Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Orignals Bands vs Cover Bands, Open Discussion
- Thread starter bluewine
- Start date
Our band is adopting this method as well. We have over 2 sets full of original music, and now we're going to add another 2-3 full sets (possibly more) of cover material as well. This way we can get into the rooms that cater to cover music as well as the original venues. We can mix up the setlist depending on the venue. The covers we've been doing have been going over realy well.
MatticusMania said:
Matt, there's Shank Hall (featured in the movie Spinal Tap) Linnemans River West, The BBC, Franks Power Plant, and The Monkey Bar.
All are back rooms 5-$7.00 covers. And I would not go near The Monkey Bar.
It's a bad city for Originals.
jive1
Commercial User
You can't judge an original band by how many shows they play the way you would a cover band. For example, take the BoDeans and the Violent Femmes. They are two huge national acts from Milwaukee, with material that cover bands play. Hordes of people love listening to Blister in the Sun and Closer to Free. But if either one of those bands played in Milwaukee once a month, I doubt they would draw huge for every show. But, if they did a few nights, once a year, as a homecoming show, I'm pretty sure it would be packed to the hilt and they would make more money than if they did 12 shows. But, these bands also would fill clubs outside of their area as well.
Steely Dan was HUGE, and got even bigger after they got touring. The Beatles were even HUGER, and after they stopped playing live, they were groundbreaking. Kate Bush, another recording artist that didn't tour. XTC is another. And all these bands are before the days of the internet.
A live show is the heart and soul of a cover band. It might be for an original band, but doesn't have to be.
Most original bands that play for free are only playing 30 - 45 minute sets, and dont have to haul a PA, nor finish up at 2am, unless they were the last band. I think its rare that an original band plays a full 4 sets for no pay. Even my original band got paid when we played 2 sets mixing up covers and originals.
jive1
Commercial User
I wish more bands would do that.
To me, it makes more sense to showcase a handful of excellent originals to a room full of people and making some coin to put towards the band rather than play a whole set of original material, of which only 1-2 are any good to an empty room and going home with nothing.
IMO, IME, original bands don't delete material enough. They want to do a whole set of original stuff, so they rush through writing the material, and wind up with less than stellar results. They have 1-2 good songs, and a bunch of lousy ones to fill out the set. It takes time to write good songs, and it's better to show your best to as many people as you can, rather than playing all your original stuff, whether it's good or not.
To put it into perspective, take a look at your favorite artists. Grab one of their CDs, and count how many of those songs are hits. Usually it'll be 1-3, and possibly more if it's a classic album. If your favorite artist doesn't hit on every song they write, what makes you think you can?
I think in someways cover bands are a completely different animal than the originals bands. They both carry a different vibe.
For example an originals band that plays covers is not going to come off as a cover band, they will come of as an originals band doing covers.
I am not sure that makes any sense.
blue
For example an originals band that plays covers is not going to come off as a cover band, they will come of as an originals band doing covers.
I am not sure that makes any sense.
blue
I play in three bands:
>Jazz Standards Band (3 piece) - 100% cover tunes - we make money for playing, usually no less than $75 each per gig.
>Soul / Rock Band (5 piece) - 50/50 mix of originals and covers - we get gigs but for little or no pay.
>Roots Rock Band (3 piece) - 20/80 mix of originals/covers - not gigging yet but it looks like we'll get little or no pay.
So play covers to get lots of gigs and have some cash in your pocket, and play originals to fulfill your desire to play music based on your rules and expectations, not someone elses.
>Jazz Standards Band (3 piece) - 100% cover tunes - we make money for playing, usually no less than $75 each per gig.
>Soul / Rock Band (5 piece) - 50/50 mix of originals and covers - we get gigs but for little or no pay.
>Roots Rock Band (3 piece) - 20/80 mix of originals/covers - not gigging yet but it looks like we'll get little or no pay.
So play covers to get lots of gigs and have some cash in your pocket, and play originals to fulfill your desire to play music based on your rules and expectations, not someone elses.
Makes sense to me. Further, it might also depend on the ratio between Covers & Originals.
For example, a band doing 75% covers, and 25% originals might be seen as a coverband.
Swap that and it'll probably be seen as an original band.
But what about bands doing half covers and half originals?
I guess it could go either way.
bluewine said:
Some people simply enjoy making music, and don't need attention to enjoy their craft.
My band has an "all killer no filler" approach to our songs. It helps that we've really got our songwriting process nailed down amd we have friends of the band who work for us at times and will gladly tell us if a song is not up to par. We have ditched and vastly changed songs to make the better. The hard work is paying off but others peoples experience vary quite a bit of course.jive1 said:
I believe Jive hit the nail on the head....
if you are an originals band, the point isn't to play local to your home town regularly. The point is to play nationally and beyond.
The markets are quite different, and require a different approach.
if you are an originals band, the point isn't to play local to your home town regularly. The point is to play nationally and beyond.
The markets are quite different, and require a different approach.
There are a whole bunch of related but separate components that go into any musical venture. First, you've got material, then you've got performance, then you've got artistry, then you've got recording acumen. All of these may be present to a greater or lesser degree in any project.
