The Real Reason Why Bands Play the Same Old Tired Covers

[ZenG]

There is no "Top Forty" anymore......first you have to decide which of the dozens of genres you want your top forty from nowadays.

I play lots of the old stuff..........not because I have to but because I want to.

I like to rework then into modern adaptations. I find I liked a lot of the songs when they came out........but now my tastes have changed even though I still like the song itself.

I think there's a market for reworked and re-interpreted vintage works.

I have no problem playing today's hits.....if there was anything worth playing rock-wise that isn't technically formulaic juvenile rubbish ( sorry.....I didn't mean rubbish...I meant "noise")

Not knocking Beyoncé....but as an example ,she's the highest paid singer currently.......and nothing she sings remotely connects with me......ever.

Rap?......heard one you've heard them all......

"Country" is no longer about the music...it's all about making a star out of the person underneath the giant cowboy hat.

Punk/Metal?.......meh.......much ado about nothing.......

 

[jd-ns]

"Tired of the same old bands playing the same old tired tunes? Let's start something new/different and shake up this town!"

We've all seen these classifieds and why is it that in the end this concept never works yet the same old bands playing the same old tunes stay popular and busy? Hmmm...

 

[Jay Corwin]

I have noticed that rock guitarist types, specifically cover band guys rarely learn much past there early 20's. A lot of them get by with the same 5 or 6 licks you need to be in a rock band, and never bother to get any better....and I've played with a few.

 

[RabidMusic]

I don't play in public anymore, but when I go see other local rock/pop bands and talk to the musicians I notice 2 things....
1. Much of what they play are songs I was playing in the early 80's.
2. They get paid about the same amount that I was making in the 80's.

On the other hand, the country bands around me play a lot of new music.

 

[smogg]

I never said it did. What is it with you guys who read all this BS into my posts? Our set list largely has a good bunch of selections that are not played in this market. I don't need to get out more; in fact, I probably need to get out less, because the bar scene has nothing to offer me, as I do not drink, and have better things to do than hang out with people while they party.

So no need to apologize. I am fine, thank you.

That's it right there, that demographics thing again. Around here many bands claim they play "what the people want to hear" and then wonder why they don't get re-books. As someone stated earlier, they seem to just phone it in.

I literally (within the past 40 mins) just got off the phone with a venue that wants my rock band for a specific happening in December. To encourage us to take the gig they offered more cabbage than when we would do a "regular" show there plus a few small perks.

They want us because they expect to be at capacity all night and we do not play the "standards." They know we can and will hold the crowd all night while keeping the cash registers ringing. No brown eyed sally from Alabama needed at this show thank you.

 

[Ironbar]

Why does it have to one way or the other? Can't a band play the well-known hit as well as sprinkling in different material?

 

[buldog5151bass]

That was my point.

 

[mellowinman]

That was my point.

But that was MY point.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

I was going to post something similar, but I'll just be a lazy a$$ and quote your post and give you a +1.

Throw in a few songs for the band to keep things interesting, but you have to play what the crowd wants to hear and usually you have to play it better than the actual band plays it when they tour. Your yard stick with the crowd is how the song sounds on the jukebox, radio, iphone.

Yes, but to me the jukebox is the bar's till. This is the major place all bands are judged.

 

[RandalPinkFloyd]

I completely agree with Jive x 1000. I played in several cover bands and I see cover bands on a regular basis here in SCL because it seems that all the parties I go to here in SLC hire live bands. The age demographic of these parties and bars that I go to here is 21-35 with a few over 40's in the mix. Never hear Mustang Sally or Brown eyed girl, ever. Never played it in any of my cover bands and never had it requested. I've seen one cover band play Mustang Sally, the dance floor was EMPTY. The most popular cover band in this town doesn't play any Skynyrd, no Sally, no Brown Eyed Girl, no Summer of 69 and they pack the dance floor every Saturday night.

I'm sorry, I don't buy for one second that some 30 year old wants to hear Mustang Sally. This argument of "it's what the audience wants to hear" is a lame cop out. Cover band musicians don't like rehearsing and going through the effort to learn a tune correctly. So they fall back on playing these lame tunes with the weak excuse of "it's what the audience wants to hear." If you really believe that, you are completely out of touch with your audience. And considering most of the people that say this don't go out partying and bar hopping it doesn't surprise me. If you never partake in the scene as an audience member, then you have no idea what the scene wants.

