• 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.

The Official Covers vs Originals Thread

Original vs. Copy

  • I rather play with an original band.

    Votes: 84 46.9%

  • I rather play with a copy/cover band.

    Votes: 42 23.5%

  • It doesn’t matter.

    Votes: 53 29.6%
  • Total voters
    179
Status
Not open for further replies.
#401
Rusty Chainsaw said:
What bluewine doesn't seem to be able to comprehend is that, for some of us, being in an original band isn't about work, money, the amount of gigs you get or anything like that. It's creating something purely for the sake of creating it because you feel it needs to be created, not for what you can get out of it. I don't care if someone's gigging twice a week or twice a year.

As for whether the type of band you want to play with changes with age, I'm 41, I work full-time, am married and a dad (soon to be a dad again), and I have absolutely no desire to play covers. Nor do I have any desire to be signed (again) or be a so-called rock star. I want to spend my dwindling spare time creating new music with my friends. We're not expecting success, glittering prizes or mass adulation - for us, this is something we love to do, and it's nice if somebody wants to listen, and even nicer if they happen to like it.

My personal philosophy with music is that I never wanted to play the songs from my favourite bands. I wanted to be in my favourite band. Since most of the bands I love haven't been hiring for a bass player, that meant being in a band who could make music that I liked as much or more than the bands who were my influences. A lofty goal for sure, but, in two of the bands I played with, we succeeded.

It's nice if you can get some commercial success or lots of gigs, but it's not necessary for someone who makes original music to be justified in doing so - its a drive, an itch that has to be scratched. You need the talent to contribute, the right attitude and good people around you who share the same goals and communicate well. Yes, writing good original music is hard. So is playing the bass. The more you do it and the more you work at it, the better you get and the more rewarding it gets. And when you do get decent enough at it and get some gigs, there is no feeling like hearing an audience sing along with something you wrote. Having people dance to a groove you created. To see people you don't know on Youtube covering your songs.

Once you've had that, having an audience sing along with someone else's songs just doesn't really compare.

Hence the reason I won't ever play in a covers band. YMMV.
Click to expand...

This guy gets it. Kudos to you, sir.

We just wrote a new song last week and worked on it hard this weekend. I can't wait to play it live. It's our song and for us, it's much more satisfying to play than any cover. For every three/four songs we write, one probably makes the cut and is a keeper. This one's a keeper.

For the people who say they don't like playing original music because they only play to 10 people a couple of times a year, there was probably a reason for that; you're band or songs sucked. Find a new band and try again. Everything you write is not going to be a winner. Don't give up and just settle playing covers. Try to write songs that other bands may copy someday instead of just copying other bands.
 
#402
Most people are unable to write because they are unable to think, and they are unable to think because they congenitally lack the equipment to do so, just as they congenitally lack the equipment to fly over the moon.
H. L. Mencken

I write in order to attain that feeling of tension relieved and function achieved which a cow enjoys on giving milk.
H. L. Mencken

Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed.
H. L. Mencken

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
H. L. Mencken

All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
 
#403
I voted "it doesn't matter" but only because there was no "both" option, which is what I choose. You literally can have the best of both worlds. Unless your originals band gigs enough for you already. But I enjoy being in a cover band, a band that can do some gigs that the originals band just can't do well- like weddings, or crowds that don't want to hear originals. That said, my originals band is my favorite band to play in. I just naturally have more of myself invested in it. It's also by far the oldest band I play with- we formed in 1987- and has my oldest dearest friends in it.
 
#404
JumboJack said:
Guy's that play in cover bands are talentless hacks who can't write a good song to save their life. Any fool can learn to play top 40 in a bar band....

Of course this is only based on people I know. Not meant to offend anyone.


;)
Click to expand...

For the record... My above post was sarcasm.

sar·casm. noun

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

I was making light of a certain TB'er that posts thinly veiled insults that are always followed up with some type of "No offence intended" malarkey.
 
#405
Why I prefer a cover band to an original band ...

1 - many musicians are good players but not good writers. So I don't want to go out and play mediocre songs that no one recognizes.
2 - gigs for original bands often are weeknights at a bar where they will share the stage and the money with 2 or 3 other bands.
3 - There are a lot of killer songs that a band can cover and the bar audience will really like.
 
#406
JumboJack said:
For the record... My above post was sarcasm.

sar·casm. noun

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

I was making light of a certain TB'er that posts thinly veiled insults that are always followed up with some type of "No offence intended" malarkey.
Click to expand...

I knew you did..well done IMO ;) For some people here allot of original bands are horrible and can't write. I disagree and have seen and played with many who floor me.

