• 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.

When an established band has some things wrong with arrangements.

#101
Thats why I bring quick charts to a session and mark them up with the concensus arrangement.

So it written, so it shall be played.

With this method, there is never any doubt about how its going to be played and it minimizes the need to re-rehearse songs. When i played big band or orchestral, we didnt even rehearse whole songs, just certain troublesome measures and then put the chart away. You can cover 10 or 15 songs in an hour that way


I have posted examples elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: smogg and Bassbeater
#102
It's amazing how quickly a band can deviate from the original recording, when doing a cover song. I saw it happen in my band on two occasions - one being "Shakin All Over" by Johnny Kidd. After each chorus the drummer would drop out, rather than just fall in with me while the guitarist plays the riff. And then everyone looked at me funny, thinking I am wrong. However, the rhythm section really DOES play along immediately, instead of letting the guitar riff away solo.

Another song is by Screamin Jay Hawkins, where there are breaks during the verses but not during the solo. Drummer wanted breaks. Thank god he follows me, so the next rehearsal I played through his breaks, he thought he was wrong and followed me. Now he gets confused every time we play it, so I just refer him to the recordings of a previous rehearsal. Which I always record / edit / post :)
 
#103
electracoyote said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's all communication and the type of band you want to be. I took the OPs post to mean that the band he joined changed a few things because they wanted to, not because they couldn't play or refused to listen to the song. I think that's where these types of threads diverge into two different topics. One topic is playing in a band that goes note for note or not, and another topic about playing with bad musicians. People really should use the audition to interview the band while they're auditioning you. That would solve most issues. The band I play in is very clear up front that if you expect note for note that you'll be disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MartinB and electracoyote
#104
blue4 said:
One topic is playing in a band that goes note for note or not, and another topic about playing with bad musicians.
Click to expand...
There are also a lot of good musicians who can't bother themselves with learning songs correctly. It often takes a while before it becomes evident, and they're often quite hard headed. ("I have studied for a hundred years, you know!!").
 
  • Like
Reactions: QORC, smogg and twocargar
#105
blue4 said:
It's all communication and the type of band you want to be. I took the OPs post to mean that the band he joined changed a few things because they wanted to, not because they couldn't play or refused to listen to the song. I think that's where these types of threads diverge into two different topics. One topic is playing in a band that goes note for note or not, and another topic about playing with bad musicians. People really should use the audition to interview the band while they're auditioning you. That would solve most issues. The band I play in is very clear up front that if you expect note for note that you'll be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Good points.

Yes, OP left it at "they have some things wrong." "Wrong" is relative and could be interpreted several ways depending on perspective.

And it's great that your band makes the standards clear up front.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smogg, blue4 and 3Liter
#108
Perrygoround said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a great approach if you are an originals band who does a one hour set once a month. You add an occasional cover done your way to compliment your originals. It' all good. However, full time cover band doing four hour shows two or three times a week is a different animal.

You need at least forty five to fifty polished songs for the gig. Plus you need to rotate at least half your set for the venues you rebook every four to six weeks. So this pushes your song list into the eighty plus range. To hash out that many tunes with no blueprint is just way too time consuming. Plus, that means you can't refer back to the original recordings to stay polished on all the tunes.

If you enjoy excessive rehearsals and minimum stage time then you're all good. I'm in the other camp. Rehearsals only as needed for new tunes. Stay polished on existing tunes on your time not our time. Keep the gig calendar full; show up prepared, put on a good show, get paid. Grow the set list then rinse and repeat.

As always IMO, IME, & YMMV

edited for spelling
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: QORC, electracoyote, IamGroot and 1 other person
#109
MartinB said:
Yeah, I think we may have got a bit off-track into "Should you play it like the record?", when what's more interesting is "If your band's playing an arrangement that sounds bad, what's the best way to tell them?". It doesn't really make a difference whose arrangement it is.
Click to expand...
What if the reason the arrangement sounds bad is because they are not playing it like the record?
 
  • Like
Reactions: electracoyote, Fredrik E. Nilsen and twocargar
#110
blue4 said:
People really should use the audition to interview the band while they're auditioning you. That would solve most issues. The band I play in is very clear up front that if you expect note for note that you'll be disappointed.
Click to expand...

This is a very valid point. I let people know what's expected before an audition is ever set up if they are coming into my project. Likewise I ask these kinds of questions way up front before I even consider auditioning for someone else. I don't like wasting people time and don't want my time wasted either. Open honest communication is the key.
 
  • Like
Reactions: electracoyote and blue4
#112
mellowinman said:
Not even "sounds bad." How about "sounds vaguely unsatisfying, and leaves customers feeling funny?" I came to hear Slow Ride by Foghat, and the rhythm wasn't right...
Click to expand...

The average night club/bar mainstream pop cover band audience member won't come up to you and say this...

But I know beyond a shadow of doubt many of them will think it and be left with a less-than-favorable impression, tucked away for future reference.

An exception might be the right band playing the right venue to the right audience and with a reputation for a certain unique instrumentation, style, and sound that has become their signature and is marketable and viable. Like Joe Cocker and his band. An extreme rarity in my neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: smogg
#113
Some songs like the Beatles are best copied as close as possible downt to the guitar solos, although Joe Cocker mentioned earlier and Aretha Franklin (Eleanor Rigby) had their own great takes.

There are some folks that
 
#114
If an established band has their own arrangement of a song, it is up to you to adapt. I encountered this when I joined the band I am in, and kept getting confused when we were rehearsing, and even did a few gigs before I figured out they were intentionally changing the songs. We still do slight rearrangements occasionally, especially for songs that go on for more than 4.5 minutes. I took it as a opportunity to add some of my creativity in a couple of spots.
 
#115
Less painful, sure. It's always a pain to try to break habits. But if you think you could gently coerce the group into a better sounding arrangement, go for it. It doesn't necessarily have to be record-perfect.

one cover band I played with was a power trio, and we played a lot of stuff written by four- and five-member bands, so I'm definitely not against tweaking arrangement for the sake for a good performance.

Course, if you're the new guy, that's a whole other hurdle.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back