What exactly does it mean to play "covers"

[DavC]

play whatever you want ...

i come from an era of 45 records , radio versions , LP versions , live versions ... they where all different in some ways .. especially Live ... whatever i play will get a bit of 'me' all over it ... folks came to see ' me ' or ' my band ' play ... we where never 'tribute ' bands ... but i do understand and agree that some important 'licks' are a MUST ..!

 

[Sixgunn]

1. I am not better than Paul McCartney; I cannot make a Beatles song any better than it already is.

I am and I can

 

[Mudcat35]

For the most part, I play in cover bands. I haven't played in a purely original band in maybe 20 years, by choice. That having been said, when I'm covering a song, if there are signature bass licks in a song that are immediately identifiable by the audience, I'll play those note-for-note. Otherwise, I play like me, with the intent being to put my stamp on it but still capture the spirit of the song. It usually works out fine. A few years ago, a band I was in covered the Marshall Tucker Band's "Can't You See". We often had people come up after the set and say "man, that sounds JUST LIKE THE RECORD". Well, no it didn't. It really sounded NOTHING like the record. But what it did do was to capture the spirit of the song and it was a damn fine version of the song. People loved it, danced to it, and were entertained by the presentation. At that point, who really cares if it's note for note?

 

[Biggbass]

as Simon Cowell says,
If you're going to cover someones song then take ownership of the performance and make it your own. Otherwise it's karaoke. I would agree with that if your intention is to be the cream that rises to the top. If you're in the game to entertain people in clubs and bars and help fuel the bar's cash register then sticking to the original arrangement is a good idea, but you don't have to play note for note. And, obviously, the vocals are going to be your biggest challenge in pulling off covers effectively. So do what you can with the songs to keep them in your wheelhouse of skill sets, both instrumentally and vocally, and you should be able to do a good job of them and keep the audience partying with you, with or without attention to original recording details.

 

[electracoyote]

You can either create an exact duplicate of the original or a version with your spin on it. If you try to split the difference it looks like you didn't bother figuring out either.

I have heard bands where two or three players decided to be very faithful to the original most-popular hit version, and then a couple other players decide to put their own spin on it. The combination of the two mentalities almost never sounds good to my ears.

 

[socialleper]

I disagree. I put my own spin on 95% of the songs my band plays but I DO use the foundation of the original bass line. This is vital IMHO. Especially in songs where the bass line is one of the identifiers of the song I.E. Money - Pink Floyd, Mystery Achievement - The Pretenders, Badge - Cream, etc.

You can use the sources foundation and still "make it your own."
The bane of most cover bands is that they don't have the talent/gear/people to do a mirror cover, or the creativity to do something of their own with it. Most of the cover groups I see at fairs, car shows, restaurants, bars, etc suck something awful because 1.) their set list is as old as they are; and 2.) they are half-@$$ing the songs. Their "spin" is apparently is: song + Valium + dippy hats and Hawaiian shirts.

 

[Liam Wald]

If you're playing covers in an original band you should make it your own. If you're playing in a covers band play the hits as they have been established. Playing the songs "correctly" to the listeners will assure more work.

No offense intended but I think that "listeners" are more sophisticated than you seem to be giving them credit for being.
I believe that most people have the critical listening skills to appreciate originality even in "covers" that are skillfully rearranged.
Whether or not something is done "correctly" is certainly debatable. One might argue that there are many originals that could be accused of not being played "correctly" to begin with.

 

[StyleOverShow]

Interesting that all the regular jazz covers are called standards, but when a jazz group does material from any other genre it's a cover.

Yup, Jazz standards refer to the book(s) and not the version/artist interpretation. Years ago I noticed that live music was different than recorded, even when I was backing the original artist.

It's almost cliche to say that less experienced players think that copying baselines is better than drifting or riffing on the groove.

Licks are another thing, you gotta play them but in the verse or looking to fill in for a drummer who doesn't have a strong kick or left hand, you can, in my book, adjust to the situation.

 

[jmlee]

Now *this* is a cover version!

 

[tjh]

.. the signature lick is about all I ever try to get accurate ... other than that, I am not going to be playing with the same musicians as on the recording, so I will always be looking to adapt/fit better with what everybody else on my stage is playing ...

