• 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.
#121
Yeah I actually thought The Grizz and I ended up having a pretty good chat ... even as tired as I was driving back from a gig in North Miss. :eek:


Yeah choose to mention Tom Petty because

Invalid Link Removed

;) ... Needs to be seen by every musician out there it speaks volumes about Making It and the bussiness of making music in general.
 
#122
tZer said:
One thing I think is important to point out is that trying to encapsulate bands or people who got to see bands with such narrow descriptions is a recipe for failure. Assuming that people who go to see cover bands aren't interested in "original" music and vice-versa is simply wrong. Believing that there are really two distinct clans of music lovers out there and trying to focus on only one is very silly.

What people respond to is well played, interesting, entertaining, genuine, honest performances. Whether you are playing in a cover/tribute band or a "original" band, if you're phoning it in, people will know and respond accordingly. If, however, you are pouring genuine heart and energy into what you do and show it, people will dig it.

It's entirely feasible to put a band that plays their own music in front of a crowd of strangers and hold them for the night. Have hooks, energy, make a connection with the crowd - you got 'em.

Then you can transplant that same crowd and put a tribute band on stage who pours equal amounts of honest energy into their show and the crowd will love it too.

It's rather irrelevant if the band is playing their own music or covering another band's - it HOW you do it that counts. Continuing to believe that "covers" = bad/lazy/no integrity or that "originals" = friends and family-only/no money/artistic integrity intact is simply focusing on all the wrong stuff.

Do what you do 100%. Be in the moment and honest with yourself (and it doesn't hurt to have some skills) and your audience and the rest will take care of itself.
Click to expand...

OK. I'm back for more. :) Didn't read your profile info but I'm starting to get the feeling that while you're very articulate - you might be lacking in experience. If not, then we must live on different sides of the planet. Trust me trust me trust me! You could be the slammingest kicksassingest tightest band on the planet doing originals - and if you're playing them in front of 100 people who don't know you - they are going to react completely different than if you break out with a Bon Jovi tune. And if you play Bon Jovi first just standing there doing it at half steam, then follow it with an incredible energy packed original you will 90% of the time clear the room.

Furthermore :) people classify everything under the sun into countless categories. There ARE "original" bands, and there are "cover" bands. I don't get this narrow description thing? There is original art, and there are people who paint copies of the mona lisa. Nobody is saying that there aren't people who play both, but there definitey ARE people who choose one over the other and just do that. I know lots of them. They're short changing themselves in my opinion, but I'm not them so quite frankly I don't care what they do. I know original people who suffer miserably because they're low on cash yet won't "compromise their integrity" by doing covers, and I know cover band dudes who only do covers because of precisely what Greyvagabond said that seems to be upsetting people - but is often completely true. Just wanted to squeeze that in there though it seems irrelevent.

Only thing I agree with that you said in the above post is do everything you do 100%. No. 150%. But the result will be different depending on whether you're doing originals or covers.
 
#125
OP, based on what I've read in many different forums, there's a whole lot of creative people out there working on their music but not with a band.

Get a small mixer, some decent recording software, drum machine, etc. and you can have a whole studio setup in your bedroom.
 
#126
tZer said:
It's neither ignorant nor dishonest. I do both (and more), I know. I also know people can choose to frame it in whatever way suits them. But when people start trying to elevate one over the other - as many are doing here, OP included, that's when you have to pull the curtain back and call it like it is.

To pretend like one is better or people who play in one 'type' vs. another have more integrity, are more artistically inclined or otherwise superior to others is nothing more than ego-stroking.
Click to expand...

I should have said that the motivations CAN be different.

Just because playing music and writing music are the same for you does not mean they are the same for everyone. I think we are both actually saying the same thing for the most part, that the motivations and importance of these things is completely subjective. My point is that for myself (and most of the musicians I know) the motivations for playing an instrument and writing a song come from two different places. This does not make me superior to you, just different... any implied superiority you perceive most likely has to do with your own insecurities or issues on the matter (or may be coming from other member's posts).

To deny the plausibility of opposing viewpoints on a subjective concept such as this you are being ignorant IMO.

Again, just to be clear... I agree that one cannot be superior to the other, because there is no objective reasoning that can be applied to the discussion.
 
#127
When I was in an "original" band the thing I got sick of (OK, ONE of the things I got sick of) was having _MAYBE_ 20 songs in the repertoire. I like having thousands of good songs to choose from. To each their own. I'd happily play in an originals band again if I liked the tunes. I'm happy in my cover band, too.

KO
 
#128
baalroo said:
I should have said that the motivations CAN be different.

