Somebody gets it!! A person has the right to not like something but don't bash the other 'million' who do like it especially by calling them morons. Which goes on quite a lot here on Talkbass! :scowl:
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.
Why are "covers" looked down on?
- Thread starter Amara
- Start date
Somebody gets it!! A person has the right to not like something but don't bash the other 'million' who do like it especially by calling them morons. Which goes on quite a lot here on Talkbass! :scowl:
Most of this is true IF you are going by what's played on the radio. There is a lot of originality out there that doesn't see the light of day. Radio and Corporate music entities cannot get a grasp on it, therefore dismissing it. The internet is at your disposal! Use it for good. Not evil!
The music is out there. Seek and Ye shall find!
DwBass:-
Just because the masses liked a song doesn't mean it was good music.....
Take anything produced by KISS for example..
they sold lots of records to the masses.......but it isn't technically 'good" music.
If the masses want swill....you give them swill.
Music "likes' are a contentious issue........we all like different stuff.
Just because we/they/you like it doesn't mean it was technically good .
Even if it is technically good doesn't mean anybody will like it.
But there are definitely some artists out there who are "overblown" in stature.
A lot of it is about promotion of the artist more than the music.
As in some rap music....where most of the focus is on the artist themselves and the promotion of that personality.
or Marshall Mathers for example (Eminem) whose personna that is fed to the masses is totally fictitious.
Just because the masses liked a song doesn't mean it was good music.....
Take anything produced by KISS for example..
they sold lots of records to the masses.......but it isn't technically 'good" music.
If the masses want swill....you give them swill.
Music "likes' are a contentious issue........we all like different stuff.
Just because we/they/you like it doesn't mean it was technically good .
Even if it is technically good doesn't mean anybody will like it.
But there are definitely some artists out there who are "overblown" in stature.
A lot of it is about promotion of the artist more than the music.
As in some rap music....where most of the focus is on the artist themselves and the promotion of that personality.
or Marshall Mathers for example (Eminem) whose personna that is fed to the masses is totally fictitious.
As a person who has written many songs, I do not agree that it is easier to play a song than to write one.
For me, writing a song is relatively easy.
Learning to play one WELL, takes a good amount of effort.
For me, writing a song is relatively easy.
Learning to play one WELL, takes a good amount of effort.
I always encourage every originals band I play with to pick one cover and throw it in the set no matter how short. People who don't know your band might "get it" if you kill on a cover that influenced your style. A hardcore punk band I was in used to pick a different cover every gig (unless it was two in a weekend). It kept the us on our toes and the people who followed us guessing and eager to hear stuff they loved.
The people I've played with who object to that are the weakest links musically. They usually whitewash their lack of skill with the "artistic expression" excuse. I had one guy who would learn a verse and chorus, skip over any bridges and nuances, and play them 4 bars at a time even if the song called for an early or late change and say he played things his way to give it his own flavor. The guy in the hardcore punk band toyed with songs too, but he knew them backwards and forwards and changed them around on purpose, not for lack of skill.
The people I've played with who object to that are the weakest links musically. They usually whitewash their lack of skill with the "artistic expression" excuse. I had one guy who would learn a verse and chorus, skip over any bridges and nuances, and play them 4 bars at a time even if the song called for an early or late change and say he played things his way to give it his own flavor. The guy in the hardcore punk band toyed with songs too, but he knew them backwards and forwards and changed them around on purpose, not for lack of skill.
Back in the day we did original arrangements of every song. We often got comments that we played "so and so's" song better than they they did. That was the standard for bands back in 70's/80's &90's Brooklyn when I was coming up. I don't understand this notion that "cover means lousy" . I saw a friend of mine's band a few weeks ago (again a bassist from the old neighborhood) and they totally took those songs to another level. But thats what I expected... and what I'm used to. I suppose watching lousy cover bands full of hacks might be other people's experience. I guess it's where you're from. .
Oh, the irony. In a thread questioning why covers are looked down upon, you look down upon originals.
Anyway, the reason covers are looked down upon is the same reason originals are looked down upon, which is the same reason that 4 strings, 5 strings, picks, slap, Miley Cyrus, tatoos, piercings, hairstyles, etc. are looked down upon: People are precious, little flowers with fragile egos, and it is easy to tear something down to make you feel better about your own life choices.
I don't look down upon originals. I'm just saying, we know darn well that even our favorite bands have plenty of songs that aren't all that great. They can't ALL be gems!
Good by who's standard??
Says who? If the masses dig it, it's good music. Doesn't mean we have to like it but to say it's not good doesn't make sense.
Yes we all like different stuff. Doesn't mean the stuff we don't like isn't good. Just doesn't suit our taste.
Again, why not?
If you're saying, what you or I think may be good music and others won't think so? I agree
True. Like the Britney Spears and the Justin Biebers. Still doesn't mean the 'songs' aren't good songs.
Commercial music, yes, I agree.
Well, that's the whole ideal of rap music! It starts by creating a unique name for yourself. Folks thought rap was going to die a quick death but here we are almost 40 years later!
I say don't get wrapped up in thinking because YOU or I don't dig something that it means it's not good! It's all art and creativity. Personally, I don't dig Death/Black Metal, Punk, Grunge and other similar music although I have heard some gems occasionally. No way will I say the music sucks or is not good. It's not for me to say. Because apparantly, that music has it's fans who love it and live it.
