Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I agree 100% with this. By definition a tribute band must strive for a look and sound as close to the originals as possible. Anything else is simply not enough. Like it or not, if a tribute band can't pass muster both visually and sonically to give the audience the full illusion of actually experiencing the originals, then they must either adjust accordingly or move on. Conversely, as yet another TB'er alluded to earlier, even original artists often fail to realize the note-for-note perfection per their own recording for any number of reasons, so there should be no problem with achieving great sound and corresponding audience response for a cover done well but not necessarily in lock-step with the original recording. A band simply has to be self-critical enough to know when their "Sound-Fu" is good or when it doesn't quite cut it and be prepared to shelve or discard tunes from their repertoire accordingly. The song's total end sound is either good, bad, or indifferent, and if it's either of the latter two then it has to go, at least until it shapes up, regardless of what it takes. Holding onto "pet songs" that some band member loves even when the stink surrounds them is the mark of rank amateurs. The difference between a really great cover band and "all others" lies in the ability of the entire working unit to recognize the good, the bad, and the ugly and make the necessary adjustments.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
- Sep 5, 2014
- 5,455
- 4,234
- Disclosures
- None
Yep, by definition, anyone who calls themselves a tribute band _must_ do whatever you say and fit all the qualifications you state. if they don't meet your satisfaction, they don't pass "muster" and _must_ "move on" because they have failed your little talent show requirements. Thanks for the audition!
Whatever are we on TB going to do without your approval? Because obviously, you make the rules.
Shall I move on? What will happen if I don't? Would you prefer I show you my papers?
Full illusion indeed.
I'm going to ignore this little tiff here 
and say I do what I want when it comes to covers. If I think the song sounds best by sticking to the original part or close to it, I'll do it. If I think it sounds best for us by doing something different, I'll do that, too. I ain't in a tribute band.
and say I do what I want when it comes to covers. If I think the song sounds best by sticking to the original part or close to it, I'll do it. If I think it sounds best for us by doing something different, I'll do that, too. I ain't in a tribute band.
There was a thread about this, half a year ago called "learning covers note for note". What you gain from it. There are even people around who thinks improvised solos within the song should be note for note even if the original band/artist never played it that way. Otherwise it isn't a cover. I am not one of them. And on top of this, no one in the audience could give a ... Now, what the audience care about MORE is that one nailed the actual timbre of the sound/song. That you have the same sound on bass, especially keyboards, reverb on vocals, guitar sound and so on. If you've nailed that one down, you can stray pretty much away from "original note for note" and still the audience would go "wow, that sounded exactly like...". However, musicians in the audience are the only ones who hears the difference anyway.
Me myself has started to play more of these "sit in jams" in town where they play a known tune. I found that 9 out of 10 times, the bassist havent got it, they actually don't know the tune, in spite of them knowing the form (which is easier). I've always thought that "Hey, but the song doesn't go like that..." i e the bass player hasn't got a clue. So I made sure that I learned the bass lines properly to most of those fake books, and top 40 and classic standards that everybody wants to play. Even the cheesy ones. You can't play with a funky thump, and modern high tech sound (slappign away) on say "I got you (I feel good)" by James Brown. And the guitar should just whack a staccato chord every second bar, and so on. So the arrangement is more important than note for note so to speak.
Me myself has started to play more of these "sit in jams" in town where they play a known tune. I found that 9 out of 10 times, the bassist havent got it, they actually don't know the tune, in spite of them knowing the form (which is easier). I've always thought that "Hey, but the song doesn't go like that..." i e the bass player hasn't got a clue. So I made sure that I learned the bass lines properly to most of those fake books, and top 40 and classic standards that everybody wants to play. Even the cheesy ones. You can't play with a funky thump, and modern high tech sound (slappign away) on say "I got you (I feel good)" by James Brown. And the guitar should just whack a staccato chord every second bar, and so on. So the arrangement is more important than note for note so to speak.
If the band isn't going for a different arrangement, then I usually try to stick very close to the original bass line. I do make allotments for things I can't play cleanly, or that feel weird when I play them. It has to feel good to me or chances are it won't feel good to anyone else. So if you really don't feel a particular line, don't play it. If your band mates miss it they will, or should, let you know.
Sometimes there is an opportunity to practice something that at first feels odd, and come to a new understanding where you can at least feel how it worked originally. You may then still feel like it's not a good line, but at least you've widened your ears and brain a little bit.
Sometimes there is an opportunity to practice something that at first feels odd, and come to a new understanding where you can at least feel how it worked originally. You may then still feel like it's not a good line, but at least you've widened your ears and brain a little bit.
