Why would anybody in their right mind want to play a weezer cover?
You have obviously not heard Richard Cheese's version of Hash Pipe:
Great stuff!!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I have a problem with cover/tribute bands.
- Thread starter T-Forty
- Start date
- Status
You have obviously not heard Richard Cheese's version of Hash Pipe:
Great stuff!!
Why would anybody in their right mind want to play a weezer cover?
#1 - I agree, but only because I don't play covers.
#2 - I imagine a cover of Say It Aint So, The Sweater Song, or Buddy Holly would get any crowd singing along.
Whew... this thread has been an epic. 
It seems nobody has stated what is, to me, the obvious point. People react to good SONGS. Whether they're yours or someone else's. I've been in primarily originals bands over the years, and, if you can write songs that stand up alongside the stuff that cover bands do, you'll be able to break through that familiarity factor and make progress.
My last band used to support a lot of cover bands, and, despite them being good at what they do, we always got the better reaction, because our songs were good and we weren't only going through the motions, which is something that, in my experience, a lot of cover bands are guilty of. When it's your own music, your own reputation and your own arse on the line, you're bound to put more passion into your performance, and not play by rote.
The Beatles, The Who, The Stones, etc did what they had to do to get a foothold in their scene - the British club scene in the early 60s was all about blues covers and skiffle, so that's what they did. They did mostly the covers stuff in the UK, and tried out their originals in the somewhat more open-minded environment of Hamburg in Germany. Once they outgrew that scene, the original material began to dominate. But, despite their covers, they're still best known for their originals. When you ask someone about The Who, they'll be far more likely to name-drop "Who Are You", "My Generation" or "Behind Blue Eyes" than "Summertime Blues". Same with The Beatles - sure, "Shout" might get a look in, but you'll get far more people saying "Yellow Submarine", "Yesterday" and "Come Together". Same with any successful band who throw in a few covers. And many do, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Aim high, that's what I say. My aim in a band is to be involved with songs that you lot in cover bands will be getting asked to play in the future. And this is at 36 - I'm no spotty teenager with three chords under his belt. I have a decent job, and have no real interest in making my music self-financing - if it does, great, but I do it because I love it, not for any financial aspirations. Like all good art, you do it because you *have* to, because self-expression is more important to you than the "career" or money-oriented side of it. The way forward is just to get as good at it as you can, so your creations can stand at the same level as those from the established artists.
Oh... you might get to play here if you're a cover band...
... but you'll only get to play here if you're a big original band.
Invalid Link Removed
It seems nobody has stated what is, to me, the obvious point. People react to good SONGS. Whether they're yours or someone else's. I've been in primarily originals bands over the years, and, if you can write songs that stand up alongside the stuff that cover bands do, you'll be able to break through that familiarity factor and make progress.
My last band used to support a lot of cover bands, and, despite them being good at what they do, we always got the better reaction, because our songs were good and we weren't only going through the motions, which is something that, in my experience, a lot of cover bands are guilty of. When it's your own music, your own reputation and your own arse on the line, you're bound to put more passion into your performance, and not play by rote.
The Beatles, The Who, The Stones, etc did what they had to do to get a foothold in their scene - the British club scene in the early 60s was all about blues covers and skiffle, so that's what they did. They did mostly the covers stuff in the UK, and tried out their originals in the somewhat more open-minded environment of Hamburg in Germany. Once they outgrew that scene, the original material began to dominate. But, despite their covers, they're still best known for their originals. When you ask someone about The Who, they'll be far more likely to name-drop "Who Are You", "My Generation" or "Behind Blue Eyes" than "Summertime Blues". Same with The Beatles - sure, "Shout" might get a look in, but you'll get far more people saying "Yellow Submarine", "Yesterday" and "Come Together". Same with any successful band who throw in a few covers. And many do, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Aim high, that's what I say. My aim in a band is to be involved with songs that you lot in cover bands will be getting asked to play in the future. And this is at 36 - I'm no spotty teenager with three chords under his belt. I have a decent job, and have no real interest in making my music self-financing - if it does, great, but I do it because I love it, not for any financial aspirations. Like all good art, you do it because you *have* to, because self-expression is more important to you than the "career" or money-oriented side of it. The way forward is just to get as good at it as you can, so your creations can stand at the same level as those from the established artists.
