What Makes A "Cover" Band?

I've always been in the "play it your way/make it your own" camp. My band was very successful with that approach.

I think there is something to be said for "Play it just like the record", but often the bands that recorded the record to begin with don't do it note for note.

I guess the short answer is do what ever you can sell. Both ideologies should be able to land plenty of gigs if they are good musically, and a band full of hacks is probably going to fail no matter which formula they prescribe to.

Playing it well is more important than what you play IMO.

 

I personally feel the same way you do. Even though I will willingly play a riff or very specific lick the exact same way as the original artist if it defines the song.

I informed my group when I auditioned that I almost always will not play what the original bassist played. I respectfully told them I started to play music to be creative, not to be a record player. Sometimes it is because I cannot play what the original played. Sometimes, it is just because I have a different interpretation of the song. My group understood and actually wanted that from their new bassist.

I take serious issue with players that take the position that only the original recorded version is what the cover band will play. There are exceptions, I admit it, and will play it that way (Heartbreaker by Benetar comes to mind). I take this position because, out of the literally thousands of shows I have attended, I could maybe count 20 times where a song was played live note for note, exactly the way it was recorded.

So if the only place an audience will hear that specific version of the song is on the radio, then leave it on the radio. Let us weekend hacks have fun and give a personal touch to the tunes we play. After all, in most cases, if you butcher the tunes too much with your own style, you're not likely to be called back for a gig.

I think Tribute Band lends more to the "play it like the record" than the average cover band.

 

Not much point trying to play it the exact same way as the record, imo. Unless you have the exact instrumentation that was recorded (including multitracking), same keyboard patches, effects, similar sounding singer and BVs, et cetera... and doing that for any sort of diverse set just isn't possible. To do it for a load of similar material takes you almost into tribute band territory - there's a place for that, but it's not what I enjoy doing.

I'd much rather do a version with a bit of different character.

 

If a band is playing it exactly like the record, I leave the joint. I want to hear musicians play, not a jukebox.

 

Depends on where you're playing. In the corporate/private party environment, it's usually pretty close to the original. In bars/restaurant and less formal environment, you can get away with doing your own takes on tunes.

This is just from my experience in playing in corporate level top40 cover bands for over 30+ years in the NY/NJ/CT area and in the Southeast VA area. YMMV

 

Considering that many of the original artist bands don't play them true to the recorded version on stage I would lean toward doing your own thing with it...to a degree. People who come to hear cover bands are also coming to hear songs that are memory buttons for them. So the closer you can play it to what they've heard on the radio a zillion times the more of a connect they're going to have with it. There are some songs that have such recognizable riffs and even solos that those should get extra attention to detail. Other tunes may not need it. But we always approach it from the 'memory button' perspective. For example: I've seen ZZ Top at least a dozen times since their first album was released and never heard them do Just Got Paid true to the recording. But they're ZZ Top and they can get away with altering the arrangement or playing around the overdubbed sections in concert. A cover band would be scrutinized pretty harshly for blundering through it like ZZ does live. Into the Mystic, on the other hand, is the perfect kind of tune that leaves room to do a cool alternate arrangement. So it depends on the song and the gig circumstances. My school of thought is: Learn the recording, then tweak it as needed.

Take a listen to some of the covers Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers have done. They do them pretty true to the original, their Byrds & Animals covers. Nobody ever bitches about Petty doing covers, btw. And no one ever had an issue with Linda Ronstadt doing covers, which was about all she ever did...she may be the most famous and successful rock cover band ever.

 

Cover Bands: Feel free to make it your own, as long as it is recognisable as the original song (even if it's massively changed from the original, such as the stuff Me First And The Gimmie Gimmies do).

Tribute Bands: Play it note for note, very minimal improvisation (the occasional fill, etc...)

Liam

 

In my opinion, I think it is great to have a mixture of the two. As long as the audience can recognize the song, I think it is fine to make it your own. If you were playing for a venue full of musicians, I'd say make all the songs your own, but reality of the matter is that you might have a hand full of musicians in the house depending where you are performing. With that being said, the audience is probably just looking for a good time so they will like the songs that sound just like the CD and they will like the ones that you change as long as it can be recognized. As a cover band there are three things that are important 1. Your Songlist (This will vary depending on where you are located) 2. How well you play the songs and 3. Last but surely not least, the bands stage presence (Especially the front man). If you could get all these parts together people will love you.

