What if there was only original band

[Seashore]

No desire to either watch or play covers, myself, with a healthy exception for Halloween covers/tribute nights.

 

[Pings Bass]

In my experience you’ll seldom be in an originals band that doesn’t do at least an interpretation of at least one cover until you’re well established in your scene and have a decent catalog of your own music.

Covers are needed to help fill out a set until you have enough music of your own. And even if you do having a cover song or two available is often helpful to have as an icebreaker with a new crowd. Once people hear something familiar they’re usually much more receptive to hearing something new.

Smart (IMO) originals bands don’t hesitate to use covers to their advantage.

When I was doing the Midwest college circuit in the late 80s/early 90s we were about 90% original, but used covers for exactly that. We always made the covers our own; i.e. we never ever tried to do copycat covers. We probably couldn't have if we tried!

Nowadays I'm doing a bunch of standards. Somehow that's different than pop/rock covers, in that people like Ella Fitzgerald, Nina Simone and Chet Baker all might have done the same song, but made it their own. Songwriters in that era weren't performers, and most performers weren't songwriters. I don't think of Ella Firtzgerald as a cover artist, and yet... look at her catalog.

 

[40Hz]

Or they might become creative from it.

Doubt it. They’re too highly trained and behaviorally conditioned for the most part. At least based on my own experiences with the ones I’ve met or worked with over the years.

It’s starting to slowly change. But it’ll probably take a few generations before a loosened up symphony musician becomes more common.

 

[bolophonic]

I tried playing in a cover band about 10 years ago. It was the first time I had played covers since starting out in the 80’s. The band was fantastic, but I was bored out of my mind. I like playing my own music... always have, always will. I’ve never cared about hitting the “big time,” I’m only in this to express myself.

 

[40Hz]

It's not an either/or choice.

^This.

I can’t think of too many good cover bands that don’t have an original song or two in the wings. Nor an originals band without a few stylistically similar covers on tap.

To me, the effective difference between an originals and cover band is the ratio between original material and someone else’s songs. Especially if your band isn’t at the signed-gold record-major tour level. And not even then.

Hendrix, The Stones, Clapton, Janis Joplin, Aerosmith, Van Halen, and a bunch of other critically respected mega-hit bands did a few covers well into if not throughout their careers.

No shame in doing a cover song if you can do it well - or in some cases better than the original artist.

 

[EMoneySC2]

at my age, a total waste of time. I have no interest in trying to "make it". Even if I was young, I think it's delusional. So few artists or bands really make it these days. even if you do get some fame, there's not much money in it. It's simply a poor use of your prime working years if you're looking at it financially.

and where I live, the demand for original music is virtually nil. I'd rather have fun, get paid and give the people what they wish. How many of you have headlined internationally for more than 10,000 people? I have and I've never did it doing originals. I just don't think it would be worth my time.

for those of you who love doing originals, I say have it! for me, it's a dead-end

Plenty of originals bands are also in it for fun - some folks enjoy doing originals more than covers

I do both, and I have fun with both!

 

[MultiScaleMale]

Sure, but if the music is good. There is a lot of really bad originals out there. It's difficult to get audiences into original music though. 90% would rather her 867-5309, again. They want songs they can sing along with.

 

[Sixgunn]

Would you play if there was only original band. Whatever the genre if you to get in front of people you can only play the music you created.

I'd LOVE to be able to play originals and get paid. Unfortunately, original bands around here are pay to play.

 

[40Hz]

Songwriters in that era weren't performers, and most performers weren't songwriters. I don't think of Ella Firtzgerald as a cover artist, and yet... look at her catalog.

Artistry occurs on many levels. And I’m of the school that sees artistry and creativity as a continuum, with new works and styles and individual performances building on what came before. “On the shoulders of giants” and all that.

Of course it’s become more difficult today with the insane frenzy surrounding “intellectual property” litigation and “cultural appropriation” politics, both of which insist that a: motif, rhythm, chord, theme, “feel,” or musical style must of necessity “belong” and be “owned” by an individual or social group for all eternity. Sad because even a cursory understanding of human history would show that’s not how the mechanisms of human innovation and cultural/artistic evolution work.

But either way, if it “sounds about right” to enough people there’s always going to be an attorney or group of self appointed advocates willing to step up to the plate and try to run with it.

Interesting to me how the people screaming loudest for such “protections” are hardly ever the people doing the actual creating. But that’s what happens when you have smart but otherwise clueless about the process of art people attempting to stretch their professional legal training, or their stated social agenda, over something as vast as creativity and artistic expression.

“So it goes”, as Kurt Vonnegut would say.

 

[electracoyote]

So, eliminate the security of covering songs, the better bookings, the more appreciative and enthusiastic audiences, and the better venues and pay days, for ONLY originals bands and the many struggles, frustrations, and disappointments they go through?

Not a chance.

