How do you play covers with many fills/variations live?

[gregouille23]

Hi,

I recently joined a cover band and therefore I had (and continue to have) many songs to learn. Typically, I like to learn most songs note for note like the original at least in the first place. It's a good exercise and gives you a basis, which you can then modify together with the band.

Some songs take literally 5 minutes to learn as they are fairly repetitive. But some songs on the other end use a repetitive structure but every section, though similar, is actually always different. A good example would be Smoke on the Water. I love the bassline but I find it tough to memorize due to the many variations of the verse bassline.

As I don't have all the variations memorized yet, during rehearsal I tend to play the ones I remember and sometimes improvise a fill/variation, making sure I don't mess up the rhythm when "going back to the root". The issue with that is that I think it may feel a bit annoying to other band members not to know what may come next... I never got any complain so far but I am fairly new at playing in a band and I guess I am looking for some kind of best practice

I was wondering what you typically do for such songs. Any feedback is welcome!
Thanks

 

[INTP]

For cover tunes, particularly when I have many to learn in a short period of time, I learn the form first and a basic bass line that defines the changes. If there are "signature" licks that are critical to the song, I'll learn those right away, too. But for fills and embellishments, I just play something that makes the song work first. The goal is to get through the set and play to a level that 90+% of the people wouldn't notice the difference.

Once I can carry the tunes, I will revisit them to work out the subtler details.

 

[JimK]

But some songs on the other end use a repetitive structure but every section, though similar, is actually always different. A good example would be "Smoke on the Water".
I love the bassline but I find it tough to memorize due to the many variations of the verse bassline.

That would be a good example...in the day, bands were expected to stretch/jam...even on recordings.
I used to be anal about being 'exactly like the record'.
Then I saw enough bands live where they didn't worry about it...so why me. Too, many live versions blew the studio/recorded version away.
One example I recall vividly was "Rambling Man" by the ABB. This particular live version I recall was from the old In Concert TV series (early '70s). It was long, the players stretched out...and it killed.

I kinda doubt Glover played "SOTW" the same way twice.

 

[hrodbert696]

Note-for-note vs. freer interpretation gets debated around here on a weekly basis. I'm firmly in the camp that you play the chord progression and any distinctive, signature licks or fills, and otherwise focus on serving the song. If the recording of the song does half a dozen variations on a given fill at different points in the song, I will guarantee you the band's original bassist didn't play each of them live exactly as he did on the record, and neither should you.

You also should be thinking about the context and the band you're playing in. If you're in a trio playing a tune that was originally done by a seven-piece, you're almost certainly going to need to play busier to preserve the feel of the original. If you're in a seven-piece playing a tune that was originally recorded by a trio, you're probably going to need to simplify it down to make some room for your bandmates to play in.

 

[electracoyote]

I usually latch on to a manageable number of the "variations," especially the ones I think are stand outs for some reason, and rotate them.

 

[Richland123]

I kinda doubt Glover played "SOTW" the same way twice.

Funny you mention Smoke On The Water and you are absolutely correct. I had not played that song in a band since the mid 1970s and my current band decided to do it and man does it go over with the crowds. Anyway, when I went to relearn it, I listened to the studio recording and several live versions and, sure enough, Roger Glover did play it differently even on each live version. Other Deep Purple bassists over the years have also played it differently. I decided to combine a couple things Glover did for our cover. The guy in my band sings lead, plays drums, and plays keyboards all at the same time on the song.

 

[gregouille23]

Thanks for the replies. I play in a band 2 guitarists which leaves some reasonable room for the bass. No need to occupy all the space of course, I am a bass player after all but it leaves space for a few fills here and there. 100% agree on learning the parts that stand out. I consider learning note by note a way to train my ear but also to understand how these fills make sense musically. It makes me see different fills than the ones I would invent and helps expanding my musical vocabulary. Some fills also definitely sound better than others... Anyway, I will focus on learning all the fills but then will probably play the tune at rehearsal/live differently. I suppose this is something that gets easier with practice

 

[brianrost]

I have never bothered to learn a cover 100% perfectly note for note. It might be useful as a learning exercise, but the original players never played it exactly that way ever again so why should I.

 

[mongo2]

I have never bothered to learn a cover 100% perfectly note for note. It might be useful as a learning exercise, but the original players never played it exactly that way ever again so why should I.

This ^^^

We cover tunes but we always try to add our own flavor to it so I typically learn any signature/unison/harmony passages and then just wing it based on the chord structure. As a result I rarely play a song the exact same way twice...probably never.

 

[MrLenny1]

Learn the form, play what you know on the gig.
Improve on the tune week to week. Continue to work on your set list all
the time.

