately to correspondences and learning new material well before the gig. You'd be surprised how many people screw that up.


So do the math. If you two are still skeptical, cool. I have a friend in Roanoke who gigs with one of the biggest wedding bands, they do Trump's NYE party every year on an island off the coast of Florida among other things. It's true, there is a fairly small group of people doing this... guess why?
;)

And yeah, I play six string fretless on alot of my agency gigs.
:eek:

And we only play covers so... this is what happened.
:D
 
I've read it somewhere that most decent or better musicians have but one album inside of them. Pete Townshend even alludes to it in the Who's "New Song" lyrics. I wrote mine, and peformed it, live, in my early 20's, and helped others in writing and performing theirs, into my later 30's. Factor in the fact that you are a has-been/never-was, in original popular musical forms, by your mid-20's, unless you are a superstar, and you can see why becoming a cover player was a way to keep enjoying the fact that I can play. The only other alternative was to become a serious jazzer, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there's less money in it, too, at least in my market.
 
Most of the "originals" that people wrote in various bands I was in were either a DIRECT Van Halen or Zeppelin or Skynyrd rip off- I don't mean similar, I mean completely the same... Have seen this many times, many originals are more of a cover song than some peoples covers.
 
I've read it somewhere that most decent or better musicians have but one album inside of them. Pete Townshend even alludes to it in the Who's "New Song" lyrics. I wrote mine, and peformed it, live, in my early 20's, and helped others in writing and performing theirs, into my later 30's. Factor in the fact that you are a has-been/never-was, in original popular musical forms, by your mid-20's, unless you are a superstar, and you can see why becoming a cover player was a way to keep enjoying the fact that I can play. The only other alternative was to become a serious jazzer, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there's less money in it, too, at least in my market.

And most jazzers are playing covers.
 
IMO and IME most originals just aren't very good.

Once in a while, a post shows up on Talkbass that cuts through the crap and absolutely nails it. No unnecessary analysis. No verbose anecdotes. No BS. Just pure, 100%, real deal, bottom line honesty.

This is one of those posts.

BINGO!

IMO, Pedro's post wins the thread.

And even though I don't know Pedro personally, I would say he is more polite than I am. IMO, most originals suck wangus. But that's just my choice of words. Just bein' honest!:hmm:
 
Once in a while, a post shows up on Talkbass that cuts through the crap and absolutely nails it. No unnecessary analysis. No verbose anecdotes. No BS. Just pure, 100%, real deal, bottom line honesty.

This is one of those posts.

BINGO!

IMO, Pedro's post wins the thread.

And even though I don't know Pedro personally, I would say he is more polite than I am. IMO, most originals suck wangus. But that's just my choice of words. Just bein' honest!:hmm:

(pedro mighty glad he posted the polite version.)
 
I'm curious if this topic comes up with regards to any music other than pop or rock? I mean I don't hear of many blues guys being quizzed as to why they're still playing Robert Johnson tune or jazz guys being asked on why they're still jamming on a standard.

It wasn't an issue when I was in music school, among either the classical or jazz crowds. Very few students were interested in composition. In fact, I'd say the aspiring composers were generally though less of than the performance majors. Perhaps my own experience isn't typical though.
 
It wasn't an issue when I was in music school, among either the classical or jazz crowds. Very few students were interested in composition. In fact, I'd say the aspiring composers were generally though less of than the performance majors. Perhaps my own experience isn't typical though.

That's not surprising but (at least with respect to jazz) why aren't they being criticized about it like rockers?
 
That's not surprising but (at least with respect to jazz) why aren't they being criticized about it like rockers?

I'm not sure. I think with the classical students, the emphasis was on the technical mastery of the instrument, and the expressive interpretation of the classic pieces. Composers were usually just thought of as substandard players. It might be that the general disdain for newer compositions among most of them had something to do with it.

Jazz was sort of a middle ground now that I think about it. Since the emphasis was less on the composed heads, but more about the improvised solos, composition was less important than playing. Improvising is a sort of composition, though, so I guess it's original in that sense.
 
I'm not sure. I think with the classical students, the emphasis was on the technical mastery of the instrument, and the expressive interpretation of the classic pieces. Composers were usually just thought of as substandard players. It might be that the general disdain for newer compositions among most of them had something to do with it.

Jazz was sort of a middle ground now that I think about it. Since the emphasis was less on the composed heads, but more about the improvised solos, composition was less important than playing. Improvising is a sort of composition, though, so I guess it's original in that sense.

I may have given the wrong impression about 'classical' as that was the way it was when I was in music school about a 1000 years ago. In terms of the opinion regarding 'classical composers' I suppose some of that is as a result of there really being very little 'new under the sun' with respect to modern classical composition. You can re-work forms that have all been done much better in the past or go 'modern'.

Maybe the same is true for jazz and/or blues where we've really arrived at a point of 'what now'?
 
I'm not sure. I think with the classical students, the emphasis was on the technical mastery of the instrument, and the expressive interpretation of the classic pieces.

This is where I'm at. I care a lot more about playing my instrument as well as I can than I do about writing or arranging. To me technical mastery and playing well as well as I can are the goals.
Goals I'll probably never really achieve but hey it keeps me off the streets at night.