 

[smogg]

Why does it have to one way or the other? Cant' a band play the well-known hit as well as sprinkling in different material?

It's not really about one way or the other. It's about not being indifferent (to put it nicely) Why do some musicians think the only song(s) people want to hear from Bad Co is Can't Get Enough, or Brown Eyed Girl by Van Morrison, or Gimme 3 Steps from Skynyrd? These great artists have multiple hits, it's OK to explore their catalogs.

IMHO the was the point of the OP.

 

[DWBass]

I'm sorry, I don't buy for one second that some 30 year old wants to hear Mustang Sally.

Who said that?

 

[Jay Corwin]

In my area there are different age ranges for the cover band scene, but they are all playing tired jukebox, top 40, whatever you want to call it. It just depends what era they from. We have the classic rock cover bands usually 45+, the modern rock/metal guys younger than that.

The smart classic rockers seemed to have jumped over to the modern country cover band which is the new standard for cover bands I guess. People around here love some terrible pop country garbage.

And then the latest trend I've seen is the 90's cover band spring up all over for people most likely of my generation ready to get nostalgic about their high school years.

 

[jive1]

Obscure to me means not charted. It's gotta be familiar to the masses. Sometimes a song may have charted but it's just not a great song to perform. Example: A band I was in, the BL wanted to do 'Lost In Music' by Chic instead of a more familiar tune like 'We Are Family', He's The Greatest Dancer' or 'I Want Your Love'! Why 'Lost In Music'? I just didn't get it. We played it a few times and folks just looked at us! We ended up learning and playing the others I mentioned and the floor stayed packed. Know your demographic and don't try to force music on them expecting them to like it.

When it comes to stuff that's charted, Billboard has been doing a Hot 100 since 1960. Which means that there are 5,000 tunes in that list. But, most bands will cover about 100 of those songs. And there's lots of songs that are left on the table that are rarely touched. For example, War has 7 songs that were on the Billboard hot 100 in the 70s, yet bands rarely cover their material. 'Me and Baby Brother', 'Slipping into Darkness', 'The Cisco Kid', 'Why Can't We Be Friends' are all recognizable and great dance songs and have been revived by TV and movies. But, bands rarely cover it. Some great material that's left on the table because they aren't 'standard'. A standard like 'Brickhouse' did not make the top 100 either, but 'Easy', 'Sail On', 'Sweet Love', 'Three Times a Lady', 'Lady You Bring Me Up', 'Night Shift', 'Oh No', and 'Still' have been, but most bands will cover 'Brickhouse' and forgoing anything else in the Commodores repertoire.

I think if people really look at what hit the Billboard charts, they'd be surprised with what's actually on there. Some 'charted' songs are pretty obscure in that they're not well remembered, and some that are popular never hit the charts. For example, the only song from Skynyrd that ever made the Hot 100 is 'What's Your Name'. 'Sweet Home Alabama' isn't on there. Neither is 'Mustang Sally'. You know what is on there? "New York Groove' by Ace Frehley, 'Only Women Bleed' by Alice Cooper, 'Key Largo' by Bertie Higgins, and a lot of truly forgotten hits that couldn't pass the test of time and stuff that wouldn't go over for a band. You know who's not on the Billboard top 100 at all? Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, and other iconic rock bands.


I know that the Billboard Hot 100 isn't the only chart. If you expand it other charts, even Frank Zappa had a top 10 album at one time and he actually had some radio hits, but I'm sure most folks would hear the name Zappa and say "it wouldn't go over" and it's probably true. But, if I heard a band play Zappa well I'd buy them a round, give them a tip, and relentlessly tell the bar manager that they need to rebook that band.

 

[Fretless1!]

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.

EXACTLY!

I just left a band for the exact reasons you listed. Old buddies of mine. Called me up saying they wanted to get together and learn new tunes and get out. Right.

Same old tunes, same old problems.

