• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The Real Reason Why Bands Play the Same Old Tired Covers

I'm fairly up on Beatles tunes - but I had to look that one up to refresh my memory. Pretty straight blues song, not danceable, kinda depressing - not something I would want to hear a bar cover band play - maybe a blues band. Just my opinion.

Pretty straight blues song?

Every verse is in 4/4, and every chorus is in 6/8. There is a 1 beat gap every time you switch up. Most drummers fail miserably to duplicate Ringo's brilliant patterns in this song. Also, the I IV V goes to a flat III and flat VII, making for a very cool walking bass line. When the Dirty Mac played it with Keith Richards on bass, he didn't even try to duplicate McCartney's bass line.

So it's not very straight blues, and it has consistently gone over well for five years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DirtDog
Pretty straight blues song?

Every verse is in 4/4, and every chorus is in 6/8. There is a 1 beat gap every time you switch up. Most drummers fail miserably to duplicate Ringo's brilliant patterns in this song. Also, the I IV V goes to a flat III and flat VII, making for a very cool walking bass line. When the Dirty Mac played it with Keith Richards on bass, he didn't even try to duplicate McCartney's bass line.

So it's not very straight blues, and it has consistently gone over well for five years.

OK I listened to the whole thing again (been MANY years since I heard it) - yes as a musician it's interesting - but the normal cover band audiences around here wouldn't get it. Nobody but a musician would notice all the intricacies you pointed out. I'm glad it's going over for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obimark
I don't think there is one correct answer. If your bands are like mine, your members are all a little different in terms of what floats their boat. Some want to do songs they personally love, whether they just like the tune from their youth or they love singing or playing it. Some people like songs that get people singing along, or dancing. Some people want to play songs that get them noticed as a musician. Some people want the challenge of mastering a difficult tune.
I think that's pretty much it, but... if you want to be in a band that plays regularly, plays the "A" venues, makes decent $$ then it becomes a business, and too many forget that.
IMHO - it goes beyond what the "band" wants.. it's what the venues/management and their patrons want, it's what keep you employed. They are are not going to book bands that drive customers away.

We play some Country songs I can't stand, but they are crowd pleasers.. so we keep playing them. We play mostly top-40 Nashville "Pop-country" and try to keep up with the charts (lots of learning + song rotation there) and watch what works and what doesn't. Back when I played rock, I would go to venues and watch other bands when we were "off". That's hard to do when playing most weekends which we do now.. pays better, plays better, more gigs, etc. We rely on venue, fan and wait-staff feedback (plus our own observations) as to what works and what doesn't.
 
Kaplan should put Jive's OP in one of its SAT or GRE study guides for the reading comp section, because so many posters seemed to have missed his point when they say, "Yeah, but you gotta play tunes that people recognize." Jive never denied that. He wasn't saying to play obscure B sides and all of Rush's 5-part opuses in your set. His point was that there are still a ton of recognizable songs that artists have done that haven't been beat into the ground. Every band covers Sweet Home Alabama and Gimme Three Steps, but I've never seen anybody do Saturday Night Special or I Know A Little. Both of those songs should be recognizable to anyone who listens to any classic rock radio, and they are danceable.

Ancedotally speaking, I saw a band do such a thing about six months ago. They played stuff that was easily recognizable but 99% of bands don't touch - Born to Run by Springsteen, Blue Collar Man by Styx, even No Excuses by Alice in Chains. They killed on all of the material and the audience really dug it.
 
Not to start an originals vs. cover war with Jives thread but this is why I prefer originals. Covers are simply a way to play out, get gigs to make money...period. My creativity stops right there.
One reason I love music is to be able to create not to re-create old tired songs chicks and drunks like to dance to.

I can only play 3 steps and brown eyed girl so many times before I feel I'm doing it just to do it. Yes it gets gigs and money but the money has never be a big motivation for me. My last two good bands were originals with some covers that was creative and an outlet.
I have no issues with cover bands but never go see one no matter how good they are. For me to do covers there has to be an different angle like the band I'm in now where we play songs from the 40s ,surf, roaring 20s stuff most know but are not played out like dark town strutters ball.
Again this is my take and all the cover bands keep playing classic rock , 90s rock people do like it. I just need an outlet and originals fit the bill although original bands good ones are few and far between and are allot of work.

I'm in agreement with this.. I just don't feel anything when I try to play other people's music unless I helped create at least the bass lines to it. I almost always like the original version of a song better than a cover (Everything Dirty Loops does is excluded from this statement) - If I can't feel what I'm playing how can the audience feel it? I mean no disrespect to anyone in cover bands and I know people truly do enjoy playing music from their favorite bands and based on "what they think people like". But.. given enough effort.. people will know and possibly like the songs I've written as well.
 
