• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.
#641
Greyvagabond said:
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!
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how much credit to your ease of laying in a good, appropriate bass line do you give to your personal experience learning and playing the great bass lines of others (covers)?

And a follow-up; Do you feel a person who has never embraced learning other people's music is more or less likely to be a strong collaborator?
 
#643
tZer said:
Out of curiosity, how much credit to your ease of laying in a good, appropriate bass line do you give to your personal experience learning and playing the great bass lines of others (covers)?

And a follow-up; Do you feel a person who has never embraced learning other people's music is more or less likely to be a strong collaborator?
Click to expand...

The ONLY reason I've stayed in this thread is that some of the side conversations are interesting. The main topic is boring, and people on both sides have seemingly volunteered to put blinders on so they can feel good about themselves.

As for this question, I remember reading an interview with Flea a couple years back where he said he was sitting down and learning other people's basslines for the first time in his life. His entire musical experience was shaped by jamming with people. In contrast, John Frusciante spent all of his high school years learning Hendrix, Zappa, Page, etc. Point being, I think you can be a great collaborator either way, but someone who never learned other people's songs (a) is going to require more experience playing before they get there (b) probably requires more innate talent and (c) stands a better chance of having a very individual style, which has both good and bad points.
 
#644
Greyvagabond said:
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!
Click to expand...

Well I hope I can keep BigO interested with a side discussion since he is so bored with the actual THREAD he's posting to... :D

Grey, your post makes me curious: what exactly do you write? Entire songs consisting of melody, lyrics, and other instrumental parts? Or just bass lines?
 
#645
ChrisB2 said:
Well I hope I can keep BigO interested with a side discussion since he is so bored with the actual THREAD he's posting to... :D

Grey, your post makes me curious: what exactly do you write? Entire songs consisting of melody, lyrics, and other instrumental parts? Or just bass lines?
Click to expand...

Not nearly as bored as I am work apparently. :p

I made this point earlier. There have been times where I've considered myself a primary songwriter. Times where I wrote lyrics and/or where I outlined a song (either on piano or bass). And times where I felt like a collaborating song writer. Maybe not having the initial idea, but coming up with an idea for a break, chorus, etc.

And then there have been times where I was a bassplayer in someone else's band. Sure, I wrote my own parts (save for one terrible and short lived experience) but I wouldn't call myself a songwriter for that, or even claim them as "my songs". I was filling a role in an original band. And honestly, that scenario isn't very different from being in a cover band IMO.
 
#646
Generally I'm writting bass parts. Our keyboardist is an amazing musician (Masters in music composition from Rice, PhD from BU) and brings in about 70% of the songs as chord changes with a vocal melody (played on keys). Our singer writes lyrics to the vocal melody, and our guitarist (who contributes the other 30% of the songs, in a much more finished form) and myself work on the "composition" part of the song (breaks, number of verses/choruses, etc), as well as the general feel of the song. For example, our song "My Disgrace" was originally a much slower ballad, and it ended up as a dance-rock-disco song. Once the bones of the song, and the feel, are done, we'll bounce interesting harmony parts around, usually with keys/bass/guitar suggesting parts to each other. My bass lines are my own, but occasionally I'll get some good ideas from the guitarist and use them (likewise, I'll suggest guitar parts as well)
 
#647
Ha, its pretty clear we're all bored at work!

And I know exactly what you're talking about; being a "hired" gun, so to speak, in somebody elses band is pretty similar to being in a cover band. There is a real grey area there where you have to ask yourself, "if I was replaced by another bass player, how dramatically would the sound of new songs change?" In my case, seeing as I'm usually coming from a very different place musically than my bandmates, I'd like to think our sound would change significantly (perhaps for the better!)
 
#648
:
Greyvagabond said:
And I know exactly what you're talking about; being a "hired" gun, so to speak, in somebody elses band is pretty similar to being in a cover band.
Click to expand...