 

[electracoyote]

I have never bothered to learn a cover 100% perfectly note for note. It might be useful as a learning exercise, but the original players never played it exactly that way ever again so why should I.

I see your point and you are 100% correct, but you asked for a reason to play it faithful to the version that most people know and remember. Here's at least one (arguably great) reason:

Because it's the version that most people know and remember.

 

[jchrisk1]

The other day my percussionist and myself were working together and a song came on, to which I said, 'I've never heard this song before now'. He looked at me like I was crazy and said 'we've played this song hundreds of times'. My response was, 'yeah, I know, but I've never listened to it'.
So, you know what camp I'm in. I play songs the way I want to play them. I'm not trying to sound like anyone else and don't care to. If I can't express myself on my instrument, then I may as well stop playing.

 

[Gearhead17]

I see your point and you are 100% correct, but you asked for a reason to play it faithful to the version that most people know and remember. Here's at least one (arguably great) reason:

Because it's the version that most people know and remember.

When you get asked to play it 100% like the original, the other band members BETTER do the same thing. Almost 99% of the time, it's not the case. Then it comes down to how many instruments were used int he recording and how many you have in your band....

Very good responses so far here. It's important to get signature licks down, but in other spots, I ALWAYS embellished or altered a fill every time I played IF, and ONLY IF I had the space within the band context to do it. If I lost the beat or got in the way of a guitar lick then I would play something simpler to make sure I was not jumping out in the mix and hurting the guitar line.

 

[lfmn16]

If you get all of the signature licks, the correct chord progression and 80% of the notes and rhythms correct you'll be in the top 95% of all bass players in regards to accuracy. I personally don't believe that anyone plays everything 100%. I've seen lots of claims, but when I've invited people to post a set of their music to prove it I'm always met with silence.

 

[electracoyote]

When you get asked to play it 100% like the original, the other band members BETTER do the same thing. Almost 99% of the time, it's not the case. Then it comes down to how many instruments were used int he recording and how many you have in your band...

Of course. And I said "faithful," not "100% faithful." It's not every musician or every band's cup o' tea, but the question gets asked a lot as to why a band would want to keep it in the ballpark. The answer, in my experience, is that certain target audiences expect it, and if your competition is doing it, that's who you'll be compared to.

I play in a mainstream pop dance party funk horn band that not only keeps it in the ballpark, but we're usually playing the infield.

I play in a band with a female lead singer band leader with eclectic taste doing a lot of material that is not well-known to the mainstream audience. We take liberties.

There is no right or wrong here.

 

[tbz]

As others have mentioned, learn the form and listen to a few versions.

If the bassist plays it exactly the same, even live, then copy it note for note.

If they play a few sections the same and then improvise the rest, live, then do that.

Usually it's the latter.

 

[awakefie]

Oddly enough, I have one song with many variations that was hard for me to remember - Miss You by the Stones. I just threw together a bunch of octave jumps and the appropriate 10+ fret quips and the band thinks I'm gold. I've told them over and over I don't play it right, but they don't care. The guitar player even said "you're the first one I've ever heard play it like the record"

I'm of the camp, learn the basics, throw in the signature runs, and worry about the rest when you have time.

 

[lokikallas]

I often cover Led Zepplin and Sabbath and I usually listen to the live versions to see if they stay true to the original recording. Mostly they do, but often they are just going off, and just jamming. I keep that spirit in my interpretations. Sometimes I hit the same runs and fills, but mostly mix things up. Most of rock music is really just guys playing the blues scale in E, so as long as you are in key it's not a big deal.

 

[two fingers]

For cover tunes, particularly when I have many to learn in a short period of time, I learn the form first and a basic bass line that defines the changes. If there are "signature" licks that are critical to the song, I'll learn those right away, too. But for fills and embellishments, I just play something that makes the song work first. The goal is to get through the set and play to a level that 90+% of the people wouldn't notice the difference.

Once I can carry the tunes, I will revisit them to work out the subtler details.

Perfect answer. I do the exact same. I play fill-in gigs all the time. This philosophy works perfectly for me on those as well. Get the material to the point where the vast majority of people in the audience wouldn't know if something wasn't note for note like the original.

 

[lokikallas]

I have to add, in my Judas Preist tribute I'm about 95% accurate. That last 5% is just because I can't alway hear the bass. Priest is pretty simple on bass though, as the style is typically to lay down 1/16ths of the root during the whole song and nail the accents with the drums. Not a lot of room for interpretation. As a big fan of JPJ, And Geezer, who basically never play the song the same way twice, it was quite a bit different, as Ian Hill is more of a machine, chugging away.