The Real Reason Why Bands Play the Same Old Tired Covers

[jive1]

You get to a point in your musical career where you can either play what you hear or not. Why bands have to play a song over and over again to get it tight is beyond me. The point is, hours and hours of rehearsal aren't even needed if everyone does his job.

In this age, there's really no excuse for not listening and learning the material. I used to make copies of songs on cassettes for $1 each and physically give them to folks. Now, they can look it up on YouTube. I had to listen to each song for the changes, buy the book, or go to the library to make photocopies at 10 cents per page to make charts. Now, chord charts for songs are easy to get on the WWW and they are free. Even if they are wrong, you should be able to make the necessary corrections with a couple of listens. With all the free resources available to musicians, you have to be pretty lazy to not learn new material.

 

[two fingers]

In this age, there's really no excuse for not listening and learning the material. I used to make copies of songs on cassettes for $1 each and physically give them to folks. Now, they can look it up on YouTube. I had to listen to each song for the changes, buy the book, or go to the library to make photocopies at 10 cents per page to make charts. Now, chord charts for songs are easy to get on the WWW and they are free. Even if they are wrong, you should be able to make the necessary corrections with a couple of listens. With all the resources available to musicians, you have to be really lazy to not learn new material.

Agreed.

 

[Wolffgang]

I think one element of the equation people aren't talking about here is the bar staff; you can make the patrons dance all you want, but if the bar staff are sick of your schtick, the bar manager's never going to hear about it. What we've been consistently hearing from new and old venues is that they appreciate that we have the play the standards (Summer of 69, jessies girl,, sweet home, sweet child, bon jovi, midnight oil, boys light up, choirboys and so on [I'm Australian, so I think my standards are different]), but that they *really* appreciate us playing some different stuff because it helps keep them sane.

I think Jive's point is really easy to hyperbolise, and taken to that extreme I agree it's something to avoid; every time I've thought 'screw it, let's do something self-indulgent!' the cows-chewing-cud expression from the audience and the empty floor is enough to kill any enjoyment I was getting from playing the song. But that's not what Jive's saying. Know all the hits/standards whatever, be able to stand and deliver, but also take some pride in yourself as a musician and do a little more than the bare minimum and learn some more atypical, but still recognizable tunes too.

And I SO agree with twofingers; there are WAY too many bands around here that think they should just learn their 50 songs and let that be it. What kills me is that bands like that often don't fail immediately, if at all, so the practice gets reinforced, in them and everyone else.

 

[socialleper]

I still say its because of tired old audiences. They won't give up on the old stuff. The Boomers still think they are relevant.

 

[Wolffgang]

I still say its because of tired old audiences. They won't give up on the old stuff. The Boomers still think they are relevant.

I'm never going to defend stodgy, unchanging taste, but whatever does 'relevant' mean to you? If in 20 years, people are trying to tell me to stop enjoying Rammstein and Marilyn Manson and Rob Zombie and Devin Townsend, and whatever else I happen to like, because I should give up on the old stuff and stop pretending I'm relevant, I will tell those people to **** off. If they're just saying I should check out New Band X as well, I totally would.

 

[bigboy_78]

Exactly, I'm not talking about obscure covers or overly technical songs, I'm talking about hit songs that are dance tunes. There's a lot of them, and a lot of them are left on the table. We treat iconic Rock bands as if they were one hit wonders.

It's not so much that bands think "iconic rock bands" were one it wonders, its that alot of musicians seem to think that music stopped being created after the iconic rock band

21 year-old's do NOT do out to see live music - they prefer DJs... damn them!

How many DJ's play tracks from Iconic Rock Band? Problem is the "lazy muscians" never learnt to dance.

 

[jive1]

Know all the hits/standards whatever, be able to stand and deliver, but also take some pride in yourself as a musician and do a little more than the bare minimum and learn some more atypical, but still recognizable tunes too.

That's what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to be extreme in any way. If anything, I'm still being a sell-out.

And I SO agree with twofingers; there are WAY too many bands around here that think they should just learn their 50 songs and let that be it. What kills me is that bands like that often don't fail immediately, if at all, so the practice gets reinforced, in them and everyone else.

Back when live music was more in demand, you had to have a bigger catalog because you were playing several nights a week, and sometimes at the same place. You had to switch things around, not just for the audience, but for your own sanity.

And really, how hard is it to learn a pop tune? Lots of competent players can get the changes after a couple of listens. What is that, like 10-15 minutes, plus a few more to jot out some notes? Maybe spend a couple more hours to learn a few in depth? Is it really that much time and effort?