 

[RandalPinkFloyd]

Who said that?

mrpackerguy:

I would say more than 50% of the time, the sort of wrongly frowned on "unholy trilogy" of tunes, Brown Eyed, Sweet Home and Mustang, get requested after about an hour or two without fail, and almost exclusively by kids the bride and groom's age.

 

[jive1]

It's not really about one way or the other. It's about not being indifferent (to put it nicely) Why do some musicians think the only song(s) people want to hear from Bad Co is Can't Get Enough, or Brown Eyed Girl by Van Morrison, or Gimme 3 Steps from Skynyrd? These great artists have multiple hits, it's OK to explore their catalogs.

IMHO the was the point of the OP.

Really, that is my point. I'm really not talking about obscure tunes, self indulgent material, etc. I'm talking about hit songs, that are recognizable and easy to dance to that the crowd enjoys that's not one of the 'standard' tunes that every band does. I don't know why people keep bringing up obscure material or stuff that people don't want to hear. I'm the exact opposite of that. I just think people need to think beyond the box of 'standard' material and be willing to work on some material instead of reverting to stuff that you already know.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Again, I think you can have those tunes ready to go in case they get requested. But there is no excuse for not learning new songs, and when the BL says to learn a new song, there is no excuse for showing up at rehearsal (or gig) not knowing your part cold.

 

[ArtechnikA]

A standard like 'Brickhouse' did not make the top 100 either, but 'Easy', 'Sail On', 'Sweet Love', 'Three Times a Lady', 'Lady You Bring Me Up', 'Night Shift', 'Oh No', and 'Still' have been, but most bands will cover 'Brickhouse' and forgoing anything else in the Commodores repertoire.

As good a time as any to mention this since I haven't seen it mentioned before... In many of the cover bands I see - which is not a lot except at some higher-budget corporate affairs like Christmas parties - the weakest link is the vocalist. As much as I like Night Shift and 3 Times a Lady, vocalists of Lionel Ritchie's caliber are rare in the local scene...

How many of the Billboard Top 100 are instrumentals? I'm all for recasting popular tunes for the styles a particular band can pull off (yet, I agree, most don't...) but I think in a lot of cases it comes down to the range and style limitations of the singer.

 

[s0c9]

I don't play in public anymore, but when I go see other local rock/pop bands and talk to the musicians I notice 2 things....
1. Much of what they play are songs I was playing in the early 80's.
2. They get paid about the same amount that I was making in the 80's.

On the other hand, the country bands around me play a lot of new music.

I resemble that remark.. and now play bass in a country band.
Played lead guitar in my variety/rock band for 7 yrs. It survived thru most of the "crash years" 2008-2011 and fell apart when we lost our frontman for health reasons. We mostly made a pittance, working our a$$ off for maybe $60-75 a night (plus tips); constantly had to work venue management (how many people are you going to bring?) for repeat gigs; was lucky to get 3 gigs a month and IF we had 2 gigs on a weekend, they were at DIFFERENT venues. Sure we played the "standards", but as a variety band we also played blues, R&B, MJ (yes, Michael!) and some Country to boot!

3 yrs ago, the last frontman in the rock band (we went thru 3 or 4 in quick succession before the breakup) convinced me to learn 10 songs on bass - his country band leader (bass) had died in a car wreck and they were doing a "wake". 5 mins after I left the service I got a call asking me to joint the band on bass. We worked EVERY WEEKEND for MOST of 2012 (and I mean EVERY weekend), at the end of which there was a parting of ways (drummer and I) as they wanted to tour, and we both had jobs we wern't willing to part with.
Since Mid-2013 I've been with another country band. Both these bands play the "A" Country venues (Toby Keith's, Southern Junction, Cutters, etc.) in the region where the house band often opens for national acts; make a minimum of $125+ a night; play Fri AND Sat night at the same venue; get booked 6 months to a year out; and so on. No comparison to rock n roll. And PEOPLE DANCE when you play!!!

We play pop-country (Nashville Top-40), TX/Red Dirt and Classic country. Mostly TOp-40 so we constantly learn new material, probably adding up to 10 songs a month, depending on what's on the charts. And yes, Country music has it's own "unholy trinity" equivalents.