 

[groucho]

If there's any instrument you can take liberties with , it's the bass. (regarding mainstream rock)
As many say - Need that "signature lick" but otherwise....
You don't want to play Pink Floyd's "Money" any other way.
That said - Only other bass players will call you out for "straying"!
I saw a cover band do JA "Somebody to Love" and the guy slaughtered the Jack Casady part
and played a one string lame Goober version. I was the only one there that noticed or cared.
I labor like a Torah scholar to do Entwistle parts in our Who songs faithfully, but I doubt
the audience notices. It makes ME happy though.

 

[mikeyjm2]

FWIW, I tend to fall into the camp that thinks note for note reproduction of a song belongs in the realm of "tribute" and not covers...

Count me in that camp too. I nearly always put my own spin on a bassline (to varying degrees). Sometimes I do it because it's about impossible to fully distinguish the original but sometimes I just do what I think sounds best in the band situation I'm in.

EDIT: Agreed with the comments about signature licks. I do make it a point to nail those as recorded.

 

[cheechi]

You have to be careful. For example, when I play various Beatles songs, I really try to play the songs not-for-note for the following reasons:

1. I am not better than Paul McCartney; I cannot make a Beatles song any better than it already is.
2. Sometimes I really want to respect the music (and artist) I am playing.
3. Not playing the song exactly can come off as lazy; like not bothering to take the time to learn it correctly.
4. I find when I learn songs note-for-note, I might learn something. Perhaps find a new way of doing something. Maybe even become a better player from it.
5. You don't want audience members to think something sounds 'weird' or 'off'.

I agree with 95% of this. I will give you an example where I disagree with you. When I play Get Back I play more than just straight quarter notes it's more a combination of the bass, rhythm, and key part. I like it, guys I play with like it, it's certainly not the original bass line but it fits well with how we play the song. I have a Höfner copy but I play my P for that song, it fits in the mix better.

I am also not better than Paul. I like his song great but I enjoy playing it better 'our' way as I didn't come up with this all on my own. I also think the bass line he wrote is easier to sing along to than the way I play it. Luckily I never get asked to sing. Then it would sound weird and off.

I would never play Money with any kind of original spin to it, perfect how it is. But I do play more of a rhythm guitar part for many other Floyd songs we jam. Especially later albums where there's a lot of bass keyboard type stuff in the empty spaces so I just play those.

 

[squirefan]

If you can cover a song and give it mass appeal equal to or better than the original, that is awesome. Linda Ronstadt made a whole career out of it.

And Joe Cocker. The man was a genius!

 

[Nev375]

I don't like listening to bands that do things note for note. I much prefer a band with its own unique sound that is able to strip a song down to its very core and rebuild it back again in their own sonic image and style.

 

[Kmonk]

My feeling has always been that if you are in a cover band you should try to play note for note. People want to hear songs the way they know them. They don't care about a local cover band's interpretation or arrangement. If you are a famous musician, you have earned the right to create your own arrangement and people will usually like it because you already have a body of well known work.

 

[electracoyote]

And Joe Cocker. The man was a genius!

Exactly. If you and your band can pull off amazing arrangements that reach out and grab audiences like that, I say go for it.

Usually, there is a central arranger, a conductor music director type, who makes those things happen.

 

[electracoyote]

My feeling has always been that if you are in a cover band you should try to play note for note. People want to hear songs the way they know them. They don't care about a local cover band's interpretation or arrangement. If you are a famous musician, you have earned the right to create your own arrangement and people will usually like it because you already have a body of well known work.

Agreed.

A lot of musicians are bored with the most popular version. From some musicians' perspectives, you need to take creative license and re-write parts just because.

Audiences don't always think like musicians.

If the band can't improve on the most popular version, and if you run the risk of tarnishing it, you are rolling the dice with the audience.

 

[Odinbass]

One of the best things about being a bassist is you can generally just learn the chord changes and feel out your own part; no need to go note for note. Of course there are exceptions, like when the bass is playing a lead or very particular riff.

 

[dalkowski]

I would much rather prefer to hear -- not to mention play -- covers with some license taken. Providing the performance doesn't suck. But even THAT to me isn't as bad as trying to be note-faithful and sucking.

I remember a Stones tribute band (Ladies and gentlemen, the Blushing Brides!) that were very faithful BUT effectively put their own little spin on "Shattered."

I play in a jazz/blues trio and it gives me fits when our leader says, "On the record, they play it like..." It especially bugs me because some of our best songs are ones that we've mashed up uniquely or otherwise put our own stamp on.

Oh, and +1 to "nail the signature lick."