Just because playing music and writing music are the same for you does not mean they are the same for everyone. I think we are both actually saying the same thing for the most part, that the motivations and importance of these things is completely subjective. My point is that for myself (and most of the musicians I know) the motivations for playing an instrument and writing a song come from two different places. This does not make me superior to you, just different... any implied superiority you perceive most likely has to do with your own insecurities or issues on the matter (or may be coming from other member's posts).

To deny the plausibility of opposing viewpoints on a subjective concept such as this you are being ignorant IMO.

Again, just to be clear... I agree that one cannot be superior to the other, because there is no objective reasoning that can be applied to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Well said, yet: I reject your reality, and replace it with my own.
 
#129
baalroo said:
I should have said that the motivations CAN be different.

Just because playing music and writing music are the same for you does not mean they are the same for everyone. I think we are both actually saying the same thing for the most part, that the motivations and importance of these things is completely subjective. My point is that for myself (and most of the musicians I know) the motivations for playing an instrument and writing a song come from two different places. This does not make me superior to you, just different... any implied superiority you perceive most likely has to do with your own insecurities or issues on the matter (or may be coming from other member's posts).

To deny the plausibility of opposing viewpoints on a subjective concept such as this you are being ignorant IMO.

Again, just to be clear... I agree that one cannot be superior to the other, because there is no objective reasoning that can be applied to the discussion.
Click to expand...

You need to be a little more thorough when reading what I write.

tZer said:
Being a song writer is a different animal than being a musician. It tends to require a broader scope - understanding more than one instrument - the language of music, etc... A song writer doesn't ever have to perform their songs once written. They can let the musicians out there do that. Is Elton John a musician or an artist? But we're not talking about song writers vs. musicians. We're talking about "cover" bands vs. "other" bands.
Click to expand...

I think you've misinterpreted my words and are drawing conclusions based on your mistaken interpretation.

To be completely clear, I too know a lot of musicians who hold the very same point of view as what you, and many others here are supporting - that either "original" or "cover" bands are either better, have more integrity, require more skill/artistic inclination, etc...

Just because a lot of people adhere to a similar view point does not necessarily make that view point correct.

Frequently I find that the guy whose espousing the virtues of original bands has very little, if any experience in any other type of band. I've also found it to be the case that many of them have a difficult time playing music they didn't write themselves. Mostly due to the fact that they've been playing their own material so long, their ability to learn covers has gone soft. They do wonderfully well playing their stuff but when faced with learning a cover that might have some complexity to it, they retreat. Sure, that "have no interest" in learning covers - and that's just fine - limited, but fine.

I also find the dude whose been doing nothing but playing covers since day one says, "original bands are uninteresting, make no money" etc... it's because they've never pursued an original project with any degree of effort - or the original projects they've been a part of simply had bad material and they decided that it make little or no sense to even think about such things.

As I have been saying - while both can be self-fulfilling prophecies, neither is absolutely true nor is either better or worse than the other.

Joe Nerve - I have experience and I am not naive about either "side" of this equation. I have been in and witnessed both cover bands and original bands electrifying crowds with excellent performances. I have also been in and seen cover bands and original bands that have left people flat due to sub-par performances. I know from experience that you can excite and entertain a crowd with a well-executed performance - period. Whether it be covers or originals, if the performance is worthy, the crowd with dig it.

Of course it's a safer bet that a cover band (a good one) will stand a better chance in most typical clubs of filling and keeping a crowd.

It's also a safe bet that you can have the most familiar/popular covers on your list and if your band doesn't know how to work the stage and read the crowd, they'll lose a room just as fast as an "original" band whose staring at their shoes and playing music only their mothers could love...
 
#130
Joe Nerve - By the way - I remember checking out Bumblefoot a long time ago and LOVING it!

I know we seem to be on opposite sides of this discussion for some reason, but I definitely know that you know what being in a band who plays really good original music and performs with a high degree of professionalism and energy is all about.

And actually - after re-reading your most recent post - I am not so sure we are on opposite sides of this debate. While I know that there is such a things as "original" bands and "cover" bands, I find that people use those labels as we are seeing here - to elevate themselves by downing the other - which I've been arguing against. It seems that you are too.

It's a no-brainer that the safest way to guarantee that you'll be able to hold a crowd is by providing them with familiar, popular material - you get no argument from me here. It's equally true that you can also do the same thing with a set of original music - if that music is good and the band can deliver the goods beyond simply playing the right notes. Does one require less preliminary effort? Sure. The original band has to do a lot more leg work - promotion AND have good material. I'll be the first to say that it's far easier to put together a set of covers and fill clubs. Does that make it better? Worse? Are the people who want to be in one or the other better or worse or do they have more or less artistic integrity - that's subjective and comes down to the individual.
 
#131
tZer said:
Joe Nerve - By the way - I remember checking out Bumblefoot a long time ago and LOVING it!

