Coverbands, no matter how many people you play to, or how much money you make, still strike me as a people roleplaying as rockstars for the night. As much fun as it is to pretend everybody in the crowd loves you and your interpritation of "insert classic rock song here", its still a cheap thrill compared with performing your own compositions. "Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt
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
I agree with you in as much as a "good" song will be one with both popular appeal and musical intelligence, rather than one that only appeals on one of those levels, or that shamelessly regurgitates the current trend. So I go with your definition of "quality". It takes a special kind of person to write an intelligent, popular song that can be successful and transcend trends at the same time. For that, they deserve success. They even deserve to have their tune covered by cover bands.
We all work within the boundaries of certain genres, loose as they may be, where you have to at least nod to your contemporaries in order to at least have a point of reference when it comes to marketing yourself. This could be "providing an authentic tribute to Led Zeppelin", or "original rock in the tradition of the Seattle explosion of the early 90s". Basically, it's hard to be truly original if you want to find an audience for your music. You do have to work, at least in part, within the boundaries of that which came before.
I don't necessarily think that success can be measured in $/£/, it's entirely down to the artist in question's expectations and the expectations of their target audience. Sure, not everyone is stadium material - I never wanted to be - but they get enough satisfaction from having a core group of people who appreciate their stuff, and the knowledge that they've made an artistic statement that's true to their intentions. I know several solo bassists who take this path, and they couldn't be happier. Their stuff isn't commercially viable, they'll never be in the charts, but they've found their audience and are doing well from it.
If $/£/ is your measure of success, then yes, you're probably better off going either the covers or formulaic route, as it's the route of least resistance to that eventual aim.
Which is less delusional than original bands who are OH SO SERIOUS about their "music" and their angst and integrity and SO SURE they are going to "make it" and "make it HUGE!"
LOL
buddy, this isn't karoake. It's playing music and playing to people who hopefully like what you're doing.
So I guess the New York Philarmonic, and every member in it, are just "posers" and "pretend classical composers" pretending to be "Mozart for the night"?
Yeah right...try again.
I agree with you in as much as a "good" song will be one with both popular appeal and musical intelligence, rather than one that only appeals on one of those levels, or that shamelessly regurgitates the current trend. So I go with your definition of "quality". It takes a special kind of person to write an intelligent, popular song that can be successful and transcend trends at the same time. For that, they deserve success. They even deserve to have their tune covered by cover bands.
We all work within the boundaries of certain genres, loose as they may be, where you have to at least nod to your contemporaries in order to at least have a point of reference when it comes to marketing yourself. This could be "providing an authentic tribute to Led Zeppelin", or "original rock in the tradition of the Seattle explosion of the early 90s". Basically, it's hard to be truly original if you want to find an audience for your music. You do have to work, at least in part, within the boundaries of that which came before.
I don't necessarily think that success can be measured in $/£/€, it's entirely down to the artist in question's expectations and the expectations of their target audience. Sure, not everyone is stadium material - I never wanted to be - but they get enough satisfaction from having a core group of people who appreciate their stuff, and the knowledge that they've made an artistic statement that's true to their intentions. I know several solo bassists who take this path, and they couldn't be happier. Their stuff isn't commercially viable, they'll never be in the charts, but they've found their audience and are doing well from it.
If $/£/€ is your measure of success, then yes, you're probably better off going either the covers or formulaic route, as it's the route of least resistance to that eventual aim.
Nice synopsis.
And yes, it is truly a huge task to create music that is both popular and doesn't simply repeat what's currently (or previously) popular.
As for finding "success" with original material, I will only disagree semantically. If one inextricably attaches popular acclaim with success, then you are 100% correct that it's hard to achieve. It requires lots of time, money and even some talent.
However, fate and luck are probably even more important. You could simply have a look (or one of your bandmates man have a look) that appeals to an A&R guy who sees how easily he could market that look. The music? Eh... who cares... If I can shovel it to the masses in the right package, it'll sell.
However, if you have a peer group that you identify with whose opinions are ones that matter to you and you are able to produce material that gains their seal of approval and respect, I'd say it's (success) less difficult to achieve than is being alluded to in this thread.