Some of these bands I feel could make it big time..they are that good. But as we know it's not all about talent its allot more than that.

I play both covers and originals and it's cool...I am a hack in allot of ways but it works. Originals music is a much bigger challenge than covers and I get bored with covers to tell you the truth.
But in the end they are less work since I show up and get paid, the dancing people are pretty cool to..I guess I'm lucky :smug:
 
#408
Rusty Chainsaw said:
What bluewine doesn't seem to be able to comprehend is that, for some of us, being in an original band isn't about work, money, the amount of gigs you get or anything like that. It's creating something purely for the sake of creating it because you feel it needs to be created, not for what you can get out of it. I don't care if someone's gigging twice a week or twice a year.

As for whether the type of band you want to play with changes with age, I'm 41, I work full-time, am married and a dad (soon to be a dad again), and I have absolutely no desire to play covers. Nor do I have any desire to be signed (again) or be a so-called rock star. I want to spend my dwindling spare time creating new music with my friends. We're not expecting success, glittering prizes or mass adulation - for us, this is something we love to do, and it's nice if somebody wants to listen, and even nicer if they happen to like it.

My personal philosophy with music is that I never wanted to play the songs from my favourite bands. I wanted to be in my favourite band. Since most of the bands I love haven't been hiring for a bass player, that meant being in a band who could make music that I liked as much or more than the bands who were my influences. A lofty goal for sure, but, in two of the bands I played with, we succeeded.

It's nice if you can get some commercial success or lots of gigs, but it's not necessary for someone who makes original music to be justified in doing so - its a drive, an itch that has to be scratched. You need the talent to contribute, the right attitude and good people around you who share the same goals and communicate well. Yes, writing good original music is hard. So is playing the bass. The more you do it and the more you work at it, the better you get and the more rewarding it gets. And when you do get decent enough at it and get some gigs, there is no feeling like hearing an audience sing along with something you wrote. Having people dance to a groove you created. To see people you don't know on Youtube covering your songs.

Once you've had that, having an audience sing along with someone else's songs just doesn't really compare.

Hence the reason I won't ever play in a covers band. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Indeed, very well put. I feel the same way. Although if my band was to gain success and happen to stumble upon a deal and or the road, I really don't know what id do. I'd like to say I'd take the chance. But I'm a little older now, settled down and have a serious girl with two boys at home. I just love to create music with others. It's not such a hard pill to swallow if we only play to 10 people 15 to 20 times a year and really not make any substantial amount of money. It's fun. It's fulfilling and I love it. I think being in a cover band would be fun too, but I would miss, very much, creating original tunes.
 
#411
This thread has been reopened.

I view this thread as a necessary evil since this topic comes up again and again, and it leads to arguments that derail other threads that may otherwise be helpful.

Even though this is a thread where you can 'duke it out', we still need to follow the rules and be respectful to each other.
 
#412
What many are missing here is that there is no correct answer in the "Cover or Original" question. Trying to convince someone that you are right and they are wrong is an exercise in futility.

If you like only working on original music even if only a small handful of people will ever hear it then that is all that matters. If you only like playing Freebird to 20 drunks a night then you are GTG.
 
#413
If you're a classical musician, you probably do a lot covers. Some would say that means you're not the creative type nor a musician and some wouldn't want to waste time learning other people's music. That's fine. Some must think really highly of their music/writing to have such an attitude.

I'm being facetious...somewhat.

One can take all the music theory, arranging, ear training and harmony classes and still not be able to write a song worth playing. On the other hand, if you can only play 3 notes, you could write a massive hit.

My motto is, don't take yourself too seriously. Take your music seriously and have fun.
 
#414
Nothing in an inappropriate booking situation is worse than having an all-original band booked for an event type gig and seeing the audience scratching their heads in confusion, and then seeing the band acting incredulous that their music is going unappreciated.
 
#415
Well said, O Wielder of the Mighty Mod Stick.

I get the same rush whether playing either.
My band does a mixture of both, and I never announce originals, feel they should be treated the same as the other tunes.
 
#416
guitfiddle0409 said:
Nothing in an inappropriate booking situation is worse than having an all-original band booked for an event type gig and seeing the audience scratching their heads in confusion, and then seeing the band acting incredulous that their music is going unappreciated.
Click to expand...

That is why if you are an originals band you must add a few covers to do any event that is not per say and originals club etc.
My old band did a few community events that the promoter's knew we were an originals band. We always did more covers than say we did at a club or place that is known for original music and people go there to see it.

It's simple to do both and keep people around at events a covers band should be hired for but in truth know where you are getting booked at.
 
