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
jive1
Commercial User
jive1
Commercial User
That's it in a nutshell.
Some bands pull off note-for-note well, and audiences who want that should be pleased.
Some bands come close, and audiences that want that should be pleased.
Some bands do a completely different take, and audiences that want that should be pleased.
I've done all three, and all of them can work. As long as the band entertains the audience, that's what matters. The means vary so much, that you just gotta do what you do.
99% of guitarists think this. Too bad it's probably less than ~50% where it applies.
I rarely see guitarists who can play it note for note, which is often simply because the quantity over quality approach with some bands. It has been a long time since I've been in a cover band, but it always seemed like I was required to learn a LOT of tunes in a short time frame.
Even rarer is a guitarist who improves the solo. Quite common for a guitarist who thinks he improved the solo.
You guys realize that it depends totally on what the band is all about right? You guys can argue this until stringed instruments are obsolite, but there's a huge difference between a 3 piece bar band and a 6 piece corporate/casino band. It's the difference between jamming a blues like "Flip, Flop & Fly" versus nailing "Don't Stop Believing".
The spectrum is just way too wide. If you're going to do Rush, it had better be note for note or the music geeks will crucify you. If you play "Sweet Emotion" that beginning bass riff better be right on... as well as the beginning of "Sweet Child Of Mine". The rest of the song you'd better at least capture the groove or you'll seem like you suck, or you phoned it in.
Bottom line: If it's a signature part, nail it. You should do stuff like "Don't Stop Believing" note for note, or close to it. If you're doing Stevie Ray Vaughn you just need to capture the groove.
Cover bands can have their own sound, but IMO should always try to emulate the original. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule... but you'd better have a shtick, like Dread Zeppelin, or metal versions of lounge songs, or punk versions of TV themes or whatever... That's not what this discussion is about.
Every song is different. Every band is different. What you do either works or it doesn't. In most cases you have more chance of being considered a good band the closer you get to the original recording. Just go out and see which cover bands are getting the high end work in your area.
The spectrum is just way too wide. If you're going to do Rush, it had better be note for note or the music geeks will crucify you. If you play "Sweet Emotion" that beginning bass riff better be right on... as well as the beginning of "Sweet Child Of Mine". The rest of the song you'd better at least capture the groove or you'll seem like you suck, or you phoned it in.
Bottom line: If it's a signature part, nail it. You should do stuff like "Don't Stop Believing" note for note, or close to it. If you're doing Stevie Ray Vaughn you just need to capture the groove.
Cover bands can have their own sound, but IMO should always try to emulate the original. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule... but you'd better have a shtick, like Dread Zeppelin, or metal versions of lounge songs, or punk versions of TV themes or whatever... That's not what this discussion is about.
Every song is different. Every band is different. What you do either works or it doesn't. In most cases you have more chance of being considered a good band the closer you get to the original recording. Just go out and see which cover bands are getting the high end work in your area.
+1, great post.
It's more a spectrum, there are no absolutes. As long as you and your bandmates are on the same page churnin' out something that audiences can appreciate, it's all good.
Good music is what people buy. So, if you get the gig and the audience buys drinks, then it's good music -- whether it's note-for-note, totally reinvented or somewhere in between.
- Jan 27, 2010
- 4,141
- 471
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Genz Benz Amplification
Sweet Child of Mine is a good illustration of what you can and can't change. When I do that one the intro is note for note. The rest of the song, I play the bass line mostly the same, but I vary the fills a little while staying in the same general style. I expect guitarists to play the intro exactly the same, the melodic solos the same, and the long solo at the end 90% the same. A little self expression can be a good thing.
In addition to corporate events, my band is trying to break into the better dance clubs with big stages, P.A.'s, and lighting pre-installed.
The bands that are getting booked in those places are definitely the kind striving for 95% or better note-for-note faithful versions.
Perhaps the most popular dance band in town has a four-piece horn section, three female backup/lead singers, a male lead singer, keys, guitar, bass, drums, and percussion.
These guys absolutely nail all the crowd favorites, and they can play wherever they like and pretty much name their price. It is impressive, and the crowd reaction and participation is off the hook. I'm sure they make at least $125.00 per head per night at the club level, usually more.
Like jive and some others have stated, they stretch out some songs, insert a solo here or there, do the extended mix. But they have the essence of the original popular radio hit version down ice cold.
It ain't for everyone, or every venue, but it is one standard.
The bands that are getting booked in those places are definitely the kind striving for 95% or better note-for-note faithful versions.
Perhaps the most popular dance band in town has a four-piece horn section, three female backup/lead singers, a male lead singer, keys, guitar, bass, drums, and percussion.
These guys absolutely nail all the crowd favorites, and they can play wherever they like and pretty much name their price. It is impressive, and the crowd reaction and participation is off the hook. I'm sure they make at least $125.00 per head per night at the club level, usually more.
Like jive and some others have stated, they stretch out some songs, insert a solo here or there, do the extended mix. But they have the essence of the original popular radio hit version down ice cold.
It ain't for everyone, or every venue, but it is one standard.
The problem I have with bands whose interpretation of songs wanders far from the barn is the same issue I have with many originals bands. Their music/interpretation sucks. Weekend warriors seldom have greater creativity and talent than the original artists/producers/composers. Even some of the A-list pros who do new interpretations of classic songs screw them up.