I'm in agreement with this.. I just don't feel anything when I try to play other people's music unless I helped create at least the bass lines to it. I almost always like the original version of a song better than a cover (Everything Dirty Loops does is excluded from this statement) - If I can't feel what I'm playing how can the audience feel it? I mean no disrespect to anyone in cover bands and I know people truly do enjoy playing music from their favorite bands and based on "what they think people like". But.. given enough effort.. people will know and possibly like the songs I've written as well.

I hear you. I'm in a startup covers band and although its covers they are interesting covers I will say. I figured it was worth a shot with my limited time and limited market so I joined. With in a few weeks I have become more and more bored with this band. In fact we had to cancel the last two practices and I was happy.
The main difference is I just got back to my friend and former bandmates originals band. I have said here lately I would not play original music again since its hard and time consuming
But this fell right into my lap and I'm thrilled to be playing with him something I was hoping to do again and now have it.
Now my motivation for the originals band is sky high and I'm loving it! The covers band I'm on the fence with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jah Wobble Fan
The real reason why bands play the same old tired covers? Lazy musicians. Over the years, I have been surprised at how many musicians cannot put in the time to learn a tune. It could be that they don't have time, don't have the ability, don't want to learn one for whatever reason, think they can wing it, etc. But, in the end, they don't learn the tune, so we have to punt and do a tired-old cover instead because everyone already knows it.

There's lots of older, experienced musicians who still play the same stuff that they played decades ago and think that Bon Jovi is modern rock. There's guys who think they can wing it, and it can work until you get the bridge that follows a different chord progression. There's guys who think a song is just 3 chords, so they don't bother to learn the harmonies, dynamic changes, etc. because they think it's easy. Yes, it's easy, but you can still suck at it. There's players who don't even touch their instrument outside of a practice or gig. And I can go on and on about the various issues, but it still comes down to effort, and there's lots of musicians who won't put in the effort.

Luckily, in my current band through some lineup changes, we have folks who will actually learn a tune. What I've learned is that there's lots of covers that aren't being played that go over well. It's just that you need to spend a little time listening to the tune and learning it. And it's usually not a tune you learned in the garage 20 years ago. No-one specifically requests Brown Eyed Girl, Mustang Sally, Sweet Home Alabama, and lots of other tired covers from my band. Although we could do those tunes, none of them go over as well as the songs that lots of cover bands don't do that we do such as 'Impression That I Get' by the Bosstones or Reel Big Fish's version of 'Take On Me'.

And outside of my band, I've seen several examples too. Although 'American Girl' and 'Free Falling' by Tom Petty go over well, so does 'Running Down a Dream', 'Don't Do Me Like That', and 'The Waiting'. The way bands cover Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Skynyrd, and other iconic Classic Rock Bands, you'd think they only had 2-3 hit songs. But they actually had a bunch of them, but too many bands gravitate towards the 1-2 easiest songs they do. And even though Steely Dan had a bunch of radio hits, very few bands play their material because it takes some effort to learn. Actually, there's lots of hit songs that would go over well that are left on the table because people won't bother learning it.

Musicians put a lot of blame on the audiences, and sure they are part of the equation, but I don't buy it that it's the majority of the problem. The tired covers are like McDonalds, people eat there because it's convenient, cheap, and they know what to expect. But, it's rarely their favorite place to eat. I've heard plenty of musicians complain about apathetic audiences, but if you're being lazy and apathetic, they will pick up on that. Expecting audiences to be passionate about your apathy is pretty narcissistic and unrealistic, IMO. Although I've seen some non-tired covers clear a floor, I've seen so many of them work out well that I feel they are worthwhile doing. A song can be a hit, recognizable, and easy to dance to without being one that every band does.

In addition to lazy musicians, lazy and unimaginative promoters and booking agents contribute to the phenomena I call "same band, different name". Booking agents especially tend to be more conservative in their dealings and are loathe to take risks. For example, even though Modern Country has become mainstream and audiences are craving it, most booking agents will book another 80s-90s Rock cover band over a solid Country act.

Anyway, that's my rant.
My band does covers of the "tired old" variety but we also throw in things that are outside the top 500 you hear on classic rock radio. We just throw stuff out there that we like and see what the people throw back. If they like an out-of-the-box song or arrangement, it stays.
 
I see the merit of having a book of the standards everyone plays. I've had situations where musicians have cancelled on me the day before a gig, and I've had to pull out the easiest songs on the planet to get through without rehearsal. And with everyone being in multiple bands, it's almost a survival technique.

On the other hand, I see the merit of learning new songs. I'm a bit torn on this because I know you are right, but practicality tells me you need a good book of songs everyone knows just to get through some of those gigs -- particularly when you have a lot of them.

