Orginal band wanting to do covers show, same name?

[electracoyote]

I wouldn't try to maintain two monikers and identities in the same band.

If you work up a bunch of covers, I bet you'll slip an original in once in awhile. I bet you'll still want to refer to your original project and sell some merch (CD's, shirts, etc.).

Cover bands often scaffold from their cover playlist to their original playlist. Play covers that appeal to the audiences in the clubs you want to book, but once you're in and have won them over, it's only natural to give them some samples of your original music.

And therefore, changing the band name would be unnecessary. "Project Alice" is a great name for a cover or original band. It's your identity, and you're working very hard to build your brand and name recognition. To that end, use it exclusively, and don't risk dividing the focus with a fickle audience.

 

[pbass6811]

I would keep the same name for both, it's a lot easier to market one band than two.

Why not be the same band and add enough covers to cover the 4 hours for a cover gig. Still play your originals, just also play covers?
I've been in more than one band that did long multi sets of originals and covers. If it's all the same style it's all good.

+1 to these.

I really am not sure why everyone seems to think that having a different name for an original/cover band is so paramount?! I've been in the same band for over a decade, we've made several "albums" of original music, but we make a living playing "modern rock" covers. We've always done it that way. We will, on occasion, do a set of original material or do a showcase of just our original music. We've never even considered using another name. Why? We have a great following that likes our covers AND our originals. 99% of our shows are cover shows, but we get asked to play our original music at every show. It's just really confusing to people when you are telling them "yeah, this is our cover band. We have an original band, with the same guys, but it's a totally different band". Why not just say "Yeah, we do covers AND originals..."? If you do them both at every gig, people will get used to hearing your original stuff mixed in with the covers they came to hear. That seems WAY easier than trying to get folks to understand why you have the exact same guys in two bands with different names that do some of the same songs...

The only way I'd even consider using another name is if I was doing multiple cover bands(one band does classic rock, one band does neothrashpolkadoommetal) or multiple original bands(Suicidal Tendencies/Infectious Grooves). At that point, a different name would be warranted.

YMMV

 

[CORBS]

XTC and The Dukes of Stratosphear are two different bands with exactly the same members. You can just be in two bands, with exactly the same members but with a different name and different music. It's legit, it is easier for booking purposes and easier for fans to differentiate the two. You can plug both of bands and the end of either show, and who knows who would come see.

 

[DinoRock]

I've played in a bunch of bands over many decades. I like to differentiate between "covers" and "interpretations". IMHO, an original band is often well served with 25% or so interpretations. Similarly, I believe a cover band that develops a following is well served by 25% originals. Now, if you are doing hardcover covers in clubs where people come to see covers, then don't mess about - just serve up indistinguishable covers.

Just my thoughts. It doesn't sound like you are going a true covers route, so you might keep the same name and use social media to tell folks what's what with gigs.

 

[Jared Lash]

Somebody beat me to it but I like "Alice in Coverland".

But really I'm with people that don't think you need a secondary name. If you guys were really well known in your area as an originals band I might think differently but as it is I don't think it's a conflict.

Besides, if you're going to throw in originals at your cover gigs you want the ability to sell CDs & possibly other merch at your shows right?

After college/after I let go of my dreams of being in a band that "made it" a good number of the originals bands I was in went down this exact road of writing our own songs but ending up playing doing mostly covers in order to be able to gig consistently. Nothing wrong with that.

And if you gig for a while and are relatively successful you can go from throwing in 3 or 4 originals a night to having one of your sets (I always view a 4 hour gig as 4 sets) be all originals. Or even occasionally do an all originals gig.

As long as you advertise appropriately I think that's the best route.

 

[Smooth_bass88]

It's fine.

 

[sketch]

I started in a covers band that built a local reputation playing bars, weddings, corporate events. This band then wrote & recorded an album & tried to switch to original music. The covers fans want to hear songs they know and like, to drink and dance and have a predictably good time. They never once appreciated hearing originals in the sets, and people who had our originals album were confused by the 3 hour cover sets when they came out to bars to watch us. Solution was to use two separate but similar names, and to be very specific in promotion about which type of show it would be.

I liked "Alice in Coverland"..

 

[Stranger Danger]

My band, Project Alice, does original hard rock in the greater Providence, RI area. There are pretty limited playing opportunities around here. So we thought we would learn a bunch of covers and market ourselves to the covers clubs. (We are good musicians with an excellent lead vocalist, so we feel we would do well in this market.) Our goal is to get more stage time and to build a following following for our original act. As an original act we hope to play better clubs and festivals in our region with a solid fan-base. We do not anticipate getting signed or touring nationally. My feeling is that the type of people who attend original hard rock clubs is not the same as those who attend covers clubs. Therefore we should market ourselves differently as an cover act. Now I think our name is great for an original band, but just a little too obscure for a a cover band. I also think this may be confusing to fans as to which band they are coming to see. What do you think?

You could call it Project Wonderland

 

[monkeyfinger]

These are great suggestions for cover band names. The name 'Project Alice' is a reference to Resident Evil, btw. But 'Alice in Wonderland' is cool too.

