Exactly. If you can't tell the difference between unusual artistic choices and just plain wrong, you probably shouldn't be playing music. With the possible exception of free jazz.
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.
Not always. I've seen plenty of crowds where the general population wrinkled their noses when some band's too-clever or dumbed-down arrangement(s) bombed.
If you change fundamental well-known and anticipated parts of a famous song, adding or subtracting, you had better be very careful and very sure about what you're doing. I don't think audiences are as gullible as most musicians seem to.
But you're right, musicians (in the audience) tend to be harder to please, although I make it a point to try and think like the non-musicians and pick up the vibe from everyone in the audience, not just the drunks and inner circle.
But even if it is "just the musicians" who get tight sphincters over bad choices for covering a song, don't musicians have a right to feel a sense of pride and accomplishment instead of frustration and embarrassment over the sketchy choices their band mates are making with a cover song? I believe they do. Everyone is making the same investment of time, everyone is entitled to a sense of pride and contentment with the output.
Last edited:
And again, there is a huge difference between that and not bothering to learn the original correctly.
This ^
In my current band we strive to play the correct chords, both the guitarist an I are in agreement with this and if one of us notices something even slightly wrong we don't hesitate to correct it.
I sub for another band where the singer guitarist puts his own interpretation on a lot of the songs (he hasn't learnt them properly). It drives me nuts but the pay is good and it is only a couple of times a year that I have to endure it.
Exactly.
We're not talking about what Joe Cocker or Ray Charles does with a standard hit song. Those guys have monster chops and arrangement skills, incredible bands, and can make a new and sometimes improved statement with an established hit. Some local weekend warrior cover bands have this ability, but they are few and far between IME.
What most of us on this thread are complaining about are musicians who lack a decent ear and skills needed to do a basic reproduction of the signature elements of a song as-recorded, and don't have the arrangement skills or chops to make it sound fresh or as good as the original hit, so they insert their own substitute chords and riffs and dumb it down in an awkward, unflattering, or disorienting way. All too common IME.
And just because the drunks and inner circle applaud and the venue manager throws the band a bone at the end of the night doesn't alter the fact that it can be frustrating for many audience members, and even more so for musicians both in and outside the band.
OP has my sympathies.
Last edited:
This is one big reason I have always encouraged musicians to just use the recorded version we all agreed on: Time. I don't have time to learn a song twice, the version on the recording and another musician's new creative artistic interpretation.
Unless your new interpretation is so compelling and good, as good or better than the most popular version people already know and love. And on the weekend cover band musician level, that is incredibly rare.
We're better off just learning and playing it reasonably faithful to the recorded version. I don't have time to learn songs twice and stroke anyone's ego.
Last edited:
And, as a bonus, it's much easier to get a sub or a different vocalist when the arrangements are in normal keys and (mostly) as recorded. If you're not in that type of band, no problem. But it makes my worklife much easier.
Being a bad musician usually shines thru regardless of how you arrange a song. IMO it's a different topic then just rearranging a song because you want to. When I say that audiences like variety, I'm not talking about poor players changing a song because they suck.
In my band, when we do a cover, we never listen to the original. We play it as we remember it. As each person of the band has a different memory, we try to get to an agreement on how to play it. Only when we can not agree in certain specific part of a song, we listen to the original.
It may seem a lazy approach to someone who is used to spend a lot of time listening to originals in order to replicate them, but we achieve one thing that I like: we make those songs "ours", while they are still recognizible for the audiences (in the case they know the original, which I am afraid is not allways the case).
I understand people who want to hear a closer interpretation of the original, and disagree with bands that take this other approach. But after the shows some people come to us and tell us that they like how we make the songs that we play "our songs", rather than just copying what has already been recorded by the original artist.
There are many ways to approach a cover. If what your band do is working for them, great. If it is nor working for you, rather than trying to copy the original, you can try to take it into your own boat.
It may seem a lazy approach to someone who is used to spend a lot of time listening to originals in order to replicate them, but we achieve one thing that I like: we make those songs "ours", while they are still recognizible for the audiences (in the case they know the original, which I am afraid is not allways the case).
I understand people who want to hear a closer interpretation of the original, and disagree with bands that take this other approach. But after the shows some people come to us and tell us that they like how we make the songs that we play "our songs", rather than just copying what has already been recorded by the original artist.
There are many ways to approach a cover. If what your band do is working for them, great. If it is nor working for you, rather than trying to copy the original, you can try to take it into your own boat.
What he said.
I dont play in a band but I sub. Often theres no rehearsal, just a setlist with the key and maybe some notes.
Sometimes it's not a matter of a player changing a song because they suck; often, it's pure laziness, over-confidence, or complete lack of a common standard or goals. Sometimes a very good musician has heard the song a few times, they have a vague recollection of it, but rather than sit down and take a closer listen, they go from a distorted memory, which often leads to some significant departure on fundamental elements of the song (chord progression, root notes, signature and melodic components, etc.). When I say "fundamental elements," I mean parts that even non-musicians know, appreciate, and have come to anticipate and expect when a band plays the song.