AGAIN - NOT downing original music/musicians/bands or people who like original music/musicians/bands. Just pointing out that the barometer being used can easily provide "false positives" with regard to "worth" and "value" - the two niggling details that started off this firestorm.
To reiterate my point of view re: cover vs. original bands and their worth - both are equally worthy. Both are equally subject to their members' philosophies and attitudes. If the members choose to voluntarily close off the "other" world and only live in theirs, that's their prerogative. In my opinion, voluntarily limiting one's opportunities is a foolish move - but again, that's my prerogative.
Damn! Of all people to be "covering", why am I doing Bobby Brown?!?! I must suck...
To tell the truth, at this moment, I'm pondering whether I should point out the irony that you chose to quote someone else here to further your argument of originality.
Of course, this is one of life's moments where I have to choose between submitting to my own wit and being a smart a$s or exercising self restraint by just staying out of it. I always choose wrong in these situations. Sorry about that.
and by the way, last summer, we did a private, night club gig with the Starf*ckers....know who they are? Gilbey Clark and Dizzy Reed - ex-Guns and Roses, Stefan Addika (ex-LA Guns), Rob Zombie's drummer. All pro's. None of them that old. You know what they did? A night of covers. I guess they SUCK too, huh? *rolls eyes*
You original guys need to get over yourselves. I don't really care what you guys do -- we're not in competition. I have idea why you care so much about feeling superior to cover musicians.
I'm an older guy, I make 6 figures in my real job -- and I have a BALL on the weekends playing in a popular cover band. What's it to you? We're not the reason that you're not famous! We're just making some music and having a good time. It's all good.
You original guys need to get over yourselves. I don't really care what you guys do -- we're not in competition. I have idea why you care so much about feeling superior to cover musicians.
I'm an older guy, I make 6 figures in my real job -- and I have a BALL on the weekends playing in a popular cover band. What's it to you? We're not the reason that you're not famous! We're just making some music and having a good time. It's all good.
What do you wanna bet that even Teddy covered folks like Lincoln or Jefferson at some point in his up and coming career?
Eh, I know how to play many many cover songs, but I vastly enjoy being in an all original band MORE (which I currently am). I'm not in it for the money or even to get famous, I'm in it for the fun of working with other people who "click" creatively with me and have the same mind set on what sort of music we'd like to do together.
I don't think either cover or original bands are better than each other, nor worse.
I don't like the fact that original artists seem to think that playing other people's music takes any less work and practice and talent.
I don't like the fact cover players seem to think that the end all be all is sleeping in expensive hotels and getting paid big bucks to play cover songs.
In short: I don't like snarky people who seem to think that just because they do what they do, it makes it better than what the other guy is doing.
Just my 2c's.
I don't think either cover or original bands are better than each other, nor worse.
I don't like the fact that original artists seem to think that playing other people's music takes any less work and practice and talent.
I don't like the fact cover players seem to think that the end all be all is sleeping in expensive hotels and getting paid big bucks to play cover songs.
In short: I don't like snarky people who seem to think that just because they do what they do, it makes it better than what the other guy is doing.
Just my 2c's.
Haha, how do we judge political success? Just votes? Idealism? Pragmatism?...this convo would spiral out of control if not for the explicit NO POLITICS rule!
I also find it a bit irking that "well off" musicians, either because of their cover band OR original band (or week day job) , seem to think that MONEY=! musical talent and viability.
Whatever happened to it just being for fun and being creative and making music? :/
Whatever happened to it just being for fun and being creative and making music? :/
As a matter of semantics, I wouldn't deem pop music to be "compositions".
And here's an interesting point that I found out the hard way - only the lyrics and "melody" of a song are copyrightable. When I was 23 I worked with a singer/songwriter on his music, helping shape existing ideas, collaborating on new ones and writing basslines to the songs he'd already written. When we had personality conflicts (a nice way of saying he was an a-hole) he replaced me and the new bassist learned all my parts note for note. I told him he couldn't use my work but I had no leg to stand on.
Point being, unless you also wrote the lyrics, they aren't your songs, which is a disturbing thing to consider when putting your heart into a project. I never thought about it with my band in college because we were so tight it would have never went down that way with them.
