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.
Playing note for note.
- Thread starter Ric5
- Start date
a popular recording technique, or at least used to be, was doubling bass lines on guitar to beef them up for the record. probably too many instances of that to name.
Quote "80% of our songs are covers. 100% of our covers are not 'note for note'. They sound much better IMO."
---Not saying your band is either of these but:
Most "note for note" bands aren't actually note for note. They are about 90 to 95% accurate. Very few musicians can get closer than that, without putting an obsessive amount of time with each song, and only a very few people have a good enough ear to tell the difference...even when they think a song is exact--it usually isn't. So most note for note type bands should be called close cover bands.
On the other hand, there are other musicians that despise note for note covers. Some of those don't have the skills to pull it off themselves. But some musicians just like the freedom to improvise and/or be creative, but choose not to work in an "original" musical project.
I play almost exclusively in churches, but I've played under each of the two types of scenarios. The note for note type really improves your ear, and forces you to play lines that you normally wouldn't. But in the other type of band, you can change a tedious song's bass line just enough to keep things interesting, without most people noticing. Not to mention the chance to totally improvise a line. Each has it's merits....I'm not sure which I actually prefer.
---Not saying your band is either of these but:
Most "note for note" bands aren't actually note for note. They are about 90 to 95% accurate. Very few musicians can get closer than that, without putting an obsessive amount of time with each song, and only a very few people have a good enough ear to tell the difference...even when they think a song is exact--it usually isn't. So most note for note type bands should be called close cover bands.
On the other hand, there are other musicians that despise note for note covers. Some of those don't have the skills to pull it off themselves. But some musicians just like the freedom to improvise and/or be creative, but choose not to work in an "original" musical project.
I play almost exclusively in churches, but I've played under each of the two types of scenarios. The note for note type really improves your ear, and forces you to play lines that you normally wouldn't. But in the other type of band, you can change a tedious song's bass line just enough to keep things interesting, without most people noticing. Not to mention the chance to totally improvise a line. Each has it's merits....I'm not sure which I actually prefer.
Me thinks the whole idea with playing covers is to put your own personal thing to it so it's interesting. There are some few bass lines that has to be played as they were originally performed, like Another One Bites The Dust. But for the majority of others, have fun -- the audience will appreciate it, too.
There's a lot of over the top opinion on this.
I resent anyone saying that if I play a song note for note, I'm giving my creativity away.
I resent anyone saying that if I don't play a song note for note, I'm not a good enough player, or too lazy, to learn it correctly.
These are extremes, and they are not always accurate. (note: I'm not saying any of you specifically said that about ME, because you didn't!)
I think there is room in music for a multitude of approaches.
In my band, you have to be able to play it note for note, and there is a good chance that after jamming on it awhile, some changes may come about.
That's OUR approach.
If I join YOUR band, as a bass player, I will use the approach that works for YOU.
And I won't complain a lick.
But then, I'm just a really great guy, and everyone should be exactly like me, in every way.*
*This might be another example of an over the top opinion.
I resent anyone saying that if I play a song note for note, I'm giving my creativity away.
I resent anyone saying that if I don't play a song note for note, I'm not a good enough player, or too lazy, to learn it correctly.
These are extremes, and they are not always accurate. (note: I'm not saying any of you specifically said that about ME, because you didn't!)
I think there is room in music for a multitude of approaches.
In my band, you have to be able to play it note for note, and there is a good chance that after jamming on it awhile, some changes may come about.
That's OUR approach.
If I join YOUR band, as a bass player, I will use the approach that works for YOU.
And I won't complain a lick.
But then, I'm just a really great guy, and everyone should be exactly like me, in every way.*
*This might be another example of an over the top opinion.
Some parts in songs just need to be played note to note to sound "right", if that's what the band wants. Sometimes a completely different arrangement is refreshing too.
I find it most pleasing to cover band audience that the songs are recognizable but for the band it is always great to have their own sound be heard. And I think the audience most often likes a bit of variation too. So I'm all for not playing completely note to note except for those specific parts.
I find it most pleasing to cover band audience that the songs are recognizable but for the band it is always great to have their own sound be heard. And I think the audience most often likes a bit of variation too. So I'm all for not playing completely note to note except for those specific parts.
The "note for note" guys probably learned it from tab, and don't really know how to play their instruments; they just know to "put your finger here".
my personal philosophy is this; if you're being paid to perform strictly covers, then you owe it to your audience to remain as true to the original as possible. if you're talented enough, you can take some liberties and get away with it. If you're an original artist or just performing for fun, you should be expected to deviate from the familiar version and do your own take on it.
in the case of the OP, this group sounds somewhat hopeless.
in the case of the OP, this group sounds somewhat hopeless.
DanNowhere said:
This is not unique and concerns me.
