The Official Covers vs Originals Thread

[jive1]

I can recall one situation where going original would have been in the best interest of the band. When I lived in Colorado, I was in a Blues cover band. We did covers of Blues tunes, and an occasional original tune. Over time, we found that our fans liked our originals, so we continued writing. After a while, the fans liked our originals more than our covers, and often it was our original tunes that were requested. IMO, it was our originals that developed our following moreso than our covers. By playing them in our cover gigs, we could tell the ones that were keepers, the ones that needed work, and the ones that needed to go. After a while we had about a one hour set of covers. We had a following, and ins to places where we could do our original tunes. People wanted to buy CDs of our originals, but this was before you could produce one in your basement.

In the end, there was rift between doing originals and covers, and that broke up the band. Less than a year later, I heard a great new band on the radio that sounded eerily alot like our band. It was the North Mississippi All Stars.

 

[jive1]

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.

Never said that a cook can't serve the food as well. It's not uncommon in some small mom and pops. Even in a real fancy place, it's not uncommon for the chef to come out to greet the guests personally, and bring a special treat.

 

[bassbully]

Good points Jive...I agree. There is plenty of room for both and both are big for the scene anywhere.

In my area originals music is doing well better than most cover markets but the pay is low or none for many.

An originals bands product is their songs and like you said they can be sold or used in movies etc. There are bands who have done this around here and one from our area who sold a song nationally and did quite well. Oh and that other band that has all it's songs all over TV today

 

[ChrisB2]

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.

I like your comparison except for a few massive flaws. You're implying that originals guys create and perform ALL the music, everyone who hears it likes it and buys it, and all that cover guys do is come along afterward and roadie for the band, fold up the chairs and mop up the spilled beer.

Maybe a better comparison would be that cover guys prepare dishes invented by others using tried-and-true recipes, serve them to eager customers who already know they like it and pay good money for it, while originals bands make up goofy dishes no one ever heard of, force it on each other because no one else wants to eat it, and set themselves up in their own minds as superior to "copy-cat" cooks because, while their stuff is undesirable, at least it's "original."

 

[Bert Slide]

Music fans are like restaurant patrons on the highway. Some are content with the sometimes bland, predictable cuisine of the big chains that homogenize every exit nowadays. Other prefer to seek out new and unique dining experiences even if it means driving a little farther off the beaten path.

 

[ChrisB2]

To anyone who thinks I'm being rude or disrespectful, please understand that IMO this topic is like comparing apples and oranges and really doesn't make sense. If you haven't read the whole thread or forgot, you can see my true opinion here: Real Opinion

Funny thing is, posts like that one go unnoticed because it seems we're more entertained by the mud slinging. Makes sense?

I usually make posts like my previous one in response to what I consider are posts that make an unfair, erroneous, or snide comparison toward cover bands.

Really. Do originals, do covers, do neither, do both. Go fly a kite! Who cares??? Just keep the mud coming, I'm having fun!

 

[bassbully]

No matter what your view is the idea of a cover band going anywhere but local maybe regional is just what it is. Not that it's a bad thing and it can be one reason people who prefer covers do them.

New and original music is what set's the music industry...not cover bands.
Some Original artists sell their songs as do some bands that are looking to sell their songs hoping for a big hit and it motivates some to do it. You wont get this playing covers or a chance of it happening later down the road even if the band is no more.

The #1 thing I am missing playing more covers now than in my past band is creativity and the unknowing of what my old bands music might of done if we continued. I know where the band I'm in now is going and it's good but not very exciting.

 

[ChrisB2]

Music fans are like restaurant patrons on the highway. Some are content with the sometimes bland, predictable cuisine of the big chains that homogenize every exit nowadays. Other prefer to seek out new and unique dining experiences even if it means driving a little farther off the beaten path.

See? While this seems like a very innocuous post, just the word choices, whether intentional or not, indicate a bias against cover bands.

Cover bands: bland fare available everywhere that people settle for out of convenience, predictability, and/or just because they're dull.

Originals bands: new and unique experience worth seeking out by those adventurous, exciting few.

We can make these comparisons all day long, and they will always contain the bias of the poster. Let me add a few:

Florist comparison by cover guy: originals bands are like a florist who creates lots of stupid looking arrangements that smell bad and give to each other since no one wants to buy them, while cover guys make beautiful copies of beautiful arrangements designed by others and sell them for a profit.

Florist comparison by originals guy: cover bands make dull and boring bouquets that everyone has seen for years and sell in big chain stores for 5 bucks, while originals guys are out there creating new and exciting arrangements the world has never seen that the big chains will copy when they finally become popular.


Electronics firm comparison by cover guy: originals bands are like an electronics firm that struggles always making goofy products no one wants, selling them to each other because that's the only way they can be viable, and still going under, while cover guys are like a solid company making products people want to buy for a good profit and growing steadily over the years.

Electronics firm comparison by originals guy: cover bands are like an electronics firm that copies others' ideas, undercutting the original designer, using cheap labor to rip off others' creativity while originals bands are like an electronics firm that is always coming up with the new ideas, and while they struggle to compete they are providing the technology of the future.