 

Unless you can improve on the orginal recording, you should probably play it close to the version most people are familiar with. Quite often someone who puts "their own spin" on a song simply sounds like someone who doesn't know how to play the song...especially if they do that with every song. The overwhelming majority of cover bands are not good enough to improve on the original version of most songs.

 

They couldn't do that on most of their songs, anyway, unless they brought in at least one more guitar player. They don't use backing tracks, do they?

 

Not this again!

We try to play a lot of the songs as close as we can. THAT is our "jumping off point." That's a great place to start, because then you know that you can execute the first mission of "covering" songs for bar crowds: giving them literally what they came to hear.

But that's not where it ends. What if, over the course of time, you're jamming on a section, and you put a spin on it that's just cool? Maybe that should stay in.

For us, it's about making great music, and not giving ourselves excuses to do something "our way" just because of limitations that stop us from doing it "right."

But there's just nothing at all wrong with making changes, if you're talented enough to do it.

I guess the bottom line is, are you changing material because you CAN'T pull it off the original way, or are you making changes because you are creative?

Ultimately, you'll know by the audience's reaction.

 

I'm in a cover band that specializes in Tom Petty's music, and we try to play his songs as close to the original as we can. We don't sound exactly like him, and we don't even look like them, but we try to play it pretty close to the vest. We actually sound pretty good, and we were fortunate to find a keyboard player (they're hard to find around here) who can replicate the keys parts accurately. It helps that we're all experienced musicians who enjoy playing together and also enjoy playing Petty's tunes.

 

We mix all of the above. Usually songs end up getting altered slightly to fit our style. We do play songs that are pretty true to the original though. We do whatever we feel like...

As for what the general public wants to see? I don't think they go out to clubs to hear music differently than it was recorded per say, they go out because they like live music. Some bands are just god awful no matter which approach they take. As long as the band is good and entertaining, the rest is personal opinion as to what they like more.

 

A Tribute band should play the songs sounding as close to the band they are paying tribute to as possible. The vocals and instrument tones should reflect that.

We play covers and make them our own. Probably because we can't duplicate the originals anyway no matter how hard we try. For me, I love it. No one complains.
I can't read music (wish I could) so I learn the songs by ear and now with the advent of YouTube, you can get the songs down note for note from other musicians sharing this knowledge.
If I am way off, the guitarist who is an excellant bass player will get me straight.

Someday, I hope we can start working out my originals.
I have the intros, verses, the chorus and bridge worked out with lyrics intact but the songs are really only a shell for right now. No Solos figured out, how many verses etc.

 

i'm midway between Baystate & Phalex.

I do believe that the tempo of the song should not change. try and stay as close to the original tempo as you can.

THEN... go wild, introduce guitar solos, add to the length, do whatever.

as was said, even the bands that originally did the song don't play them the same way every time.

 

OP; I feel like you do. Play it like you interpret it, "make it yours".
sans stuff like brickhouse where you NEED to play that line to make the song go...it should sound like the song, but not be a replica per sey..

often the CD is so compressed and layered that even the original artist cant duplicate that "sound" in a live setting..cept maybe a few premier bands (MetallicA comes to mind, but even they dont do the note for note thing).

Now I will say, if you are Tribute-Band, then the rules are a bit more strict..

But, when my band was active the guitarist was the "CD Purist" and wanted to sound like the CD replication... unless we got a "LIVE VERSION" of 'Name_song_by_ band_X'
We did spend a lot of time learning it like the CD, and that was good practice...but I always hated it being so stiff sometimes..


it was always my opinon, that we needed to have the goove going with smooth transistions between songs. that way we dont necessarily sound like the juke box inbetween songs and can get them girls to get on the dance floor to shake that arse..and sing along too.. maybe flash some flesh..I digress..

As a band you should agree apon this topic during rehersal/pract prior to gig time so no one is out of the loop when "Freestyle" time is allowable. otherwise you'll catch the Stink-eye from whomever is still in 'pruist mode' on that song.

Premissible freestyle with context you should be alright.

AFRO

 

Good luck with getting something together. This thread has been interesting. One of the things that comes over now, just re-reading it, is the importance of simple practicalities.

The nature of your set list determines to a great degree how close to "like the originals" you can get. If all your stuff is pretty much all guitar based loud rock and roll (or whatever), then that's going to be much easier to get consistently similar to the recordings than a set with a much wider range of different styles of material. In the latter case, adapting how you play things to suit your line-up is going to be inevitable and unavoidable.