There's a reason why I didn't do original projects for a few years, namely that I got screwed in a number of ways - in the way mentioned above, with lazy bandmates, with unfair splits of money, with constant arguing about songwriting etc.
The last three years I've been started doing original stuff again with other people (I always write some songs on my own) but for a long time the appeal of covers was that you could find very professional people to do them with and have fun (something you seem to discount way too easily) without having to worry about any of those things I listed above..
Hmmm, that is scary! I've tried to get a handle on the legal/business aspect of music for a while, so I'm not entire surprised that is the case!
And I really don't want to discount the amount of fun playing covers is. I've been playing with some friends for about a month now getting ready for a wedding gig, and got the change to play "Sir Duke" (the couple is pretty hip!). Now that's a fun song to play!!
And I really don't want to discount the amount of fun playing covers is. I've been playing with some friends for about a month now getting ready for a wedding gig, and got the change to play "Sir Duke" (the couple is pretty hip!). Now that's a fun song to play!!
Let's be fair and clarify that it was one of the "original" people who started the thread, and generally those of the original camp who are guilty of most of the superiority attitudes.
The use (abuse) of the Teddy Roosevelt quote was laughable. I could just as easily posture that I have achieved "glorious triumph" as a cover musician, and _____ is a "poor spirit" for languishing in a gray twilight of crappy original bunk.
I place more responsibility on the "original" crowd for the negativity here, and for stopping and denouncing it, since one of their's started the thread and the flaming. Any "cover" flamers IMO are within their rights of self-defense against the standing offense(s).
Glorius triumph as a cover musician? Did that biker chick finally flash you after the 20th chorus of Sweet Home Alabama?
As is "I Wish" and dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of other really great songs.
And the "Who is most important in an original band" discussion is just about as contentious as this discussion. The law recognizes, when no other legally binding arrangements have been made, that the writer of the lyrics and primary melodic hook is the one credited with the song as a whole and everyone else is simply credited as playing their parts.
It is important to know this stuff because a lot of players who (rightfully so) feel that it takes a lot of talent and energy to do what they do are so quick to dismiss the utter necessity of what seems to be such a simplistic thing - the melodic hook and lyrics.
They feel that way right up to the moment they try to be the one to craft the melodic hook and catchy lyrics and run headlong into the reality that, yes, they could write a melody and words - but for some reason, no one really gets hooked by 'em...
Right about that time they also recognize how virtually effortless their job putting a good bass line to a well-crafted melody really is when it's all said and done. If someone comes up to you with NOTHING but an idea for a song and you help bring the melodic hook and lyrics to life - that's different.
But if they show up, hooks in hand and ask you to add your part - man, that's gravy! And if it's NOT gravy to you as a bass player, then it makes perfect sense why so many think what they do is equally has difficult.
And I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the bass players who think it's hard to add a good bass line to someone's good melodic hook and lyrics are the same bass players who looked down their noses at playing covers. Why? Because playing covers of all types prepares you for the REAL WORLD of being a working, professional bass player who can, when asked, easily drop in bass lines of all different types to support someone's cleverly crafted original melody and lyrics.
What do you want? Funky? Groovy? Jazzy? Rockin? Swingin? - I hear your hook - just point me in the direction you'd like to go and I'll hook up your hook with a hooky bass line (like McCartney) - or a very understated one (like Roger Waters) - or a busy, but non-invasive one (like Chuck Rainey), or...
You're right, putting a bassline under a great hook and melody is Gravy! In fact, that's a good way to tell if the song itself is worth putting effort into. Sometimes, if the bass/rhythm guitar/drums/keys/whathaveyou are really struggling to find a part, or overthinking their parts and getting "noodle-y", its a sign the melody itself might not be strong enough. That being said, I try to get my bass parts are melodic as possible. But its infinitely easier when there is a great hook!
I've seen plenty of nastiness on both sides skimming this thread to convince me arrogance seems pretty alive on both sides.
Quite honestly I don't care if someone plays cover or original or both, bragging about how much money you make compared to "the other camp" is usually pretty lame. Likewise, I don't care how much money you make - either put up or shut up, your wallet isn't going to convince me you're a good or bad musician no matter your cover or original status.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Do stainless steel strings loose there sound quicker than other material- Latest: ElectricBass72
-
-
-