At work here too. :)

Interstingly, alot of the bassists who have influenced me are studio guys. Chuck Rainey, Anthony Jackson, James Jamerson, etc. I may even go out on a limb and say that some of these guys did just as much, if not more, to define a style than the so-called band leaders. Case-in-point, Motown.

Some people quote 'original' bassists as influences, but, for me, I get so much more out of listening to Anthony Jackson on a Steely Dan record, than I do from listening to.....well, I don't want to start another argument, so I'll stop there.
 
#649
TheBigO said:
The ONLY reason I've stayed in this thread is that some of the side conversations are interesting. The main topic is boring, and people on both sides have seemingly volunteered to put blinders on so they can feel good about themselves.

As for this question, I remember reading an interview with Flea a couple years back where he said he was sitting down and learning other people's basslines for the first time in his life. His entire musical experience was shaped by jamming with people. In contrast, John Frusciante spent all of his high school years learning Hendrix, Zappa, Page, etc. Point being, I think you can be a great collaborator either way, but someone who never learned other people's songs (a) is going to require more experience playing before they get there (b) probably requires more innate talent and (c) stands a better chance of having a very individual style, which has both good and bad points.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the ones getting most defensive and seemingly upset are the one's who've (IMO) staked a claim in territory filled with fool's gold and have been driven mad by the repetitive sound of their own pan and the lack or any real nuggets of value.

BTW - based on the substance of your comments, I am rather certain you are not one of these toothless, stir-crazy prospectors. :D

As for your assessment of players who have studied the works of other vs. ones who've never bothered - Flea played trumpet before he played bass. Therefore he most certainly had experience playing other people's compositions and he was already exposed to the ability and value of leaning other people's parts. Just because it was on trumpet initially doesn't really matter. His ear was trained and these lessons are transferable.

As for a purely naive player (if such a player exists) being 'very original' by virtue of their lack of exposure (keeping themselves free of outside influence) - is a line of logic I feel is romantically appealing to many, but in fact is counter intuitive.

Having MORE knowledge and experience rarely results in being LESS able to deliver the goods or being less able to be 'very original'. I'll concede rare exceptions, but I dispute that naive musicians are more likely to be "unique" or "original". I believe they're far more likely to be "limited" and call that one thing they can do "original" - but I completely disagree that those who do learn covers somehow 'taint' their ability to be original - which is the inevitable 'other side' of that point.

And I'd be willing to bet that Flea would agree that more knowledge and experience of other players parts and techniques (learning what they did and how they did it) is a more direct route to a developing a personal style and unique approach to their instrument. The difference being that those musicians can actually point at aspects of their personal style and properly credit those who've gone before them while the naive dudes will continue to believe they actually created their style from nothing - which is virtually impossible. They may not know where they got their influences, but that does not mean they were not influenced.

As a matter of fact, I'd even be willing to bet that a disproportionate number of musicians who claim the reason they never learned other players parts has a lot more to do with how hard that was (for them) and not out of a sense that they were trying to "be original".
 
#650
I read a few pages in, and wish I had the ambition to read all 33 pages, but I'll throw in my two cents. :)


I guess I'm extreemly lucky to be in an area that's very supportive of original music. :)


I've done cover bands as well in the past, and that was fun too.

Yup made more money on average playing covers, but my BEST pay checks have come from playing original music. Just wish those big paychecks came a little more often LOL!! :)


But seriously, after reading some of this thread, I consider myself VERY lucky to be in an area where the music scene is as vibrant and well supported as it is, with players, band mates, show goers and peers that enjoy what they do as much as I do.


I think both cover bands, and bands that do original material both have there place and funtions.

Right now I'm happy doing what I'm doing, but in a few years, a fun cover band could be cool too.

I don't rule anyting out.
 
#651
Hey, a fellow Bostonian! Welcome to the thread that won't die! Just curious, I made a comment a while ago that, in Boston, there are fairly well defined "originals" shows, and "covers" shows (no, I'm not counting the Halloween, dress-up-like-an-influence shows), and that doing the wrong type of music at one or the other would be very odd, if not disrespectful to the booker. So, if you were to go to, say, The Paradise on a Saturday (say, the 25th of April...) and saw a cover band, your reaction might be "***?", and if you went to a bar by the Garden expecting to see a cover band, and saw an all-original band, you'd have the same reaction. Is this your experience too, or am I just talking out of my @$$?
 