 

[Session1969]

Two different names unless you play only hard rock covers.

 

[Kmonk]

I think it would be more confusing to use different names. There's nothing wrong with marketing yourself as an original band and doing some covers too.

 

[ChefKen]

Someone else nailed it. Once you have a following you can do whatever you want!! Look at Phish......they are an originals band that will do entire shows and tours of others music. The fans eat it up. Zappa is as original as it gets and has more materiel than anyone....the tour I saw was 1/3 covers including Stairway and Beatles classics. " Ring of fire" anyone?

 

[WaldoNova]

How about Project Alice Too? I think there are pros and cons either way you look at it. I think the bottom line is are you doing covers that you really like or are they songs to be able to book more gigs? If you really like the songs then just keep your name the same. If it's more for getting gigs then change the name.

 

[Joe Nerve]

Doing covers with an original band is IMO one of the best things an original band can do. We did that with The Nerve, and it allowed us to tour, while making money as opposed to taking a big hit. It also allowed us to sell lots of CDs. Using the same name helps with promo as such, but it has a couple of drawbacks that I can't think of right now . We kept the same name. IMO, in the big picture it doesn't mean a whole lot either way... but I reserve the right to read other people's comments here, rethink this, and then possibly comment again later .

Good question to kick around for sure.

 

[obimark]

I'd caution that approach if you are marketing yourself as a cover band.
MOST audiences are expecting a fairly close sounding cover when they go to see a cover band. While an audience at an original show is more willing to listen to your own spin on Give me Three steps Brown Eyed Boogie.

 

[rtslinger]

Yeah wouldn't use the same name for both projects just mention in your flyers featuring members of (insert name) that may help to peek the interest of some people. This way if you are able to pull off decent version of some cover tunes
maybe people will become interested in your original project. When you work the crowd talk to the people about your original project. Good Luck

 

[Ric5]

My band, Project Alice, does original hard rock in the greater Providence, RI area. There are pretty limited playing opportunities around here. So we thought we would learn a bunch of covers and market ourselves to the covers clubs. (We are good musicians with an excellent lead vocalist, so we feel we would do well in this market.) Our goal is to get more stage time and to build a following following for our original act. As an original act we hope to play better clubs and festivals in our region with a solid fan-base. We do not anticipate getting signed or touring nationally. My feeling is that the type of people who attend original hard rock clubs is not the same as those who attend covers clubs. Therefore we should market ourselves differently as an cover act. Now I think our name is great for an original band, but just a little too obscure for a a cover band. I also think this may be confusing to fans as to which band they are coming to see. What do you think?

If you play under 2 names then you have an identity crisis

 

[DwaynieAD]

My band, Project Alice, does original hard rock in the greater Providence, RI area. There are pretty limited playing opportunities around here. So we thought we would learn a bunch of covers and market ourselves to the covers clubs. (We are good musicians with an excellent lead vocalist, so we feel we would do well in this market.) Our goal is to get more stage time and to build a following following for our original act. As an original act we hope to play better clubs and festivals in our region with a solid fan-base. We do not anticipate getting signed or touring nationally. My feeling is that the type of people who attend original hard rock clubs is not the same as those who attend covers clubs. Therefore we should market ourselves differently as an cover act. Now I think our name is great for an original band, but just a little too obscure for a a cover band. I also think this may be confusing to fans as to which band they are coming to see. What do you think?

There are a couple bands here in Central PA that have done very well doing the covers and originals thing with the same name. I think you'll be fine.

If you use two different names you are starting over from scratch. no one is gonna care it's "featuring members of Project Alice" because the band is not Project Alice.

The real ticket is to let it be known on show flyers whether it is a cover show or an originals show, and most people will be able to tell the difference because of the venue.

and make sure you throw in some of your originals when you play your cover set, just dont mention its an original until after you've played it or people will tune out before you even begin playing it.

 

[A. D. Fairhurst]

A cover band called "Project Alice" BETTER be an Alice Cooper tribute.

Right?

Or Alice in Chains. Go Mike Starr!

 

[blixild]

I've been on both sides of this.

I used to be in a band that had different names depending on whether we were playing top 40/pop, R&B/soul, or jazz standards. Here are some of my experiences, summarized via quotes.
"Which band are we for this gig?"
"Yeah, I play in five bands but three of them are actually the same."
"That show was great! When are you playing again?" Not to mention having different promotional materials for each band. In my experience, it was MORE confusing for people when the names were related to each other.

Now, I play with a singer-songwriter who uses her own name for all gigs. We do both "cover" gigs and "original" gigs, but the set will vary depending on the venue. The covers all mesh with her style, so when we go into an original song, the audience at first just assumes it's a cover they don't know. Even on the "cover" gigs, we play about 30% originals.

This has always been my strategy for building a following for original bands. Play both covers and originals under the same name. Make the covers your own - if people wanted to hear it exactly like the original, there would be a jukebox or DJ, not a live band. The more of a following you get, the more originals you can throw in the set.

Our goal is to get more stage time and to build a following following for our original act.

My vote is to keep the same name. You won't build a following for the original act by using a different name.