 

[jive1]

How many DJ's play tracks from Iconic Rock Band? Problem is the "lazy muscians" never learnt to dance.

That is so true, and why so often a tune that some musician thinks is danceable bombs. They don't dance themselves, so they don't know what to deliver.

 

[bigboy_78]

That is so true, and why so often a tune that some musician thinks is danceable bombs. They don't dance themselves, so they don't know what to deliver.

SRV version of Superstition .

 

[bumperbass]

Someone already said what I'm thinking. There are literally a thousand ('s?) songs from various decades that are totally recognizable, totally danceable, and would be fun to play. This is the most frustrating part.....PICKING THE SONGS! There ought to be a separate thread on here for this....IDEAS!
We struggle with this all the time, especially since we're 3-piece.
BTW, mellowinman, I suggested 'One Way Or Another' and it was as if everyone had ear plugs in and pretended to be deaf.

 

[FretNoMore]

Another reason could simply be that we actually like playing these songs, or at least like it when the audience is enjoying it, and that musically this is the skill level we're at. So sue us for having fun.

If you advertise what you're about your audience will also get what they came for, we don't get Bieber fans at the bars we play. When the poster says blues, boogie and classic rock we tend to get an older crowd that pretty much like the same music we do.

And no, we actually don't play Mustang Sally, unless it's requested and someone in the audience wants to sing it. Just being a bit of Devil's advocate here.

 

[socialleper]

I'm never going to defend stodgy, unchanging taste, but whatever does 'relevant' mean to you? If in 20 years, people are trying to tell me to stop enjoying Rammstein and Marilyn Manson and Rob Zombie and Devin Townsend, and whatever else I happen to like, because I should give up on the old stuff and stop pretending I'm relevant, I will tell those people to **** off. If they're just saying I should check out New Band X as well, I totally would.

I don't know what it is like in Australia, but here in the US the Baby Boomers (our post WWII generation) still think they can run the culture and politics of our nation from their recliners and retirement homes. They think the world ended after the Beatles broke up and nothing will ever be as good as everything they ever did. My generation and my kids generation only exist to buy the crap the companies they built sell.
When they were 20 or even 40 did they want to hear their folks music? Were they dying to hear Perry Como?
No, but that doesn't matter to them because by their reckoning the focus of history follows them, they are the star of the movie and the rest of us are their props.
But as long as they dominate the conversation, bands will have to play the "good music" they like at the car shows, county fairs, or whatever venue has human mp3 players recycling 50 year old music because that's the only way to make money anymore. But trust me no one my age or my kids age is saying "Mustang Sally again! ALRIGHT!" or "I haven't heard nearly enough KC and the Sunshine band!"

 

[Mike Sorr]

I disagree. These tired old tunes are the tunes the masses want to dance to. Hence me giving up on cover bands.

Bingo. I never cease to be surprised that the same old tired crap still gets a rise out of an audience. I mean, does anyone really need to hear another band's take on "Roadhouse Blues"? But every time...EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME a cover band plays that beaten to death song the crowd goes bananas. And that is just one example. All of the songs previously mentioned get the same enthusiastic reaction by all but any musicians that happen to be in attendance. We're the only ones thinking 'oh no, they're not really going to dust that off, are they?' There are certain songs that just never need to be played by another band, ever. Songs like "Paranoid", "Rock and Roll" and "Cat Scratch Fever". These songs were tired 30 years ago. But add a few shots of Jameson to a bar room and that is exactly the stuff that wins them over, no matter how many times or by how many bands they've heard play them before. It is monumentally frustrating.

 

[Wolffgang]

And really, how hard is it to learn a pop tune? Lots of competent players can get the changes after a couple of listens. What is that, like 10-15 minutes, plus a few more to jot out some notes? Maybe spend a couple more hours to learn a few in depth? Is it really that much time and effort?

Pop is fast becoming my favourite thing to play. Firstly, I'm only 25, so I don't dig on a lot of the classic rock on offer anyway, but even the stuff I do like, I find pop has more to offer. It allows to take back some of that DJ territory, the songs are generally REALLY simple (I mean that in a good way), and they're designed to be easily digestable even on a first listen. But my favourite thing is that they require some form of rearrangement; that can just mean redoing the synths in power chords, or it can mean taking it as far you want and getting really ornate. To me, it helps bridge the cover vs original gap a little and keeps things interesting.