So by the same logic Windows 8 is now an acceptable operating system? 
How dare anyone bash it. Meellionz of people!
(Not that I necessarily disagree with you mellowinman but it does come across as overly defensive.)
How dare anyone bash it. Meellionz of people!
(Not that I necessarily disagree with you mellowinman but it does come across as overly defensive.)
So by the same logic Windows 8 is now an acceptable operating system?
How dare anyone bash it. Meellionz of people!
(Not that I necessarily disagree with you mellowinman but it does come across as overly defensive.)
yes, but NOBODY LIKES WINDOWS 8!!!
So by the same logic Windows 8 is now an acceptable operating system?
How dare anyone bash it. Meellionz of people!
(Not that I necessarily disagree with you mellowinman but it does come across as overly defensive.)
No it doesn't.
IMHO there are three possible categories for cover songs.
1) The Band tries - and everyone recognized the song. The tricky parts were left out
or simplified until everyone in the band was comfortable. This is looked down upon, and rightly so.
2) The Band plays the song and if you closed your eyes, you feel like the original band is on stage. Spot on all the way, even the small details. This is, while not very creative, solid workmanship and takes time and effort.
3) The original song is still there in essence, but they transformed it and made their own interpretation. Sometimes out of need because the instruments of the original and the coverband do not match and sometimes because they add their own to the idea of the song. This can go both ways. It can suck in your ears because that feeling you get when you hear that song in original is just not there and it can be great.
1) The Band tries - and everyone recognized the song. The tricky parts were left out
or simplified until everyone in the band was comfortable. This is looked down upon, and rightly so.
2) The Band plays the song and if you closed your eyes, you feel like the original band is on stage. Spot on all the way, even the small details. This is, while not very creative, solid workmanship and takes time and effort.
3) The original song is still there in essence, but they transformed it and made their own interpretation. Sometimes out of need because the instruments of the original and the coverband do not match and sometimes because they add their own to the idea of the song. This can go both ways. It can suck in your ears because that feeling you get when you hear that song in original is just not there and it can be great.
How much of that original material did you write? Did you write the melody? The lyrics? Create the structure?
+1 to what DWBass said. Just because you don't like a certain kind of music doesn't make it somehow objectively "bad."
If you are asking me, then yes to all. From thought to tape and everything in between.
Passinwind
I know nothing.
- Dec 3, 2003
- 23,044
- 45,901
- Disclosures
- Designer/Toaster Tech @ Passinwind Electronics
Yep, and your liking it doesn't make it objectively good either. Subjectivity is a whole other deal though.
I didn't read the whole thread, so I may very well be reiterating information that's already here. If so, sorry.
I've played in a bunch of cover bands and a bunch of original bands over the last 30 or so years. Some original bands have been really good and some have not been. I've been lucky that all the cover bands I've been in have been really good. For reference, I currently play in two cover bands, one rock and one country. Both are working.
I play covers for several reasons. First of all, I like playing good music with good people, and I seem to find that more readily in cover bands. The gigs are generally better, and it pays better. For instance, I don't have to go play in a dumpy bar on a Tuesday for free.
Here in Austin, there is a level of disdain from original bands toward cover bands. I've noticed that the members of the not-so-good original bands generally looked down upon cover bands, while the members of the good bands generally didn't. I often heard original bands say things like "yeah, I could play covers, but I'm not going to". As I've gotten older, and have gotten better at my craft, I've come to believe that the people who say things like that may be a little insecure or simply don't have the ability to play in a good cover band. Like 'em or not, if you're in a working cover band, you'd better have some ability to adequately present music that is really familiar to most people.
Look, it's all just music. I personally think the lines between original and cover can get pretty blurry. For example, I played with a Nashville guy that wrote a #1 hit. When we were onstage, the only guy who had anything to do with the hit song was the guy that wrote it. I guess you could argue that lineup was a cover band. Hell, for that matter, you could argue that the Temptations right now are a cover band. So, I guess I would say...do what you do, and let others do what they do.
I've played in a bunch of cover bands and a bunch of original bands over the last 30 or so years. Some original bands have been really good and some have not been. I've been lucky that all the cover bands I've been in have been really good. For reference, I currently play in two cover bands, one rock and one country. Both are working.
I play covers for several reasons. First of all, I like playing good music with good people, and I seem to find that more readily in cover bands. The gigs are generally better, and it pays better. For instance, I don't have to go play in a dumpy bar on a Tuesday for free.
Here in Austin, there is a level of disdain from original bands toward cover bands. I've noticed that the members of the not-so-good original bands generally looked down upon cover bands, while the members of the good bands generally didn't. I often heard original bands say things like "yeah, I could play covers, but I'm not going to". As I've gotten older, and have gotten better at my craft, I've come to believe that the people who say things like that may be a little insecure or simply don't have the ability to play in a good cover band. Like 'em or not, if you're in a working cover band, you'd better have some ability to adequately present music that is really familiar to most people.
Look, it's all just music. I personally think the lines between original and cover can get pretty blurry. For example, I played with a Nashville guy that wrote a #1 hit. When we were onstage, the only guy who had anything to do with the hit song was the guy that wrote it. I guess you could argue that lineup was a cover band. Hell, for that matter, you could argue that the Temptations right now are a cover band. So, I guess I would say...do what you do, and let others do what they do.