Didn't read the whole thread because this caught my eye - the feeling that reproducing "the original" can come out feeling wrong. I totally agree. In my view, there really is no such thing as "the original." There's just a particular recording of a particular version of the song that the producer or record company wound up deciding was the one they were going to focus on selling. Yes, it's probably the best-known version and the audience expects to hear something like it, but that's not the same thing as saying you need to play it note-for-note. If you listen to live versions of the same song by the same musicians, it turns out they often played it differently themselves once they got out on the road and found what worked and what didn't in a live setting. If the guys that first recorded it don't need to play it note-for-note, why should another band do so?
Also, often the instrumentation you have in a cover band is not exactly the same as what the original band had. If you had a 70s act with six or seven members and you're playing one of their songs in a power trio, you can't pick what just one of them played and reproduce that one part - you'll be missing huge elements of the song. You HAVE to ask how to play the song now, in THIS group, in front of THIS audience, that will make it work - not how to be a relic of one past version of the song that you've made a fetish of.
I'd put it the other way around. If you can create your own arrangement and come up with a version that people really like, you may be on your way to becoming a famous musician. Cart, meet horse.
First off- nobody in ANY band is playing ANY song note-for note as recorded-(not even Geddy or Geezer).
That would mean every grace note, every bend, every fill, every piece is exactly where it was on the record. This onlys work for VERY simple basslines.
What most people are playing is the main signature bass lines as close as they can and the recognizable bass fills.
I always do that and then throw in my own fills as well or improvise them on the spot. For instance if a song pedals on open A eighth notes, I will slide up and play some octave notes at the 12th fret to provide interest at the end of every four bars or before changing into the chorus. The original AC/DC song did not have this but even Cliff Williams expands his lines live.
If a song goes G to C- I will walk up to the C, whether ZZ Top's bassist did it or not. Noone has ever complained yet.
The only caveat is not to get too busy on a song that doesn't need it, unless you are doing a complete re-interpretation of it.
That would mean every grace note, every bend, every fill, every piece is exactly where it was on the record. This onlys work for VERY simple basslines.
What most people are playing is the main signature bass lines as close as they can and the recognizable bass fills.
I always do that and then throw in my own fills as well or improvise them on the spot. For instance if a song pedals on open A eighth notes, I will slide up and play some octave notes at the 12th fret to provide interest at the end of every four bars or before changing into the chorus. The original AC/DC song did not have this but even Cliff Williams expands his lines live.
If a song goes G to C- I will walk up to the C, whether ZZ Top's bassist did it or not. Noone has ever complained yet.
The only caveat is not to get too busy on a song that doesn't need it, unless you are doing a complete re-interpretation of it.
The first sentence raises a valid question - is it worth playing a song that's beyond your abilities, in simplified form? I'm putting a cover band together with some people I used to be in a band with, but with a new guitarist. To jump-start the process of building a repertoire, we're using a fair chunk of the old group's set list, but the new guitarist has to learn it all from scratch. The thing is that our old guitarist was a metalhead shredder and the new one isn't. Neil Giraldo's solo on Hit Me With Your Best Shot or Neil Schon's on Any Way you Want It were mother's milk to the old guitarist, not so much for the new one. He's not going to play them note for note any time soon, and that's not what we recruited him for. He CAN solo, and he gets enough of it for it to sound good and be recognizable.
To me, it comes down to audience response. Should a crowd be deprived of hearing a song they love performed because the musicians won't hit all the nuances? Will they enjoy hearing a simpler take on it? The classic rock power trio I was in would play Can't You See, but instead of all the fancy guitar work, the guitarist would strip it way down and make it very simple. He was capable of the fancy stuff, but our style was the simplified way. People loved it.
Same thing is true of the vocal. That's the part that the song really does sink or swim by. There's nothing sadder than a vocalist trying and failing to sing a song just like the record. Either you nail the melody, or you find a way to sing it that matches your actual vocal qualities and sounds good - or, yes, you drop it.
Hold it. You're trying to tell us that as a professional musician, you are going to use your own professional judgment in deciding what to play and NOT do what the anonymous people with unknown (and sometimes dubious) qualifications on TB tell you???? OMG!I'm going to ignore this little tiff here
MB, i think the way I wrote this makes it appear that I'm some kind of cover-nazi, and that wasn't the intent. The message I was trying to convey, and obviously not well, is that there is (or should be) a difference between Tribs and general cover acts, and that in either case each group must strive to their utmost to meet expectation, that's all. Look at Tribute bands like 1964 and Satisfaction - both very good touring tribs- they work hard to polish every last detail, and they're very good at "the illusion". For general-purposes cover bands, their latitude isn't nearly so confined but the songs have to actually sound good at the end of the day. I've seen (and played in bands) where a song didn't really click well but someone in the unit obviously wanted to keep it going when it should have either been fixed or thrown out. Sorry for ruffling yours or anyone else's feathers. I have no desire to dictate musical policy.