Oh... you might get to play here if you're a cover band...
... but you'll only get to play here if you're a big original band.
Invalid Link Removed
Why can't you do both?? I play bass in a popular cover band and I also am involved in 3 original bands writing and playing guitar.
Another thing springs to mind about this.... I think music is about the only form of performance art (other than acting) where you can get away with regurgitating other people's material. Think about it... what would you think if you went to see a comedian perform live and they were doing someone else's material? Or a poet?
My feelings on this topic are well documented throughout this thread. Regarding this point, however, I just wanted to point out that a singular comedian/poet vs. a performing troupe (which would be much more the 'band' equivalent) is not a good comparison.
We have seen, and accepted, a number of actors/comedians perform other people's original work, however. As a matter of fact, it's far more the norm to see an acting troupe performing work they didn't create themselves. This holds true for groups of comedians too. A single stand-up comic is certainly expected to perform his own jokes (or jokes that were written for him/her) - but a group of comedians in a movie or stage play are more than likely going to be performing works that have either been performed many times before or are new, but written by someone other than them (as a group).
And people flock to theaters year after year to see "regurgitation" of "Cats", "West Side Story", "Rent" and so on.
So it appears that actors and comedians are actually expected to do other people's pieces on stages - and probably wouldn't be able to get a gig if they didn't.
Imagine what would happen if all actors suddenly adopted the attitude that performing other people's work was beneath them or something they considered unethical or not in line with their artistic values.
I specifically excluded actors from my comment, as the vast majority are performing stuff written by other people - this is obvious. Same for comedy revues, big Broadway/West End shows, etc. Totally different idiom. Performing other people's material is the standard - it's very rare an actor or musical theatre composer will perform in their own show. It is, however, not the norm for popular music. Can you imagine Andrew Lloyd-Webber acting in Phantom?
My thoughts are more along the lines of stand-up comedians, who are expected to be original. To me, it's a similar level of intimacy to seeing a band. You want to hear the person/people on stage's own thoughts and observations, whether it's in comedic or musical form.
For instance, I have absolutely no interest in going to a comedy show and seeing someone else perform Bill Hicks' jokes. They might be funny, but the material will lose something because it's not being conveyed by its originator. I hold music to roughly the same standards. If I see a comedian, I want them to be a) original, and b) funny. If I see a band, I want them to be a) original, and b) good, with memorable songs and a good stage show.
I have no problem with tribute bands. In fact, my Judas Priest Tribute got paid $300 each for an 1.5 hr set on friday night. And yes, I posted this just to piss T-40 off 
21 pages?
I'll summarize it then:
cover bands = good
original bands = good
You play what works best for you and don't diss the other as they are mutually supportive whether you know it or not.
We all good now? friends? hand shakes all around? great
/thread.
I'll summarize it then:
cover bands = good
original bands = good
You play what works best for you and don't diss the other as they are mutually supportive whether you know it or not.
We all good now? friends? hand shakes all around? great
/thread.
I specifically excluded actors from my comment, as the vast majority are performing stuff written by other people - this is obvious. Same for comedy revues, big Broadway/West End shows, etc. Totally different idiom. Performing other people's material is the standard - it's very rare an actor or musical theatre composer will perform in their own show. It is, however, not the norm for popular music. Can you imagine Andrew Lloyd-Webber acting in Phantom?
My thoughts are more along the lines of stand-up comedians, who are expected to be original. To me, it's a similar level of intimacy to seeing a band. You want to hear the person/people on stage's own thoughts and observations, whether it's in comedic or musical form.
For instance, I have absolutely no interest in going to a comedy show and seeing someone else perform Bill Hicks' jokes. They might be funny, but the material will lose something because it's not being conveyed by its originator. I hold music to roughly the same standards. If I see a comedian, I want them to be a) original, and b) funny. If I see a band, I want them to be a) original, and b) good, with memorable songs and a good stage show.
I get it - and I know you excluded actors - but you also made what I consider to be a leap of logic in equating a single person on stage in an intimate venue with a group on a stage in a far less intimate situation. A comedian/poet is, in my opinion, different than a band or a performing group.
