Note For Note Vs. "Wiggle" Room

[Brad Johnson]

The truth is, there really is no such thing as note for note. I can't really think of a band that releases a tune with NO overdubs at all. There are usually extra guitar parts, keyboards, background vocals, percussion, etc., etc. Even a 5 or 6 piece band couldn't usually play something exactly like the original. A bass line that sounds good in the original context doesn't always cut it with different instrumentation. I've found that instead of adding a lot of extra notes, for the music I play (rock, guitar/bass/drums), simplifying the parts and focusing on driving the tune is more productive than adding more fluff.

Just my own take is that you need to get all of the chords correct, the feel, the signature riffs and most of the fills. If I get 80% - 90% exact, I'm happy. I've had multiple times where I've been told I nailed the recorded part in auditions when I know that I wasn't 100% there.

As for competition, playing exactly like the original isn't the most important factor in getting a gig. Yes you do have to be technically proficient, and yes you do have to 'know' the tunes, but showing up on time, prepared, without an attitude and exuding 'team player' vibe will get you way more gigs than playing 99% exactly like the original. Just my experience.

There most definitely are people who play note for note.

 

[hrodbert696]

IME there's learning note for note and there's playing note for note. I don't see them as the same thing. I think the ability to not be resticted to note for note is far more valuable.

I like that distinction. I think one of the pro-note-for-note arguments, and related to the OP's "competition" angle, is that there are lazy or underskilled players who CAN'T play the original line, either because it's beyond them or because they don't bother. If a band you're auditioning for WANTS you to sound like the canonical recording as much as possible, then the guy who can pull it off will get the gig over the guy who can't. That makes perfect sense. But when you're actually on a gig, it's rarely necessary for most parts to be played precisely, and sometimes it's counterproductive. Even the person who recorded the original line will often play something different live - often something they found to work better than what they did in the studio.

 

[Thumpin6string]

When the original band that recorded a song plays live, they usually don't do it note for note or as recorded. Just saying.

 

[JRA]

The truth is, there really is no such thing as note for note.

 

[stratovani]

Unless you are in a tribute band, the audience won't know or care if you play it note for note.

I'm in a Tom Petty tribute, and as far as playing note for note it all depends on the song. For example, when we do You Got Lucky or Her Comes My Girl I stick to the original lines, whereas on a song like I Need To Know I'm pretty much free to do my own thing, which I do. Of course the first consideration is to keep the groove, so that has a lot to do with how I'll play the bass line. Sometimes Ron Blair and Howie Epstein had a line that fits the song perfectly, other times I disagree with them and do my own thing. The audience never notices anyways!

 

[Runnerman]

(i play jazz.)

i'm thinking that on the cover band circuit the note-for-note cat gets the nod most of the time. but most folks probably want a player who can also think outside of the box.

You are right. They recently had to get a sub for me on a gig and the sub was very professional but somewhat anal and said a few times "but it's supposed to go like this...". It was funny because I had purposely changed a couple of songs to cover some problems the guitar player was having. He's an awesome shredder but can't swing or handle triplets worth a damn and forgets some of the changes at times. On a positive note he corrected the guitar player on a song I had been trying to get fixed for a while. Most of the time, I would say 90% of the time, I'm playing note for note. We are a power trio and sometimes I do need to put in a thicker line or octaves during a guitar solo. And some songs are boring as hell so I might improvise. The bass stands out in the mix much more in a power trio...there is no place to hide so note for note might be more important IMHO.

 

[40Hz]

I'll willing learn something note for note, and I often will. But I don't usually want to play anything entirely note for note once I do.

I'll leave playing straight off the score as written to the classical music world and the big tribute show bands.

I have no problem with people who like to do that, and more power to them. But it's not my thing.

 

[Lowendtech]

I'm in a cover band and I always strive to get note for note, at first. Then, I figure out what works best in the context of our band. We are a 3-piece + vocals so the guitarist and I will figure out how to fill out the parts that might be missing in the arrangement. We believe in being true to the original, but also encourage everyone to experiment during rehearsal/practice. If it sounds good, then it's good!

What drives me bonkers is when our drummer is constantly changing the tempo, during the song, multiple times. I prefer to play a song close to the original tempo. If not, that's fine - but make it consistent through the whole song please! Change it up with Dynamics, i.e. with different volumes, alternate fills, etc. not with unscheduled or unwelcome tempo changes. Don't get me wrong. Slowing down for a killer Outro is, well, killer! But starting the song +/- 15% BPM compared the last time we played it and then slowing down to 90% tempo in the middle of a verse, then speeding up 110% during the chorus, then down to 85% on the next verse...

A fireable offense.
Why are you slacking on your primary duty?

I'm with all the above proponents of doing the work to know the song correctly and adding "personal touches" as required in context to make it fun for the band and the audience.

We had a mutual parting with a drummer because he wanted to "learn his parts as on record and not have to listen to what was going happening on the floor".
I don't miss him.
The option to do both (either) is a good one.

 

[Nashrakh]

I say it depends on whether the auditioning band wants the bass player to be able to learn a lot of tunes asap. The player who goes for the Pareto principle when learning cover tunes (basically, get the core hooks and lines right and the rest will not matter as much, saving you time) will be more efficient than the player painstakingly learning something note for note.

So, you may nail the audition 2 weeks away by playing 5 songs like they appear on the record. Can you learn 200 of them in 2 months the same way? I think most likely not. You may need to cut some corners in that scenario.

