I have a problem with cover/tribute bands.

[ChrisB2]

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.

Perhaps a quick gander at a dictionary would help you correct your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word.

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.

Are you talking about creating original music, or performing it? Not very clear here... But really, who cares what you're trying to say? Never mind.

And why do you ASSume that just because someone doesn't live their life the same as you that they have less creative ambition? You do realize (I'm guessing here) that there are other creative outlets besides music... You may be far less creative overall than members of cover bands reading your post. Very shortsighted and ignorant on your part (and I mean ignorant in the nice way, look that up too while you have the dictionary out).

I can understand the desire to not want to exercise creativity for the sake of a solid fun job, however I disagreee with it.

For all you know, my job is far more creative than whatever you're doing with music. Once again, tripped up by failure to think.

Please don't take offense, none was meant.

Bull$**t. And I don't care whether you are or not, since you compared me to a monkey right off.

 

[Grayson C.]

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?

I think you're looking for insult in my saying "please take no offense." I said that because I've got a nasty habit of writing things too severely and then offending many people not because of my message but because of how it was said. I write that to show that I mean no ill will - and that's true. I have a problem with that mindset people have that they ONLY play covers. I feel that it is the scourge of any musical ambition, and musical ambition is the only reason why I (yes me, not the whole rest of the world) listen to music - to hear new sounds, new ideas, new emotions. It's the reason why I don't listen to those silly 70's bands like journey and toto and foreigner because I feel that they brought absolutely nothing good to the music world.

So, we've established I'm opinionated, ya? I'm just asking that people not take me too seriously, these are just my opinions and you are more than welcome to yours.

 

[xgator4u]

Would reading something in a dictionary qualify as "covering" someone elses definition ?

 

[gweimer]

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. This is how I feel, but if you'd like to debate this, I'm open to hearing you.

I suggest you never go to a party of orchestra musicians alone.

 

[Grayson C.]

Perhaps a quick gander at a dictionary would help you correct your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word.



Are you talking about creating original music, or performing it? Not very clear here... But really, who cares what you're trying to say? Never mind.

And why do you ASSume that just because someone doesn't live their life the same as you that they have less creative ambition? You do realize (I'm guessing here) that there are other creative outlets besides music... You may be far less creative overall than members of cover bands reading your post. Very shortsighted and ignorant on your part (and I mean ignorant in the nice way, look that up too while you have the dictionary out).



For all you know, my job is far more creative than whatever you're doing with music. Once again, tripped up by failure to think.



Bull$**t. And I don't care whether you are or not, since you compared me to a monkey right off.

-----



Jesus, you are touchy. Lets try to address your points slightly more civily than you did mine.

Ok first point: Musician: someone who plays an istrument. Again, I don't think a person who plays covers CAN play an instrument. He can mimic others doing so. Now, keep in mind many musicians do both - play covers and do some of their own creative work as well. People don't usually fit into either or categories.

For the second point: If you don't care to know, you are just picking a fight.

Third point: I'm totally aware that other creative outlets remain. But you wouldn't call a graphic designer a musician. Lack of original music shows lack of musical creativity, NOT creativity in general. Also I never once claimed to be a creative, solid musician. But that is my goal. I practice several hours a day to reach my goal. That is musical ambition.

I've little doubt or care (because of irrelevence to this topic not because I dislike you, obviously) that you're job is more creative. Again, I didn't say that people who can only play covers aren't creative, they are lacking in musical ambition. There is a VERY real difference.

And I did not mean you any offense. That is 100% true. Please read my clarifying post above this one.

 

[Kenny Allyn]

I didn't say that people who can only play covers aren't creative, they are lacking in musical ambition.

You have a very narrow view of what constitutes "musical ambition"


... I can assume you will agree with that?

 

[Jonny B]

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.

IMHO, you are a very narrow minded person. Please don't take offense, none was meant. I am just stating what I feel is obvious.

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.

As usual, hbarcat states exactly how I feel, but puts it much more eloquently than I ever could.

 

[Grayson C.]

You have a very narrow view of what constitutes "musical ambition"


... I can assume you will agree with that?

I'd disagree but I can more than see why you'd think it. Fair enough?

As for the other comments: I can't say I am convinced. I look at money as a sign of how much someone produces. If a person gets money without earning it, it doesn't feel just. I feel that a band who makes their living off of another person's songs is riding on the coattails of their success.

 

[ChrisB2]

I feel that a band who makes their living off of another person's songs is riding on the coattails of their success.