#652
tZer said:
As for a purely naive player (if such a player exists) being 'very original' by virtue of their lack of exposure (keeping themselves free of outside influence) - is a line of logic I feel is romantically appealing to many, but in fact is counter intuitive.

Having MORE knowledge and experience rarely results in being LESS able to deliver the goods or being less able to be 'very original'. I'll concede rare exceptions, but I dispute that naive musicians are more likely to be "unique" or "original". I believe they're far more likely to be "limited" and call that one thing they can do "original" - but I completely disagree that those who do learn covers somehow 'taint' their ability to be original - which is the inevitable 'other side' of that point
Click to expand...

No argument from me, I was simply sharing an anecdote about a player who really learned bass in a different way. That said, yes, he played trumpet first and he was also a huge music fan - jazz first and then punk, funk and stuff like Hendrix. He may not have sat down and learned basslines, but that definitely influenced his playing.

But in general, yes people who claim to not want to learn other people's music are simply limiting themselves. The idea that it taints their ability to be original is as fallacious as (the now numerous) people who have told me that they didn't want to learn theory because it would inhibit their creativity.

As for my outlook on music in general, I think I'm only not one of the "toothless, stir-crazy prospectors" because of some hard lessons and being pulled into maturity kicking and screaming.

After all, when I was 21 and the leader of an increasingly popular originals band, I had a very high opinion of myself and "my music." Fast forward a few years and I realize that most of that success came from finding myself in a very fortunate position with some very talented people who could flesh out my ideas in ways I never could. There's a reason why my old guitar player is now taking calls from people like Mary J. Blige and I'm spending my lunch hour posting on TalkBass.

I was also a big music snob when I was younger. And then one day you realize that if your feelings for the music you love are valid then so are everyone else's whether you agree with them or not. And also that as long as I am enjoying myself playing music and reaching the level of personal satisfaction I want, it doesn't really matter what it is. I think that's all just part of gaining perspective. Some people do it at a very early age, some (like me) take a while, and some never get it.

Just like the musicians I know who most often criticize other musicians are the ones most insecure in their own playing, the people I know who put down what others do musically are the ones who have the most growing up to do, regardless of their actual age.
 
#654
Sijjvra said:
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.
Click to expand...


I have to say that if all other things are equal playing originals most certainly required more work than covers. An original band has to do everything a covers band has to do plus write the music. It quite simply does require more work. I don't think that makes it "better," but it's just the truth of the matter. I'm sorry if that makes the guys in cover bands feel inferior because it doesn't make me feel superior for doing originals... it just is what it is.
 
#655
baalroo said:
I have to say that if all other things are equal playing originals most certainly required more work than covers. An original band has to do everything a covers band has to do plus write the music. It quite simply does require more work. I don't think that makes it "better," but it's just the truth of the matter. I'm sorry if that makes the guys in cover bands feel inferior because it doesn't make me feel superior for doing originals... it just is what it is.
Click to expand...

This is a reality that people just need to accept as part of this conversation. Unless you're in an orchestra, the Captain Beefheart band or your set list is made up solely of Weather Report, Dream Theater and Bela Fleck songs, it simply doesn't (or it certainly shouldn't) take anywhere near the time to learn covers as it does to write originals.

That said, I've been in gigging original bands where we only had 10 songs in our catalog and the second to last cover band I was in had a set list well over 100 songs after about a year and a half together. But of course most strictly originals bands aren't expected to fill a four hour slot unless you're Zeppelin, Phish or the Dead in their primes.
 
#656
baalroo said:
I have to say that if all other things are equal playing originals most certainly required more work than covers. An original band has to do everything a covers band has to do plus write the music. It quite simply does require more work. I don't think that makes it "better," but it's just the truth of the matter. I'm sorry if that makes the guys in cover bands feel inferior because it doesn't make me feel superior for doing originals... it just is what it is.
Click to expand...