If you treat learning songs like a competition, you might as well treat staying in a band the same way.

 

[Bondobass]

IME there's learning note for note and there's playing note for note. I don't see them as the same thing. I think the ability to not be resticted to note for note is far more valuable.

Ya gotta know the rule before you can break 'em

 

[Lowendtech]

Ya gotta know the rule before you can break 'em

If only that were true. Sadly.

 

[maturanesa]

It depends on the bassline.
One thing is changing some notes over a walking jazz standard, and other is changing "Another one bites the dust".

 

[Blind Lemon Sam]

I'm in a cover band and I always strive to get note for note, at first. Then, I figure out what works best in the context of our band. We are a 3-piece + vocals so the guitarist and I will figure out how to fill out the parts that might be missing in the arrangement. We believe in being true to the original, but also encourage everyone to experiment during rehearsal/practice. If it sounds good, then it's good!

What drives me bonkers is when our drummer is constantly changing the tempo, during the song, multiple times. I prefer to play a song close to the original tempo. If not, that's fine - but make it consistent through the whole song please! Change it up with Dynamics, i.e. with different volumes, alternate fills, etc. not with unscheduled or unwelcome tempo changes. Don't get me wrong. Slowing down for a killer Outro is, well, killer! But starting the song +/- 15% BPM compared the last time we played it and then slowing down to 90% tempo in the middle of a verse, then speeding up 110% during the chorus, then down to 85% on the next verse...

I think you and I might share the same drummer...

 

[Robscott]

Competition for what? Who are the judges?

Unless you mean someone is literally throwing a competition with a trophy for the player who most accurately reproduces a recording, this is only metaphorical, meaning it's thinking of either auditions and who will get the slot in a band, or of gigs and who will please the crowd more. But not all bands WANT note-for-note bassists, they may want someone with flexibility to adapt to what the band is doing, and crowds rarely notice unless there's some signature lick they expect to hear in a particular song and it isn't there, or if whatever the bassist is doing seriously throws off the groove or feel of the song.

I'm not opposed to anyone learning a part note for note. Transcription can be a valuable skill to understanding how a great bassist worked.

But I am opposed to insisting on it in cover band situations. It is often the case that a cover band plays a tune where they don't have all the parts that are present on "the recording." Power trios may cover a tune that was originally recorded in a five-piece. You need to think about the total musical performance; if each of the three members of the trio only play exactly what a counterpart in the five-piece played, then they individually may be playing note for note, but the BAND is not. The result may, if you're lucky, still be pleasing, if the missing parts aren't really essential; but often, the situation would force a cover trio to adapt their parts in ways that will fill the gaps and create an enjoyable performance.

You got it 100% right IMHO. Learning note for note is the best way to expand your playing vocabulary, improve your ear and all that. But when it comes to performing the most important thing is to get the feel of the song and if you are trying to reproduce every note you can miss out on that. Remember, when the guy sat in the studio and recorded that bass part he was probably grooving his nuts off, and you need to be doing the same. Who's to say he would even have played it the same way twice himself (or herself, sorry Tina etc etc)? So get close, but give yourself room to swing. Exception is if the bass part is so well known the audience expect to hear it. Don't get me wrong though, I respect the note for note guys as well. Room for everyone on TB!

 

[Robscott]

I'm in a cover band and I always strive to get note for note, at first. Then, I figure out what works best in the context of our band. We are a 3-piece + vocals so the guitarist and I will figure out how to fill out the parts that might be missing in the arrangement. We believe in being true to the original, but also encourage everyone to experiment during rehearsal/practice. If it sounds good, then it's good!

What drives me bonkers is when our drummer is constantly changing the tempo, during the song, multiple times. I prefer to play a song close to the original tempo. If not, that's fine - but make it consistent through the whole song please! Change it up with Dynamics, i.e. with different volumes, alternate fills, etc. not with unscheduled or unwelcome tempo changes. Don't get me wrong. Slowing down for a killer Outro is, well, killer! But starting the song +/- 15% BPM compared the last time we played it and then slowing down to 90% tempo in the middle of a verse, then speeding up 110% during the chorus, then down to 85% on the next verse...

It's rock n roll, you're supposed to speed up! Never heard of anyone slowing down though, must be jazz

 

[GBBSbassist]

When I have to learn a cover. I learn it note for note, and then put a spin on it only if necessary.

 

[Tom Howland]

I learn everything note for note, then throw in my own stuff once I'm super confident with the song and once it's too late for the band to fire me.

Perfect. I agree 100%

 

[Chicory Blue]

I think there's beauty to be found in both- appreciating the original artist's performance, and developing one's own. One stands to learn a lot from both, too.

There's no shame in favoring one over the other, either. The artist who aspires only toward flawless emulation is always expanding their boundaries by experiencing the essence of many different performance styles, while the artist who insists on innovation further hones a style of their own.

Best I can tell, it's all good.

--^@

 

[Bass Man Dan]

No disrespect to anybody, but outside of a tribute band, I don't know that anybody can tell if you are playing "note for note". The singer sings, the guitarist guitars, the drummer screws up and drums, the bassist basses. Everybody should (in the band) stay in their lane. I've never been an exact note for note guy and I've never been called out for it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

If only that were true. Sadly.

Modifying a song without knowing can be a barrel of laughs for your bandmates.