We also read them with our own biases, so any comparison that contains a bias against our own will have an amplified negativity, causing another, potentially stronger negative reaction. It's a debate made in heaven!


....and the forum registers ring!!

 

[SteveHeissner]

If I could earn more $$ doing originals than covers I'd do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I lack the talent and creativity to write great original material. So I play covers. It beats playing in my garage or basement. That said, if you can write and perform original material that people love and you're in demand and getting paid well to do it... Well, that's got to be the ultimate buzz.

 

[bassbully]

See? While this seems like a very innocuous post, just the word choices, whether intentional or not, indicate a bias against cover bands.

Cover bands: bland fare available everywhere that people settle for out of convenience, predictability, and/or just because they're dull.

Originals bands: new and unique experience worth seeking out by those adventurous, exciting few.

We can make these comparisons all day long, and they will always contain the bias of the poster. Let me add a few:

Florist comparison by cover guy: originals bands are like a florist who creates lots of stupid looking arrangements that smell bad and give to each other since no one wants to buy them, while cover guys make beautiful copies of beautiful arrangements designed by others and sell them for a profit.

Florist comparison by originals guy: cover bands make dull and boring bouquets that everyone has seen for years and sell in big chain stores for 5 bucks, while originals guys are out there creating new and exciting arrangements the world has never seen that the big chains will copy when they finally become popular.


Electronics firm comparison by cover guy: originals bands are like an electronics firm that struggles always making goofy products no one wants, selling them to each other because that's the only way they can be viable, and still going under, while cover guys are like a solid company making products people want to buy for a good profit and growing steadily over the years.

Electronics firm comparison by originals guy: cover bands are like an electronics firm that copies others' ideas, undercutting the original designer, using cheap labor to rip off others' creativity while originals bands are like an electronics firm that is always coming up with the new ideas, and while they struggle to compete they are providing the technology of the future.





We also read them with our own biases, so any comparison that contains a bias against our own will have an amplified negativity, causing another, potentially stronger negative reaction. It's a debate made in heaven!


....and the forum registers ring!!

Humm..... funny nobody in my old originals band felt this way.
We used to love throwing in and jamming covers and all but the founding drummer came from a covers band background.

Those guys and I just wanted more to try our shot at doing our thing. It was great and no cover band will get me the exposure and enjoyment that I got in 4 years of that band.

How do I know this? I have done both bands for 11 years and the 4 years in the originals band will be almost impossible to top now that I'm 51...sad but true

 

[Bert Slide]

See? While this seems like a very innocuous post, just the word choices, whether intentional or not, indicate a bias against cover bands.

Cover bands: bland fare available everywhere that people settle for out of convenience, predictability, and/or just because they're dull.

Originals bands: new and unique experience worth seeking out by those adventurous, exciting few.

Wow! You really get it! Funny thing is I am in two cover bands now and a third in the works. I KNOW cover bands are cheesy and I'm not about to try and glorify being in one. I enjoy playing covers and the fans are nice people but you can't really discuss music with them, at least anything not totally mainstream. God love 'em but some of them get real excited when they tell me they have tickets for the upcoming Journey or Kansas show or whatever other geriatric rock band needs money to resupply their drug cabinet.

Let's face it, rock music ceased to be relevant decades ago and it's all just a nostalgia trip anyway.

 

[jumblemind]

The Originals vs Covers is so funny to me. I think about how Bob Dylan caused an uproar when he moved away from covers (aka traditional/standards) to start playing originals. Music is music, as he said.

I play in both, and appreciate both. I pretty much do the same thing in both bands. I take a song someone else wrote and play it the best I can, contributing to changes in the arrangement, ending, etc. I was once at a bar where some guy was mouthing off to my friends about how lame cover bands were, and one girl just kept giggling awkwardly. Finally he turns to me and says, "let me guess, you're in a cover band?" He plays guitar for some other dude's original tunes project, and he admitted, "well, I guess I just play other people's music, too."

 

[jumblemind]

Let's face it, rock music ceased to be relevant decades ago and it's all just a nostalgia trip anyway.

Kind of. I get the point, especially in view of the soul revival, garage rock revival, etc. But, we need to move beyond the notion that rock has to be culturally relevant in order to be valid. Nick Hornby said it's easy to look at the Beatles and be like "look how important they were, they changed so much" when in reality they came around at a time when everything was changing in drastic ways, and they and other bands of the time are permanently associated with it. That kind of cultural upheaval doesn't sustain itself, so rock can't always be culturally important the way it once was. Music is still hugely important to people, just in different ways that don't manifest themselves publicly the way they once did.

 

[antonspon]

My worst time was with a band that insisted on playing note perfect imitations of whatever was the current week's hit parade - anal, frustrating, boring and pointless: might as well have a band miming to the CD! I love playing in a blues-rock band - we play 50/50 own material and covers, but blues standards can be "covered" without having to copy, so we can put our own stamp on everything we do without folks complaining that it doesn't sound like the original. Win-win scenario!