I know we seem to be on opposite sides of this discussion for some reason, but I definitely know that you know what being in a band who plays really good original music and performs with a high degree of professionalism and energy is all about.
Click to expand...

Funny, but I was going to use the above as a reference. I've done shows with Bbft where he was unknown, playing with some of the greatest, most energetic musicians in the world (literally) - and had the expereince of clearing some places out. And I've played to more people in an absolutely horrendous cover band with people I don't even consider musicians and had girls sreaming and throwing themselves at us.
 
#132
I live to play music. Especially playing music up on stage in front of a crowd of appreciative fans. I've been in cover bands, tribute bands and original bands and I have and still do write and play music that I created. But I look at the different "types" of bands as mostly trivial variations of the same thing. A way to play music.

If most other musicians prefer to think that the type of band is important then who am I to argue with you. If it makes you happy to think of yourself as an "original artist" then that's understandable and if it makes you happy to think of yourself as a practical musician making money by doing covers then I can see the value of that, too.

But that isn't why I play in a band. I play music ONLY because I enjoy it so much. I can't imagine my life without it and it makes little difference to me whether I play music in a cover band, original band or any other type of band. As long as I'm playing, I'm happy.

I also don't understand why the OP thinks it is necessary to impugn musicians who feel this way.
 
#136
Joe Nerve said:
I'm going to treat this as a journal entry for me, so only read it if you have the patience. :)

People who play covers and people who play originals are very different from each other. Some play both, but IME there's always been a priority and that's what defines them. I play both, but I grew up writing my own music and knowing that for me there's nothing quite like the rush of having a big crowd cheering you on because they like the music YOU'VE created. It feels a lot more genuine. I live for it. I've played in cover bands that suck bigtime yet play in front of hundreds of drunken college kids literally hanging from the light fixtures (got blackisted for it). It just however doesn't compare. If your originals suck there's a real slim chance you're going to draw any crowd that isn't more than just your friends and family.

I currently play in 5 different bands with roughly 20 different musicians, and do some subbing. I've played in countless original and countless cover bands. I get along with everyone, yet only get close to and really relate to the people who's priority is original music. That's not a judgement on the others, we're just from different worlds. I was going to write a whole list of differences but I think it pretty much boils down to this:

For me and the others who make original stuff a priority - music is also THE priority. It often comes before family, pretty much always comes before everything else. Dayjobs, girlfriends, cars, rent... . People who do the cover thing more often than not put priority on their day jobs, and live a little bit less on the edge. I'm pretty sure every cover band dude I know has a pension plan and health insurance.

All that being said, I love playing covers and clearly see the benefits. If anything, I pay a price for my NEED to do the orginal thing.

Covers pay. Covers open me up to lots of different styles. Covers introduces me to lots of new musicians, introduces challenges (doing a 1st time show with a band of people I never even met), gives me never ending opportunities to hone my performance and craft, allows me to play weekly in front of crowds of hundreds of appreciating people, strokes my ego, makes me lots of new friends... how could I knock it???

Doing originals is the only thing however that can satisfy the something in me that goes a lot deeper. I wish I could put my finger on it, but I can't. Sometimes it's a blessing, sometimes it's a curse. I think it's a common bond I share with the ones I get close to. I think it might very well be that thing that makes for the seperation of the 2 types.
Click to expand...

+1
This is one of the best posts I've ever read on any bass message board.
 
#137
here's how I feel about it:


If ALL you can do is play cover songs, you don't have a right to call yourself a musician. A monkey can mime movements, and a tabber can mime music. However, if you can indeed play original tunes or know your instrument outside of simply covering smells like teen spirit, but choose to live a live of no ambition, all the more power too you. I can understand the desire to not want to exercise creativity for the sake of a solid fun job, however I disagreee with it. Music doesn't improve by playing the music of your grandparents - music improves by producing new standards and bringing new ideas to the table. Anything short of this is, in my opinion, a bit of a disservice to progression. It's fine to appreciate the music of the past and take inspiration from it, in fact I would encourage that. But I just can't see a reason to play an instrument if all one desires to achieve with their life can be accomplished by a robot.

Please don't take offense, none was meant. This is how I feel, but if you'd like to debate this, I'm open to hearing you.
 
#139
Grayson C. said:
here's how I feel about it:


If ALL you can do is play cover songs, you don't have a right to call yourself a musician. A monkey can mime movements, and a tabber can mime music.

Please don't take offense, none was meant.
Click to expand...


I love how ending with "please don't take offense" means you can say offensive things. Not that I'm personally offended since I write my own music, i am also in a coverband. I could see a strictly cover player feeling a little insult there. Musicians play music, maybe if you said " If you don't write music you are not an artist." but then your just bickering over what labels to assign yourself and labels are lame.
In short, Being pro you > being anti them. Know what I mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back