One thing though -- I find I, personally, am reluctant to learn songs when I have a group that has to haggle through the structure of the song, arrives at a consensus, then promptly forgets it for the next rehearsal. The ultimate structure is the one they settle into after playing the same thing (sometimes by chance) a few times. This makes me reluctant to learn new songs because the learning process, as a group, is so painful. And so, I tend to gravitate toward easy songs to lessen the pain.

Lately, with a new band startup I just got into, I've been providing everyone with charts and have thought through the structure. If the chart is strange in terms of structure, I've simplified it, but only if there is a youtube recording wit the same, simplified structure. This makes me more interested in learning new songs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Winfred
One thing I can say about deeper cuts. If they're good songs, and a band plays them well, and if that band builds a following that comes for return shows, the deeper cuts can become "signature" songs that the crowd actually wants from you. Maybe I've just been living under a rock, but Robin Trower was never on my radar and I don't think belongs in the "tired old standards" category. But the classic rock trio I joined last spring plays a couple of Trower tunes and there are some people who come out to see us specifically because we're the only band around that plays those songs. We also play Gimme Three Steps and Keep Your Hands to Yourself and stuff like that so the ladies dance. It's a matter of knowing when to play which.
 
Next time you're out, and a cover band plays Yer Blues, I Know a Little, Rock and Roll Hoochie Coo, or Miss You, do me a favor and videotape it. I have never, in all my 51 years, heard any of these songs in a bar.
One of my bands has 2 out of 4 covered;)

Ditto, although we just disbanded (again). That band was all about doing unconventional and odd songs that no one ever plays, though. It was a hoot, and people almost always dug it.

We did have a Neil Young/Lynyrd Skynyrd medley that ticked a guy off though, and he threatened to rearrange my bridgework over it. Fun times...
 
The formula remains simple. If you don't suck, you can play whatever you want, and people will enjoy you and come see you play. If you suck a little, you may have to cave on that "play whatever you want" thing, and hit some more common covers to help gain their affection. There is nothing wrong with that, and there is plenty of gray area for a legit practicing band to get and keep gigs. Don't, however, take that to mean that you are any better than any other cover band. Attention to detail is everything in a good cover gig, and if the essential pieces that make the song the song aren't in there, people will notice. Unless you are applying that kind of real scrutiny to your sound, you are in the "good enough" band category. There is nothing wrong with that, but when key parts aren't delivered properly it can make the difference between "man, you guys rocked" on the way out the door, and "We'll be at your next gig!" with your CD in their hand, on the way out the door. I think that is the kind of laziness Jive is referring when he says "good enough", isn't really. I kinda agree.
 
Our band is a really good classic rock band with some newer rock thrown in. Around here if you want to play the "A" circuit the dance floor better be full. While we don't do Brown Eyed Girl or Jessie's Girl, we kind of stick to harder edged stuff, we do play I Want You to Want Me. Packs the floor every time. We are a jukebox and there is no sense in trying to think otherwise. The bands don't matter. They are secondary. People dancing and buying drinks is all that counts to club owners no matter how good the band is. There are 50 bands trying to play in 10 - 15 clubs each weekend so competition is stiff. And we aren't trying to play every weekend. 30 years ago there would be line ups to get into see the top COVER bands. That is gone. We used to do stuff like EPIC by Faith No More, Alive by Pearl Jam and a few other a bit more obscure things and all that did was keep us from gigging. It is really kind of sad. We would gladly learn more "b" side stuff but sadly any new songs we learn get scrutinized with 2 questions....1) Was it a hit? 2) Can people dance to it? Answer no to either question and we don't learn the song cause basically it is a waste of everyone's time.

In short.....we are not lazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winfred and s0c9
Pretty straight blues song?

Every verse is in 4/4, and every chorus is in 6/8. There is a 1 beat gap every time you switch up. Most drummers fail miserably to duplicate Ringo's brilliant patterns in this song. Also, the I IV V goes to a flat III and flat VII, making for a very cool walking bass line. When the Dirty Mac played it with Keith Richards on bass, he didn't even try to duplicate McCartney's bass line.

So it's not very straight blues, and it has consistently gone over well for five years.

My last blues band did this one. I believe there's even a recording out there. Our drummer nailed it, even the tape splice part of the tune.

We always made fun of our drummer. He only owned four albums: Led Zeppelin I, II, III and the White Album. :cool:
 
That is gone. We used to do stuff like EPIC by Faith No More, Alive by Pearl Jam and a few other a bit more obscure things and all that did was keep us from gigging.

And "Epic" and "Alive" *were* hits, not obscurities. Cover bands doing oldies are already running uphill against the headwinds of current popular tastes. That repertoire has pretty niche commercial appeal if you don't make it danceable.
 

Latest posts