LOL

Do you use electricity? Wait... you didn't invent your very own power source? Parasite...

 

[xgator4u]

I'd disagree but I can more than see why you'd think it. Fair enough?

As for the other comments: I can't say I am convinced. I look at money as a sign of how much someone produces. If a person gets money without earning it, it doesn't feel just. I feel that a band who makes their living off of another person's songs is riding on the coattails of their success.

Really, then I have to hope that in addition to writing all of your own fabulous music, you also make your own instruments, amps, speakers, microphones, sound boards, pedals, cases, the cars that you transport the gear that YOU CREATED around in, as well as drilling for and refining your own fuel to run the car. Man you are in fact AWESOME! Create on! If this is not the case and you are using things produced by other people to write and play your music, then you must be riding on the coat tails of the people that created all of those things, and you really are not original at all!

 

[Kenny Allyn]

I'd disagree but I can more than see why you'd think it. Fair enough?

As for the other comments: I can't say I am convinced. I look at money as a sign of how much someone produces. If a person gets money without earning it, it doesn't feel just. I feel that a band who makes their living off of another person's songs is riding on the coattails of their success.

Why I think what?

Grayson I'm not gonna start an argument with you it would be pointless, correct me if I'm wrong but you seem very young and new at this ... let me ask you this, if you take your point to it's logical conclusion then music created is a very private thing to be recorded and listened to in a private manner IPods etc: and performance live by the creator of said music only, since to do otherwise would mean another person was covering what an "artist" wrote?

A lot of people don't see it that way music from tribal drums on, is a shared thing a well crafted song can do all from bring a sense of community, to induce calm as the band played on the deck of the Titanic until the end, or have every one singing "Mustang Sally" at a bar late at night.

My "musical ambition" may be to take a great song forgotten since 1927 and bring it to a new audience in a fresh way ... so they can enjoy some of the vision that long lost artist wanted to bring to the world.

... Consider Led Zeps "When the Levee Breaks" ... just such a case

 

[otis_thick]

I have a problem with cover/tribute bands.

This is me venting. Cover bands are worthless. Write your own music.

Don't forget you at one time had to play a cover unless you went direct from theory to originals. BUT I feel ya! I do not like playing in note for note cover bands. You are trying to recreate what has already been done. At this st(AGE), when I play, I want people to enjoy what I bring to the song not that I played it just like the recording. I too want to find my own voice and hope people enjoy what I say! Groove on!

 

[tZer]

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.

Of course I know this to be true as I've seen this in my experience too. The crowd is going to do what the crowd is going to do regardless of your commitment and execution sometimes. There's not a lot you can do to change that.

And that's not the point I am trying to make. The point I am making is that "original" bands and "cover" bands are not better or worse or have more or less artistic integrity than each other.

What determines the artistic integrity and other quantifiable values of a band is the commitment of the members to what they are doing and the level of expertise with which they do it. It anyone is faking it - taking short cuts - not putting in the sweat equity - that's where the integrity falls away.

The things that got me into this discussion were comments along the lines of "people who play in cover bands lack ambition, creativity, personal initiative, artistic integrity" and "only people who play in 'original' bands or who play 'originals' are creative, have ambition and artistic integrity".

I find it hard to believe (as a matter of fact I know) that you don't believe either of those comments to be true.

I also know that it's far more likely that you'll hold an audience of strangers with covers far easier than with originals in most cases. Again, that's not what I am debating. What I am talking about is philosophical in nature - that people who insist on pigeonholing bands and ascribing value judgments based on these (IMO) narrowly defined parameters are doing themselves a disservice as players and unnecessarily insulting other players in the process.

My point is that if people stopped trying to elevate themselves by downing others and simply played music for the love of it without this ridiculous need to attach labels, we'd all get to the real point a lot faster - PLAYING GOOD MUSIC, WELL.

There is a tremendous amount of pleasure in learning how to play a great bass line and being able to perform it in a way that does the original song justice. Even Picasso had to practice the moves of other artists before he found his voice. He probably also found a great deal of pleasure in accurately imitating his contemporaries. It takes artistic skill and creativity to do all of these things.

 

[madbassplaya]

often times playing covers can get your music heard. you add your own tunes into a cover set.

some great original bands started as cover bands, so to say they are worthless...is kinda rediculous.