Seems like some of theses threads with similar issues make it seem like there wasn't much of a band in the first place.
It's hard to distinguish from the threads if we are addressing the issues of:
A recording band only
A basement hobby jam band
A working band giging solid every weekend.
A vwotking band that only gigs a few times a year.
blue
on 11-29 you replied to my post in another thread with:
"Jamming an improv I'm not very good with that sort of thing."
which is it, can you improvise or not?
jive1
Commercial User
That's been my experience as well. Even the note-for-note bands can be off from the original, especially if they have a revolving door of musicians. Some bands that are note-for-note are actually just true to the arrangement of the song moreso than playing all the notes of the song.
To me, it's more important that I lock in with the drummer to lay down the feel of the songs, and imply the chord movement in a song. I also rather not spend time arguing during rehearsal or a gig as to whether something is note-for-note. The goal is to make good music, and sometimes it's requires note for note, and sometimes it doesn't.
Lots of people won't notice if you played a bassline different from the original, but they will notice if you're not grooving with the drummer. Like bassists, drummers have their own nuances. Even though a drummer or bassist can play the same notes, it will sound a little different for each player in terms of tone, feel, etc. I find that each drummer does a shuffle differently. So what's important to me is that I play the shuffle along with the guy behind the kit on the stage, not the guy on the record.
Sure there are basslines like Billie Jean that should be done note-for-note or pretty darn close. But if the the drummer isn't laying down the right beat, you will be off. So what do you do? You could try to push the drummer into the right beat, but that could lead to a trainwreck or a few measures where you guys are fighting each other. And there's a possibility that their interpretation is off, and they'll never get it right. People can't dig the tune if the bass and drums aren't locked, so usually I'll concede and lock with the drummer and do my best to make it my own.
nortonrider said:
I can and in my opinion, I'm good at it. However, as I said I would prefer not to.
I probably said I wasn't good at that sort of thing to make some sort of point or to justify a position I had taken.
As a matter of fact I have won some auditions due to my improvising skills.
For any of you younger guys, if you don't know it, jamming was very popular back on the early 70s.
This is perfectly stated. I would challenge anyone to post a Youtube video of their band playing an entire set of songs all exactly note for note like the record. Unless you have a HUGE band, you'll always be missing a keyboard part, horn part, harmony part, female singer, third or fourth guitar part, etc. That leaves of us deciding how close to note for note we will play - which is a matter of opinion.
Also, take a song like James Brown's Sex Machine. There is no set pattern to the bass part, just a series of variations on the main line repeated randomly. What would the point be of memorizing the exact order of each variation?
DanNowhere said:
Yes, there are and always have been techniques to optimize bass parts.
When I do home recordings (which is rare ) I will double a bass guitar track with a bass synth sound.
Off topic, some of the bass tracks in recordings from the 60s & 70s were buried so far in the mix I don't know how you could figure the bass part out note for note.
Bluewine:
I have read through a bunch of your posts.... and dude .... REALLY?
You're going on my ignore list.
I have read through a bunch of your posts.... and dude .... REALLY?
You're going on my ignore list.
I found this true myself. It's kind of like when someone say's some bands do originals cuz they can't play covers right.
bluewine said:
Ok???
Thanks for enlightening us. I'm pretty sure that people also enjoyed jamming in the 50's, 60's, 80's and 90's, and they still do today.
To do a cover i listen to the song with tablature handy for anything i have trouble with. then i play with the band and make further adjustments to what they are doing. i am under no illusions that I am playing the song note for note. Seems to work. If i were a lead guitarist I would worry more.
I don't think any of us in any band I've ever been in nailed every part in a cover tune note for note. I don't think it's possible unless you play from charts made of the original recordings and even those had to be transcribed by someone.
In all my years I think I've only listened to one band who played cover material note for note. They were a Steely Dan cover band staffed by studio players who could sight read the charts and they were very good at it.
Conversely I'm friends with guys in a national recording act doing their own songs and those aren't always done note for note the way the original recordings were. Heck most of the band isn't even the guys who made the original recordings.
Nailing a song doesn't always mean it has to be an exact replication of the original. There's a wealth of music out there by artists like Bonnie Raitt, Joe Cocker, and many others who have made a career out of doing different versions of others songs.
In all my years I think I've only listened to one band who played cover material note for note. They were a Steely Dan cover band staffed by studio players who could sight read the charts and they were very good at it.
Conversely I'm friends with guys in a national recording act doing their own songs and those aren't always done note for note the way the original recordings were. Heck most of the band isn't even the guys who made the original recordings.
Nailing a song doesn't always mean it has to be an exact replication of the original. There's a wealth of music out there by artists like Bonnie Raitt, Joe Cocker, and many others who have made a career out of doing different versions of others songs.