A single person with an acoustic guitar is much more similar to a comedian/poet to me. Also - if we're talking about off-off-off the "pro-level" circuit (NOT Eddie Murphy/Dave Chappelle/Richard Pryor's milieu), where a single poet/stand-up comic faces HUGE audiences, intimacy plays a big role in the analogy.
I could easily see a person deciding to perform a poem by Keats or Joyce or reading excerpts from Ginsberg or Kerouac - in other words, covering them - and it being a perfectly fine and entertaining show if they do it well.
I could also see that same poet doing their own bits and pieces as well. To me, expectations being "You have my attention, use it well", if they have a delivery and presentation that grabs me and keeps my attention - and entertains me - the material's origins are really unimportant.
If that person then tried to bamboozle me into believing they wrote it - that's an entirely different story. Also, if I were lured to the venue with ads saying "Original Material by Joe Schmo TONIGHT" - and he got up there and proceeded to read works by someone else, I'd be miffed - but not because someone was covering someone else's material - because of the utter fraud of it all.
That said, if the performance is honest, well executed and entertaining - there ya go.
Summary of Rusty Chainsaw's posts:
My higher purpose in life gives me the power to spread My wisdom about the land.
Given that My wisdom is beyond understanding of the common musician, Me and Me alone shall decide your desires, your fate, the value of your wisdom and the fate of the common cover band.
While I persevere in my quest for the Holy Grail of Rockdom, adulation of the masses and to be held in high esteem for all time through the mass appeal of the greatness of my music, all thee that opppose me shall be relegated to the depths of cover band hell, where ye shall toil in oblivion for infinity and beyond.
If ye little people shall oppose me, ye shall be dispatched post haste to the cornfield where all undeserving wretches shall reside.
Other than that, have a nice day.
My higher purpose in life gives me the power to spread My wisdom about the land.
Given that My wisdom is beyond understanding of the common musician, Me and Me alone shall decide your desires, your fate, the value of your wisdom and the fate of the common cover band.
While I persevere in my quest for the Holy Grail of Rockdom, adulation of the masses and to be held in high esteem for all time through the mass appeal of the greatness of my music, all thee that opppose me shall be relegated to the depths of cover band hell, where ye shall toil in oblivion for infinity and beyond.
If ye little people shall oppose me, ye shall be dispatched post haste to the cornfield where all undeserving wretches shall reside.
Other than that, have a nice day.
I play in cover bands. I sleep in 5 star hotels on the road that I dont pay for. My meals are paid for, drinks are free. I meet real good and famous musicians all the time. Cougars are plenty. I am well known in my circuit. I drive a real cool car. I have a brand new bass and rig. Because of covers..not origionals.
Only doing origional material = Working at McDonalds
Playing covers = Playing music full time, and having a session career now too
And in all seriousness, once you play an origional more than once, you have now covered it, and if you play music to more than one person and make even $0.50, you are now a sell-out. Big deal.
Only doing origional material = Working at McDonalds
Playing covers = Playing music full time, and having a session career now too
And in all seriousness, once you play an origional more than once, you have now covered it, and if you play music to more than one person and make even $0.50, you are now a sell-out. Big deal.
Okay, original bands are bad and cover bands are good. I'll agree to join a Spinal Tap tribute band if someone will just make this thread die.
In this economy, we have both original artists and cover musicians selling their souls to the devil to make the drive to the next venue worth the gas money.
But, by all means, everyone continue to beat the snot out of each other in this thread over which of you is more worthy of your craft.
But, by all means, everyone continue to beat the snot out of each other in this thread over which of you is more worthy of your craft.
Let's correct that; people react positively to good, well performed songs. They react negatively to poorly performed songs, original or cover. You can create the greatest song ever written, and perform it poorly and be rejected.
At least with cover bands, the only bragging right you have is how good a musician/performer you are. I think it's very convenient for "original artists" to come in here and blow their horn because they write songs. How good are the songs? How good are the renditions?
I saw a piece once about a "fine artist" who rides a tricycle around a giant canvas, with paint dripping on the tires as he rides. He calls this art. I call it <edited>. I have much more respect for a painter who can copy a nice painting, and do a great job, than this "arteeste." But, he is original! LOL
Even the OP bragged that he wrote "good songs," but didn't give any links to them. How convenient.
- Status