 

[IvanMike]

there are so many great songs out there you could literally spend your life gigging, not repeat one of them and still not reach the end of the list.

music is entertainment. i like entertaining people. I have no problem playing other people's songs to do it. Then consider that a song is chord progression, melody and lyrics, and check out some songs that have been covered and recorded in multiple versions, some so different from each other as to be totally unrecognizable. there is a lot more to being creative than just penning a "song".

 

[tZer]

I'd disagree but I can more than see why you'd think it. Fair enough?

As for the other comments: I can't say I am convinced. I look at money as a sign of how much someone produces. If a person gets money without earning it, it doesn't feel just. I feel that a band who makes their living off of another person's songs is riding on the coattails of their success.

These comments are very telling.

You make a lot of leaps of logic to substantiate your own conclusions.

Are you honestly trying to tell us that you'd;
a) turn down a gig playing bass for the Stones? You'd be playing covers, man... You didn't write those lines, Bill Wyman did. You'd be riding his coattails and that wouldn't be 'just' - to use your term.

b) turn down a gig playing covers that offered a great payday and consisted of a list of really great songs that you love and would enjoy playing?

c) do a gig playing covers but then refuse to take payment?

d) only play and accept payment for playing songs you wrote and nothing more?

 

[Grayson C.]

These comments are very telling.

You make a lot of leaps of logic to substantiate your own conclusions.

Are you honestly trying to tell us that you'd;
a) turn down a gig playing bass for the Stones? You'd be playing covers, man... You didn't write those lines, Bill Wyman did. You'd be riding his coattails and that wouldn't be 'just' - to use your term.

b) turn down a gig playing covers that offered a great payday and consisted of a list of really great songs that you love and would enjoy playing?

c) do a gig playing covers but then refuse to take payment?

d) only play and accept payment for playing songs you wrote and nothing more?

Wholehearted yes to all four, meaning I would refuse each one of them. Unless the stones were interested in writing some new stuff instead of pretending like it is 1967. Although one can hardly fault them for it, if I was anywhere near as rich and famous as they became, I'dplay the songs that got me famous, as well.

 

[Grayson C.]

often times playing covers can get your music heard. you add your own tunes into a cover set.

some great original bands started as cover bands, so to say they are worthless...is kinda rediculous.

I believe I clarified earlier that I don'tmind bands playing covers so long as they've use their covers to branch out into their own original style playing their own original music. IIRC, Aerosmith started like this?

 

[tZer]

Wholehearted yes to all four, meaning I would refuse each one of them. Unless the stones were interested in writing some new stuff instead of pretending like it is 1967. Although one can hardly fault them for it, if I was anywhere near as rich and famous as they became, I'dplay the songs that got me famous, as well.

Wow...

Let me get this straight. A band lacks artistic integrity if they play covers and the Stones need to write new material instead of "pretending it is 1967"? So now even "original" bands aren't living up to your concept of integrity if they play their own material just because it's old? A band who crafts songs that actually stand the test of time can't play the very songs they wrote and remain relevant?

You're a tough customer. I think either you're being deliberately oblique or you've got the most misguided sense of what having integrity means known to man.

Say a band you really like - a great band who writes their own material - hasn't and never will play covers - needed a bass player for a tour. Their bass player is in rehab. They need you to fill in for him and play his parts as you tour the world like a rock star. You'd collect a massive paycheck and be performing music you really like for thousands of screaming fans. You'd turn that gig down too?

 

[Grayson C.]

Wow...

Let me get this straight. A band lacks artistic integrity if they play covers and the Stones need to write new material instead of "pretending it is 1967"? So now even "original" bands aren't living up to your concept of integrity if they play their own material just because it's old? A band who crafts songs that actually stand the test of time can't play the very songs they wrote and remain relevant?

You're a tough customer. I think either you're being deliberately oblique or you've got the most misguided sense of what having integrity means known to man.

Say a band you really like - a great band who writes their own material - hasn't and never will play covers - needed a bass player for a tour. Their bass player is in rehab. They need you to fill in for him and play his parts as you tour the world like a rock star. You'd collect a massive paycheck and be performing music you really like for thousands of screaming fans. You'd turn that gig down too?

I would be honored to recieve the offer, but I would most definately turn it down if all I played was someone elses work. Money and fame aren't going to swing me from my morals. You call it misguided, I call it correct. Although I fail to see what integrity has to do with this argument.

Regarding the stones: I love the stones...right about up to the point where they just played their old stuff nonstop. That's their perogative and their right, and I'm cool with that. Doesn't mean I have to listen to it.