#418
The problem is that you are comparing similar entities with different end products. The end product of an original act is their songs. The end product of a cover act is their performance. Now you do have some exceptions to these cases like cover bands that release albums (Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, Dread Zeppelin, etc) as well as original acts that focus more on their live show (Grateful Dead, Allman Brothers, etc.). But for the most part, the money maker for an original act will be their songs, and the money maker for a cover band will be their performance.

A cover band will be limited in that they don't own the songs they perform, so if they ever wanted to sell their versions, they would still have to pay a royalty to the original author. And for the cover bands that play note-for-note versions, sorry, nobody is going to buy your songs when they can get the original. For almost all cover bands, if they don't perform, they don't make any money. But, cover bands have the advantage in that the songs are already ones that people like, and makes it easier for them to get performance opporuntities. Which makes sense, since performance is their main product.

Sometimes we get into our 'bar band' mentalities, and fail to see how that scene is just a small part of the overall music scene. Sure in most bars, the cover band will reign supreme. But, outside of that, original acts can gain some ground because the main product of an original act is their songs. The songwriter owns the song, and they can do as they please with the product. They can perform it live, but they also have other income streams that a cover band can't. Aside from selling recordings, they can sell the songs themselves. There are songwriters who make a decent buck without having to perform. I had the opportunity to work with a songwriter who sold about 1/2 dozen tunes to Windham Jazz for $5-8K a pop, per year. That's a pretty decent income, and more than most cover bands make in a year. I've also known folks who sold jingles, soundtracks, songs, etc. that paid more than most cover gigs. And even though many venues won't host or pay an original band, there are venues that won't ever host a cover band, and some of them are the biggest/best venues in town.

Really, I see it more as two different jobs in the same place. Sort of like waiters and cooks. Cooks are the songwriters, and the waiters are the performers. Sometimes a cook can wait tables, and a waiter may put together a dish in the kitchen. But, both of them are necessary to run a restaurant.
 
#419
jive1 said:
The problem is that you are comparing similar entities with different end products. The end product of an original act is their songs. The end product of a cover act is their performance. Now you do have some exceptions to these cases like cover bands that release albums (Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, Dread Zeppelin, etc) as well as original acts that focus more on their live show (Grateful Dead, Allman Brothers, etc.). But for the most part, the money maker for an original act will be their songs, and the money maker for a cover band will be their performance.

A cover band will be limited in that they don't own the songs they perform, so if they ever wanted to sell their versions, they would still have to pay a royalty to the original author. And for the cover bands that play note-for-note versions, sorry, nobody is going to buy your songs when they can get the original. For almost all cover bands, if they don't perform, they don't make any money. But, cover bands have the advantage in that the songs are already ones that people like, and makes it easier for them to get performance opporuntities. Which makes sense, since performance is their main product.

Sometimes we get into our 'bar band' mentalities, and fail to see how that scene is just a small part of the overall music scene. Sure in most bars, the cover band will reign supreme. But, outside of that, original acts can gain some ground because the main product of an original act is their songs. The songwriter owns the song, and they can do as they please with the product. They can perform it live, but they also have other income streams that a cover band can't. Aside from selling recordings, they can sell the songs themselves. There are songwriters who make a decent buck without having to perform. I had the opportunity to work with a songwriter who sold about 1/2 dozen tunes to Windham Jazz for $5-8K a pop, per year. That's a pretty decent income, and more than most cover bands make in a year. I've also known folks who sold jingles, soundtracks, songs, etc. that paid more than most cover gigs. And even though many venues won't host or pay an original band, there are venues that won't ever host a cover band, and some of them are the biggest/best venues in town.

Really, I see it more as two different jobs in the same place. Sort of like waiters and cooks. Cooks are the songwriters, and the waiters are the performers. Sometimes a cook can wait tables, and a waiter may put together a dish in the kitchen. But, both of them are necessary to run a restaurant.
Click to expand...

Very well put...

And like I said a few posts back. There is no right answer to the question asked in this thread (although some seem to think there is).

After all... It's only rock and roll (or country, pop, funk, disco, blues, gospel, jazz) but we like it.:bassist:
 
#420
jive1 said:
Really, I see it more as two different jobs in the same place. Sort of like waiters and cooks. Cooks are the songwriters, and the waiters are the performers. Sometimes a cook can wait tables, and a waiter may put together a dish in the kitchen. But, both of them are necessary to run a restaurant.
Click to expand...

I like your restaurant comparison except for one major flaw. You're implying that people who play original songs cannot be performers. Maybe a better comparison would be that people who perform originals cook the food and serve it while people who perform covers clear the tables and wash the dishes. Both are necessary to run a restaurant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back