Unfortunately, the other band members did sit down and take a close listen, liked the popular hit recorded arrangement, and tried to reproduce it. Now you have three or four musicians respecting and playing to one arrangement (the most well-known or popular recorded version) and one musician trying to force his square peg vague memory interpretation into the round hole, and it's not working. The amalgamation just sounds objectively bad. That air-tight arrangement that resulted in a hit song has been tampered with, and it's not air-tight any more.
At that point, something's got to give. Either the band has to decide they are going to unilaterally depart from the popular well-known recorded arrangement in a unified and fundamental way that will be flattering and as good or better (and I hope someone in the band has the arrangement chops and commands enough respect to make that happen), or they all need to get with a faithful interpretation of the arrangement on the recording. But you can't have a divided band trying to force parts together that no longer fit because some have been altered and others are played faithfully.
Last edited:
Well said.
"Are you that one player?"
"Yeah, and I got my part from the Ultimate Guitar tab, so its correct".
Here are options:
- Stick to the original arrangement, and trust my ear that I know said arrangement and don't waste time just bossing people around
- Improve on the original arrangement with something cool and innovative, not just your tin ear
- Play with someone other than me. Life is too short for me to waste time on people who play it "their way," for no other reason than they are unwilling to spend some time learning it the right way
In my band, the motto is Two Sets Of Ears Are Sometimes Better Than One. I have some really smart, sharp, observant musicians in my band with great ears.
Sometimes people make unflattering unmusical changes to a song and they absolutely marry and form a deep emotional attachment to their version, and they become deeply offended by the mere suggestion they take another listen or try something different.
I long ago lost patience for those kinds of musicians. Everyone's ear falls short once in awhile, it's not a crime and doesn't condemn anyone to musician hell, there is no shame, no score board, and everyone needs to humble themselves occasionally and accept a little help from their friends for the greater good.
Big fat ego is also a common cause for these kinds of issues.
Record every show and rehearsal so you get the custom interpretations.
If you can play/hang with their versions and it doesn't bother you too much, stick with it. Remember and respect that they were established before you arrived (if I read correctly). Ultimately it's not your opinion that matters most in entertainment, it's the crowd's. So if the crowd likes it, and the bands gets bookings, I suggest just going with the flow unless you are seriously bothered by the flattened renditions. I do understand it probably seems disrespectful to the original songwriters, but just go with it or bail or you will likely cause friction.
If you can play/hang with their versions and it doesn't bother you too much, stick with it. Remember and respect that they were established before you arrived (if I read correctly). Ultimately it's not your opinion that matters most in entertainment, it's the crowd's. So if the crowd likes it, and the bands gets bookings, I suggest just going with the flow unless you are seriously bothered by the flattened renditions. I do understand it probably seems disrespectful to the original songwriters, but just go with it or bail or you will likely cause friction.
C minor is kinda dark, so I brightened it to C major. Beethovens 5th never sounded so good .
I love doing this game. Love it to death and I’ll try to shut up about how cool it is.
It is not lazy at all. It’s way more work and requires more effort than wild-ass guessing about how the song goes.
When I’ve played this game with other musicians, you get, “I think it should go this way” as opposed to “I think that’s the way they did it.” That’s a huge difference in the level of musical thinking.
When an effort is made to learn the song correctly, everyone benefits. The band challenges itself, it benefits the music and whether anyone wants to believe it or not, the audience appreciates it. I’d go so far to say it’s an obligation when performing other people’s music to an audience. As has been pointed out several times already, there’s a huge difference between adding ones own artistic flair to the arrangement, and just making excuses for ones laziness/inability to perform the song correctly. It’s not your music ruin. Respect it!
If you didn't personally write the song, you are playing a cover. All songs are original to somebody, but unless you wrote it, you are covering it.
Unless you play it note for note as written, it is an interpretation, even if you are a member of the band that wrote the song.
Being a tribute band doesn't necessarily mean you perform the songs exactly as the original artists did. You can be in a punk Adele tribute band.
If you dress like the band members, cover the songs precisely, play characters and "act" like the band you are an impersonator. All of these things can be ok, it is the audience that will inform you of your success or failure.
As a band, you have to work with what you have available and try to give the audience the best experience always, regardless of what you feel might be a better artistic choice. Sometimes you play to a click and a sequencer, sometimes you have to watch the other players constantly to accommodate surprise alterations.
That's entertainment!
Enjoy!
Unless you play it note for note as written, it is an interpretation, even if you are a member of the band that wrote the song.
Being a tribute band doesn't necessarily mean you perform the songs exactly as the original artists did. You can be in a punk Adele tribute band.
If you dress like the band members, cover the songs precisely, play characters and "act" like the band you are an impersonator. All of these things can be ok, it is the audience that will inform you of your success or failure.
As a band, you have to work with what you have available and try to give the audience the best experience always, regardless of what you feel might be a better artistic choice. Sometimes you play to a click and a sequencer, sometimes you have to watch the other players constantly to accommodate surprise alterations.
That's entertainment!
Enjoy!
The OP stated very clearly that some of the arrangements are just wrong, sound worse, and hinted that they're likely played that way because they're easier.
For anyone arguing about "making a song your own", they're obviously not doing that. They're obviously just cutting out parts too time-consuming or difficult to learn.
For anyone arguing about "making a song your own", they're obviously not doing that. They're obviously just cutting out parts too time-consuming or difficult to learn.