 

[SuperK]

We also did Dazed and Confused for a time, but I've never seen audiences lose interest so quickly.

I can't even stay interested when I watch old videos of Zeppelin playing it!

Love Don't Let Me Down though. One of the most underrated Beatles tunes.

 

[Mike Sorr]

I don't know what it is like in Australia, but here in the US the Baby Boomers (our post WWII generation) still think they can run the culture and politics of our nation from their recliners and retirement homes. They think the world ended after the Beatles broke up and nothing will ever be as good as everything they ever did. My generation and my kids generation only exist to buy the crap the companies they built sell.
When they were 20 or even 40 did they want to hear their folks music? Were they dying to hear Perry Como?
No, but that doesn't matter to them because by their reckoning the focus of history follows them, they are the star of the movie and the rest of us are their props.
But as long as they dominate the conversation, bands will have to play the "good music" they like at the car shows, county fairs, or whatever venue has human mp3 players recycling 50 year old music because that's the only way to make money anymore. But trust me no one my age or my kids age is saying "Mustang Sally again! ALRIGHT!" or "I haven't heard nearly enough KC and the Sunshine band!"

Of course, there is this to consider:

 

[Wolffgang]

I don't know what it is like in Australia, but here in the US the Baby Boomers (our post WWII generation) still think they can run the culture and politics of our nation from their recliners and retirement homes. They think the world ended after the Beatles broke up and nothing will ever be as good as everything they ever did. My generation and my kids generation only exist to buy the crap the companies they built sell.
When they were 20 or even 40 did they want to hear their folks music? Were they dying to hear Perry Como?
No, but that doesn't matter to them because by their reckoning the focus of history follows them, they are the star of the movie and the rest of us are their props.
But as long as they dominate the conversation, bands will have to play the "good music" they like at the car shows, county fairs, or whatever venue has human mp3 players recycling 50 year old music because that's the only way to make money anymore. But trust me no one my age or my kids age is saying "Mustang Sally again! ALRIGHT!" or "I haven't heard nearly enough KC and the Sunshine band!"

Ah, I misunderstood you. Yeah to hell with all that. It's no problem if they think they should get to hear music they like, but that's where it ends. Doug Stanhope put it well that a lot of them think that 'their time', and by extension their music, was good; no, youth is good, and that's when you were young.

 

[FretNoMore]

I think it's bordering on arrogance to look down on the audience for liking what they like. It's a bar gig for crying out loud, not some fancy jazz concert. If you don't want to play what the audience wants to hear, and look happy doing it too, then you're on the wrong stage.

(Again, Devil's advocate )

 

[Wolffgang]

Bingo. I never cease to be surprised that the same old tired crap still gets a rise out of an audience. I mean, does anyone really need to hear another band's take on "Roadhouse Blues"? But every time...EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME a cover band plays that beaten to death song the crowd goes bananas. And that is just one example. All of the songs previously mentioned get the same enthusiastic reaction by all but any musicians that happen to be in attendance. We're the only ones thinking 'oh no, they're not really going to dust that off, are they?' There are certain songs that just never need to be played by another band, ever. Songs like "Paranoid", "Rock and Roll" and "Cat Scratch Fever". These songs were tired 30 years ago. But add a few shots of Jameson to a bar room and that is exactly the stuff that wins them over, no matter how many times or by how many bands they've heard play them before. It is monumentally frustrating.

If they're looking for an excuse to have a good time, and you're finding an excuse not to, who's really living more rock n roll?

 

[Wolffgang]

I think it's bordering on arrogance to look down on the audience for liking what they like. It's a bar gig for crying out loud, not some fancy jazz concert. If you don't want to play what the audience wants to hear, and look happy doing it too, then you're on the wrong stage.

(Again, Devil's advocate )

Dead on. I've been guilty of it for a long time, but I think I'm finally starting to age-out of it. There's this aloof affectation that so many musicians feel has to be a part of them, and it just helps nobody. It's ok to like both Zepplin and Gaga. You don't like Zepplin less because you also like something lesser. I'm not even going to say it's not lesser, just that 'lesser' doesn't mean 'worthless'. You know what? Summer of 69 is a poopy song. It's a song about faded glory days that was written theoretically while those glory days were still happening for its audience, which is just super confusing, but if it's a great shortcut to everyone in the room having an awesome time, what kind of douchebag would I have to be to think it's that bad? I care about the high, not the drug.