For instance, what has been gained by Phil Collins' recordings of the old Motown classics? He doesn't suck, but he brings absolutely nothing to the table. On the other hand, most of Linda Ronstadt's repertoire consists of covers, and she makes them her own.
Going to a live performance of a band who plays it close to the original is somewhat akin to going to a live concert of the original artist. You're experiencing the music in an organic state rather than from a can. You could say you'd rather watch a concert on TV than go to a live one of the original artist, too.
jive1
Commercial User
99% of guitarists think this. Too bad it's probably less than ~50% where it applies.
I rarely see guitarists who can play it note for note, which is often simply because the quantity over quality approach with some bands. It has been a long time since I've been in a cover band, but it always seemed like I was required to learn a LOT of tunes in a short time frame.
Even rarer is a guitarist who improves the solo. Quite common for a guitarist who thinks he improved the solo.
Trust me, I can butcher a solo with the best (or worst) of them.
But I agree on the quantity thing. One of the things I think that rhythm section players may not realize is that there are more recognizable guitar parts and signatures that you have to learn. Even though a drummer learns 1 or two beats for a song, the bassist learns to groove and chord progression, the guitarist may need to learn a few signature riffs and possibly the solo. The time it takes me to prepare for a bass gig is less than if I were to play guitar. To learn 40 songs on bass may take me a week or two, while those same songs may take longer on guitar, especially if I have to learn the solo. If I have to condense 2 guitar parts into 1, it may take me longer to come up with the proper arrangement.
But in the real world, the guitarist doesn't get any more slack than the bassist or drummer, so you'll still need to figure our how to get the quantity in.
jive1
Commercial User
Definitely, you have a continuum and like most bell curves, I find that most cover bands to be somewhere in the middle of that continuum. The great thing is that there is a market for all of it.
Some people like Dread Zeppelin, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, and the Grateful Dead. Others like the Fab Faux, Kiss'd, and Journey2Boston. The great thing is that sometimes those fans like both ends of the spectrum.
Just bustin' your chops. I have no idea how well you play. Just an observation that hubris tends to be the weakness of many musicians. If'n they can't admit they have weaknesses, they can't fix it.
I still stand by the idea that most guitarists aren't quite improving the solo, especially when you call 'em on it and they claim the audience will be drunk enough and won't notice the difference.
For the most part, singers and guitarists are out front and it's much easier to notice. Bassists and drummers have a little more leeway, mostly because the general public simply doesn't care for the most part. I still always did my best to nail the parts. Within reason, I like to be able to nail the part AND the tone whenever possible.
jive1
Commercial User
I think you might have misunderstood. I really can destroy your favorite guitar solo until it's totally unrecognizable, and so messed up that you wouldn't like it anymore. Seriously, I'm not that good at guitar, but for some reason I get plenty of work playing it. Really, I suck, and that's what I've been trying to say. You can even click on one of the link in my sig if you don't believe me.
I agree on that. But, there are some songs where an improvised solo is appropriate or expected.
On the other hand, sometimes folks are too drunk to notice. Probably one of the main reasons why I get work as a guitarist.
I'm probably in the bottom 3rd or less in terms of talent compared to the other guys gigging on guitar around here. Because of that, I have to use Jedi mind tricks. I played a gig a couple weeks ago where I did bar tricks such as playing simple flashy pentatonic licks, playing behind my back, using lighters and bottles as slides, standing on chairs, tables, etc. I played Freebird, and trust me, I have no business playing the ending solo of what many call a guitar masterpiece. But because I have a high tolerance for embarrasment, I did it and didn't pull any stops on the Jedi Mind tricks. The crowd totally ate it up and loved it. Later I butchered another guitar masterpiece, Voodoo Chile. It's another song I have no business playing, and pretty much every gigging pro in this area could play it better than me. But, I did it with all the tricks, and they ate it up again. One guy even told me that was the greatest guitar display he had ever seen, and he was even a guitar player. They must have been mixing the drinks stiff that night. I got all kinds of compliments on my guitar playing, but honestly if you heard a recording of the show the next day, sober it was probably a total mess.
But, that crowd wanted a show, and that's what I gave them. I could honestly tell you that I probably didn't play any covers note for note more than maybe 40%, and that's generous. Some of those tunes, there was no way that I was going to pull off 100%, even if I had more time to prepare. But, I did the best I could with what little I had, and it worked that night. Maybe the crowd was forgiving, maybe the drinks were stiff, who knows. But I know that they wouldn't have gotten off on a guy staring at his shoes butchering their favorite songs, no matter what. So what I lacked in skill, I made up for with energy that I could share with the audience. In the end, that's what we're selling - energy, so make it the good kind.
But that's just that gig. In my variety band, I try to nail everything note for note, even the solos. I could not pull off what I did that night at a wedding and expect the same reaction. It's not a guitar band, so I get to hide a little and my shortcomings don't show as much. Because we do things more note for note, I don't choose songs that are too hard for me. If one of our event clients hired us and we winged tunes and did bar tricks, we'd get fired. But we do that for one of the dive bars with a different band, and they love us. Go figure.
I have to correct you slightly here and point out that actually, a lot of bands hire very skilled session musicians to play on their albums. You know that expression "You get what you pay for?" Talent literally CAN be bought sometimes. And it is. Even "great" bassists are replaced in studio recordings by "greater" bassists. If you're a studio/session musician, it's a different world. Have a look at the credits of a few albums...the bassist in the band doesn't always play on the album.
Anyway, I'm not intending to nitpick, but I just wanted to point that out.