I play both, for different reasons, but I can't imagine a world of only original music. About 1/3 of the hits in the post-1950's modern pop era have been covers or songs not written by the artists. Half of The Beatles early albums were covers, and artists like Linda Ronstadt made entire careers of virtually all cover versions.

And they make sometimes very wide audiences very happy, which often includes the musicians who play them.

There is a place in the world for covers.

 

[BassBrass]

cover bands,... never saw one (apart from high school dances in the 70s, and I really liked those bands then, they were good, they could do Inagaddadavidda or People Are Strange, usually I'm A Man with the drum solo. I read and empathize of their travails on talkbass

 

[kevindahl]

Those who want to write their own music go for it. What ever brings you happiness. I have and have no interest to pay to play for 25 people who really don't care. If you are passed 25, IMHO, it's probably a dead end anyways. The 3 genres that people seem to be interested in are Country, Hip Hop, and EDM.

 

[aekisz]

Now jazz is different because of all the the improv and re-interpretation that goes on, but for other forms of popular music, I would never go out of my way to go listen to a covers band. If they happened to be at a bar or restaurant I was already going to, then that would be fine as background music. But I'd be just as happy (or more) listening to a recording of the original artists. My bands did plenty of covers when I was learning how to play. Now I'd rather write my own stuff or listen to what others have created. I understand that there are plenty of folks out there who get great enjoyment and/or benefit financially from listening to or performing covers. Have at it. I just don't have any interest in those activities. And I don't understand why you wouldn't want to ever do your own stuff.

 

[gln1955]

Like others have said, there is very little interest in originals around here. A lot of that is simply because very few people can write new music that is well constructed and not a rehash of a thousand other songs. Nobody wants to hear the same old crap just from a different original band. They'd rather hear the same old crap in its original form from a cover band.

 

[aekisz]

One thing that creeps into these threads sometimes is the ageist suggestion that an older person can't create good things. That's ********. I don't see why old folks can't write better songs than younguns. They know the ropes better musically and have lots more stuff to sing about. I mean I see creative burnouts happening, but I don't understand them. I write way more songs now (and way better ones) than I did in my 20s.

 

[cmcbass]

I've only been in bands that play originals. I have absolutely no desire to ever play cover songs. So yes, I would continue to play

 

[LBS-bass]

One thing that creeps into these threads sometimes is the ageist suggestion that an older person can't create good things. That's ********. I don't see why old folks can't write better songs than younguns. They know the ropes better musically and have lots more stuff to sing about. I mean I see creative burnouts happening, but I don't understand them. I write way more songs now (and way better ones) than I did in my 20s.

I am old, and I write songs. I think the perspective is different. I have no delusions about my career trajectory at this point; I know that the songs I write are not going to be heard by a large audience or make me any money beyond, maybe, beer money, even if people think they are really good.

If I got really lucky, someone who does have a career trajectory still ahead of them MIGHT find one of my songs worthy of recording (which points up the fact that a lot of the "original music" we hear was not written by the person playing it) but I don't expect anything like that to happen.

A lot of the younger people saying things like this are still at the age where it's more reasonable to have hopes and dreams about becoming the next great thing. It's all good but it's also unlikely to ever pay the bills. And then we're back to just creating music because we love to do it.

 

[DWBass]

I voted yes but only with good musicians who are able to write quality music! If not, I'm not wasting my time. I'd most likely write and record my own stuff.

 

[DWBass]

I came up in the '70s New York City club scene and it was all-originals, all the time. Maybe 1 or 2 covers a set, and those were generally stylistic re-workings. To be sure, there we some retro trip bands, notably the then new Neo-Rockabilly, but these acts were going for something outside the norm rather than playing 'the hits.'
It was a damn exciting time with lots of great innovative players and artists (lots of bad ones, too!)

You must have played in a different part of NYC. I saw and played in tons of cover bands (R&B, Funk, Latin & Jazz).

 

[Plectrum72]

TLDR: No, I wouldn't play out if the only choice was being in an ALL originals band.

Of course it no one wrote and played original music you would have no hits to cover.

snip...which points up the fact that a lot of the "original music" we hear was not written by the person playing it...snip

I think both of these statements touch on what no one has really discussed regarding "if there were only original bands." Even in original bands, not everyone in the band is writing. Hopefully they are all contributing to the song in a meaningful way, but chances are good not everyone in the band wrote the song. I can come up with a decent groove to pair the rhythm and the melody for just about any song I hear, but that does not make me a songwriter. So then, how am I being (truly) original as opposed to reinterpreting other things I've heard and learned to fit an original piece someone else wrote?

Additionally, I can come up with a chord progression, some lyrics and a melody, but that doesn't mean I've created something others (or even I sometimes) want to hear. To use a poor analogy, just because I enjoy woodworking that doesn't make me a carpenter; furthermore, I know carpenters who have shoddy workmanship and don't get hired more than a few times before word gets around.