As this relates to the original band vs. cover band dichotomy, cover bands give themselves a big head start when it comes to audience appeal because they start with good, proven material. I think one of the big reasons that most original bands don't draw big crowds and get paid a lot is because almost none of them have material that's as good as the average cover band. Songwriting is a craft, and a cover band has, in effect, the greatest craftsmen in the world working for them. An original band that wants to go toe to toe with them has to have material at the same level. And the sad fact is, most guys playing in their basements are just not on par with, say, Lennon & McCartney (or fill in your favorite songwriters).
You may say, "Well, duh! Those guys were the elite of the elite." But that's the competition. Then add in the HUGE advantage cover bands have because in general people ALREADY KNOW THEIR MATERIAL. New unknown material is always going to be a tougher sell, but to even really be in the game it is vital to have really, really good songs.
The original band snobbery I've seen usually takes the form of claiming some moral superiority because someone is playing HIS (or HER) music that HE (SHE) WROTE. It is their Art! They are Artistes! But this is almost invariably accompanied by redefining expectations and what "success" means to be something pretty small. There is always a small segment of the population that will be interested in hearing something new for the sake of hearing something new. Most original bands cede the field to cover bands and ONLY go after that small segment. So they do something new, and get a certain amount of credit for that, but there is a huge potential audience of people that like good songs, and they don't even go after that audience because when push comes to shove their songs are just mediocre and formulaic and aren't really saying anything very well.
I suspect that in their heart of hearts a lot of those people know this, but they keep putting their low-grade, poorly crafted songs out there. It's basically masturbation; it makes them feel like Artistes who make Art. And sometimes a flash of true artistry can overcome poor craftsmanship, but (a) not always, and (b) flashes of true artistry are much fewer and further between than most Artistes realize. Just because you make up a song doesn't make it great art. Art is about communication. If your art doesn't connect with an audience, it fails as art. I suppose by most definitions it's still art, but not all art is GOOD art.
Then there's performance. That's an entirely separate subject and an entirely separate craft from songwriting. In general, it seems like original bands seem to worry less about their show. I suspect that a lot of original musicians feel that because they are Artistes making Art, they don't need to lower themselves to think about something as gauche as interacting with the audience or trying to put together an interesting stage show. Now, lots of cover bands also skimp on this, but among good cover bands I think that conscious effort towards crafting a good stage show is more common. Also, cover bands have the advantage of having the best songs ever written available for their repertoire, and that can get you cut a lot of slack by an audience.
There's a chicken vs. egg question as to whether it's so hard to get ahead as an original act because there are so few opportunities, or whether there are so few opportunities because there are not enough good (great songwriting craftsmanship and great performance) original acts to support them.
As this relates to the original band vs. cover band dichotomy, cover bands give themselves a big head start when it comes to audience appeal because they start with good, proven material. I think one of the big reasons that most original bands don't draw big crowds and get paid a lot is because almost none of them have material that's as good as the average cover band. Songwriting is a craft, and a cover band has, in effect, the greatest craftsmen in the world working for them. An original band that wants to go toe to toe with them has to have material at the same level. And the sad fact is, most guys playing in their basements are just not on par with, say, Lennon & McCartney (or fill in your favorite songwriters).
You may say, "Well, duh! Those guys were the elite of the elite." But that's the competition. Then add in the HUGE advantage cover bands have because in general people ALREADY KNOW THEIR MATERIAL. New unknown material is always going to be a tougher sell, but to even really be in the game it is vital to have really, really good songs.
The original band snobbery I've seen usually takes the form of claiming some moral superiority because someone is playing HIS (or HER) music that HE (SHE) WROTE. It is their Art! They are Artistes! But this is almost invariably accompanied by redefining expectations and what "success" means to be something pretty small. There is always a small segment of the population that will be interested in hearing something new for the sake of hearing something new. Most original bands cede the field to cover bands and ONLY go after that small segment. So they do something new, and get a certain amount of credit for that, but there is a huge potential audience of people that like good songs, and they don't even go after that audience because when push comes to shove their songs are just mediocre and formulaic and aren't really saying anything very well.
I suspect that in their heart of hearts a lot of those people know this, but they keep putting their low-grade, poorly crafted songs out there. It's basically masturbation; it makes them feel like Artistes who make Art. And sometimes a flash of true artistry can overcome poor craftsmanship, but (a) not always, and (b) flashes of true artistry are much fewer and further between than most Artistes realize. Just because you make up a song doesn't make it great art. Art is about communication. If your art doesn't connect with an audience, it fails as art. I suppose by most definitions it's still art, but not all art is GOOD art.
Then there's performance. That's an entirely separate subject and an entirely separate craft from songwriting. In general, it seems like original bands seem to worry less about their show. I suspect that a lot of original musicians feel that because they are Artistes making Art, they don't need to lower themselves to think about something as gauche as interacting with the audience or trying to put together an interesting stage show. Now, lots of cover bands also skimp on this, but among good cover bands I think that conscious effort towards crafting a good stage show is more common. Also, cover bands have the advantage of having the best songs ever written available for their repertoire, and that can get you cut a lot of slack by an audience.
There's a chicken vs. egg question as to whether it's so hard to get ahead as an original act because there are so few opportunities, or whether there are so few opportunities because there are not enough good (great songwriting craftsmanship and great performance) original acts to support them.