Another hotly debated TB topic. To the note-for-note Nazis - please post a recording of a set of your band playing live so we can hear that everything is played exactly note-for-note. [crickets]
IMHO, if you play the right chords, the signature licks and get 75% of the bass line exactly like the record, you will be in the top 1% of bass players trying to play it 'correctly.' The bottom line is the only people that really have any say is your audience. If you are packing the clubs, don't change a thing.
IMHO, if you play the right chords, the signature licks and get 75% of the bass line exactly like the record, you will be in the top 1% of bass players trying to play it 'correctly.' The bottom line is the only people that really have any say is your audience. If you are packing the clubs, don't change a thing.
I can go both ways and I think it depends on the song and the song's impact on my life. A really good song sounds really good whether you play it note for note or put your own spin on it. Some songs just don't sound good to me unless they are note for note. I suppose in some cases that is because the thing that made the original great was the performance as much as the actual song. In other cases a given song may have really spoken to me in a way at that time in my life that I cannot bear to hear it any other way. It would be like desecrating a precious memory. In the world of orchestral music "covers" are purely note for note with the exception of solos where the performer has a lot of leeway. Yet two orchestras playing the same notes can sound vastly different because the performance does matter. A couple years ago I was at a performance of a classical work that I am very familiar with and have long loved. The conductor started out at much too high a tempo and I instantly thought that she was ruining my night. But after a few bars I saw the light. The faster tempo really transformed the piece into something even more glorious than I had ever heard before. The performance matters a lot, you can do almost anything with a piece if you do it really well!
I know of plenty of original artists who just never sound good to me performing their own work live because their live, small ensemble sound simply does not compete well with the densely orchestrated and/or overdubbed versions that they recorded and earned their fame from. The opposite can be true too. Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition sounds quite delightful played either by a solo piano as he wrote it or by a full orchestra performing Ravel's orchestration of it. I suppose that in this case the key is that both were master composers who put considerable effort into producing their work. That might be a point to consider if you don't play note for note: if you do that out of laziness you are likely to fail, if you do it with true artistic intent and hard work the results are more likely to be successful. Sometimes you have to really understand the original and why it works well to change it successfully. Dominico Scarlatti's harpsichord sonatas sound glorious to me on the instrument they were written for. They sound flat and lifeless when played note for note and very well on a piano. For me at least. In this case the music seems to have been written around the sonority of the instrument it was written for and playing it on another instrument just does not work. Even a song as simple as Taps is like that. You can play it on anything and you will evoke the intended feeling but you have to play it on a bugle or trumpet to get the full effect.
I know of plenty of original artists who just never sound good to me performing their own work live because their live, small ensemble sound simply does not compete well with the densely orchestrated and/or overdubbed versions that they recorded and earned their fame from. The opposite can be true too. Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition sounds quite delightful played either by a solo piano as he wrote it or by a full orchestra performing Ravel's orchestration of it. I suppose that in this case the key is that both were master composers who put considerable effort into producing their work. That might be a point to consider if you don't play note for note: if you do that out of laziness you are likely to fail, if you do it with true artistic intent and hard work the results are more likely to be successful. Sometimes you have to really understand the original and why it works well to change it successfully. Dominico Scarlatti's harpsichord sonatas sound glorious to me on the instrument they were written for. They sound flat and lifeless when played note for note and very well on a piano. For me at least. In this case the music seems to have been written around the sonority of the instrument it was written for and playing it on another instrument just does not work. Even a song as simple as Taps is like that. You can play it on anything and you will evoke the intended feeling but you have to play it on a bugle or trumpet to get the full effect.
When I play covers now I do my own spin on the bass line - the exception is when it is an iconic bass line that everyone expects to hear in the song. The point I will bring up is if you are just learning bass - you need to learn the songs as close to note for note as possible. This will help develop your ear and also learn what makes a bassline work in the context of a song. Once you have that foundation built and you understand it, then feel free to turn the bass line upside down and make them yours.
my two cents
my two cents
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Uber Eats class action lawsuit alleges their priority delivery is a scam
- Latest: 5StringBlues