 

[pklima]

No matter what your view is the idea of a cover band going anywhere but local maybe regional is just what it is. Not that it's a bad thing and it can be one reason people who prefer covers do them.

Yeah, definitely. Years ago I knew a couple of guys in an originals band that went somewhere. They had jobs at Apple and quit them so they could tour on another continent. One of them got a job delivering pizzas instead.

That's when I realized there's no way in hell can I afford to play in an originals band that goes somewhere. A few years later the same guy got a job at a TV station, but was fired via text message while in the studio. The band did last around 15 years and four albums.

I eventually ended up in an originals band because, hey, it was the easiest gig ever. I replaced a didgeridoo player, and it's hard to ask for simpler bass parts. But I quit when they did an album and started touring internationally.

Let's face it, rock music ceased to be relevant decades ago and it's all just a nostalgia trip anyway.

I will say this: if I had an artistic soul and was into writing music I wouldn't be playing in an originals band. I'd be an electro house DJ.

 

[bluewine]

Kind of. I get the point, especially in view of the soul revival, garage rock revival, etc. But, we need to move beyond the notion that rock has to be culturally relevant in order to be valid. Nick Hornby said it's easy to look at the Beatles and be like "look how important they were, they changed so much" when in reality they came around at a time when everything was changing in drastic ways, and they and other bands of the time are permanently associated with it. That kind of cultural upheaval doesn't sustain itself, so rock can't always be culturally important the way it once was. Music is still hugely important to people, just in different ways that don't manifest themselves publicly the way they once did.

Your right, and I miss that scene so much. It’s probably why I’m so frustrated with many band issues.

Like you said, it’s not important any longer and it’s not cool anymore.

My band played to a packed club in Fort Atkinson Saturday Night, everybody was drinking and dancing and carrying on. But there was no scene, no rock vibe. And if you weren’t around in the 60s and 70s it’s almost impossible to explain how it used to be.

It got me so down, I was walking to my car that night for something during a break after a high energy set and some young woman that was outside of the bar asked ; Who are you?

I looked back at her and replied; “ Nobody” because that’s exactly what I felt like.

blue

 

[bassbully]

Your right, and I miss that scene so much. It’s probably why I’m so frustrated with many band issues.

Like you said, it’s not important any longer and it’s not cool anymore.

My band played to a packed club in Fort Atkinson Saturday Night, everybody was drinking and dancing and carrying on. But there was no scene, no rock vibe. And if you weren’t around in the 60s and 70s it’s almost impossible to explain how it used to be.

It got me so down, I was walking to my car that night for something during a break after a high energy set and some young woman that was outside of the bar asked ; Who are you?

I looked back at her and replied; “ Nobody” because that’s exactly what I felt like.

blue

Try being in an originals band then you can really feel like a nobody

I did however get the biggest thrill when somebody bought a CD or said they loved the music ...we play the CD all the time. Yea? just wish there was 500,000 more of you saying the same thing

FWIW Blue remember what I said nobody notices tha bass player or cares.

 

[The Sloth]

I will say this: if I had an artistic soul and was into writing music I wouldn't be playing in an originals band. I'd be an electro house DJ.

If you had creative soul you'd be proudly pumping out the most soulless music mankind has ever cooked up?

 

[pklima]

Absolutely. One of my favorite classic songs to cover is 2 Unlimited's "No Limit". In addition to playing bass, I also do the rap verses, including the one that ends with "I'm making techno and I am proud". Electro house is quite soulful by comparison.

Though I would probably make some vocal trance on the side too.

 

[MarkMgibson]

I still say it's all about songwriting, and whether you (or someone in your band) is capable of writing truly good songs. I've written over a 100 songs (and those are just ones I thought good enough to write down), but there's only about 10 which I ever play live (though not all on in one gig). Out of those, maybe 3 or 4 would be good enough to put on an album (maybe), but none would be good enough to release as a single. I bet many members here fall into that same category. I'll always write songs because I enjoy it, but I don't kid myself that I have any talent.

If you can write songs, or can hook up with somebody who can, then I wish you all the best, and I hope to buy your records one day. For 99% or musicians, it will never happen though, as writing truly great songs is the single most difficult thing in music. If it were easy, we'd all have record deals and be recording great albums.

I mostly (well, nearly always) play other people's songs because I can't write anything better. Some of you younger guys who sneer at cover bands might think a bit differently after years of getting nowhere playing average originals. I also think some people have a narrow view of what very good cover bands do. I don't play songs "note for note", nor do I play the typical 100 songs that some cover bands do. There's a million great songs out there, and you can be very creative in how you choose, arrange and play them.

Sure, there's plenty of boring cover bands who play boring crap with no imagination, but the same thing is true of many original bands. For those who love playing original music no matter what, then that's great and more power to you. I just enjoy being on a stage entertaining people playing music that I love. As to who wrote it, I couldn't care less.