Not sure why people feel the need to even bother arguing this? There is NO argument. I've had to learn close to 10 songs in 1 night to do a cover gig. To write, record, and get a band together to play 10 originals takes an unfathomable amount of added work. And that's just to get the band up and running. To get 100 people in the door of the club who aren't friends and family is a feat that 1 in 10s of thousands of original musicians gets to experience. To learn covers, even fairly difficult ones, accurately, takes a little time and proficiency on an instrument - but that's all. The music doesn't have to be marketed or sold and while a lot of people add creativity, in the truest sense none is really needed. The band has to be promoted 1/1000 of the amount of promotion that needs to go into an original band, and the results are exponential. For every ounce of work you put into a cover band, you get back 10 lbs. - for every 10 lbs you put into an original you're fortunate if you get back an ounce. Yet some of us do it anyway because we love it so much and feel the need to create. For someone who only does covers to look down at someone who only does originals is incredibly sad. You'd be bandless and jobless if it weren't for us. And for the cover guys who keep crying about the work it takes to learn covers accurately and get the whole thing going - sorry it takes so much out of you. For most of us it's not the brain surgery it seems to be to you.

People get angry and defensive (and this thread keeps going on) because it's rough when you work really hard and often get nothing in return, and then have to deal with the other guys laughing at and being sarcastic when they're getting paid, reaping all the glory, and riding on the coattails of the others who had the balls and persistence to do their own thing. And don't have the sense enough to even realize it.

Play originals. Play covers. Respect them both for what they are. And keep all yer mouths shut! Me too!
 
#657
baalroo said:
I have to say that if all other things are equal playing originals most certainly required more work than covers. An original band has to do everything a covers band has to do plus write the music. It quite simply does require more work. I don't think that makes it "better," but it's just the truth of the matter. I'm sorry if that makes the guys in cover bands feel inferior because it doesn't make me feel superior for doing originals... it just is what it is.
Click to expand...

I see your point about original bands doing the same things as cover band + .... but I think an equally valid argument can be made based upon the complexity and expected performance outcome of the covers a cover band is covering.

While you may be correct in saying an originals band has to "write" on top of everything - substitute, "learn complicated covers" with the word "write" and you end up right back on the level playing field.

Both worlds have their extremes. There are instances of original groups who were famous for their "walk in, start the tape, play, got it, done" sessions. There are others who wouldn't leave the studio for months hassling over the last note of the second track...

Then there's that wonderfully anonymous middle layer that gets conveniently overlooked - the producers and engineers - who are in all reality doing as much or more work than many of the writers - and cover bands don't have the benefit of a production team to pick up the slack in areas where the band's expertise falls short.

So once again, attempting to elevate one over the other is really an exercise in futility. If there's anything to be pulled from this thread, it's that simple fact.

Just know that ANY argument you may try to make that includes 'trumping' the other argument is a waste of valuable discussion space. There's an equally valid argument to offset anyone's latest "Aha! This one'll get 'em!!" argument - really - there is. So if you're working really hard on your next "Well [x type] bands to [y activity] and that's [hyperbole]" - stop yourself and just say, "Boy, it's makes me feel really good to believe that's true, but realistically I know it's bunk - even if I don't know why - yet..." and go with that.
 
#658
tZer said:
Just know that ANY argument you may try to make that includes 'trumping' the other argument is a waste of valuable discussion space. There's an equally valid argument to offset anyone's latest "Aha! This one'll get 'em!!" argument - really - there is. So if you're working really hard on your next "Well [x type] bands to [y activity] and that's [hyperbole]" - stop yourself and just say, "Boy, it's makes me feel really good to believe that's true, but realistically I know it's bunk - even if I don't know why - yet..." and go with that.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, the wonderful ways of the argument. Tis true, and this thread will probably go on endlessly...

I know my truth. Why I feel the need to convince anyone else of it is definitely a personal problem. :) I'm going to practice growing up by staying out of this thread now. Let's see how well I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back