Why are "covers" looked down on?

[georgiagoodie]

Blah, blah-blah-blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah-blah-blah, blah, blah, blah. Blah. Blah. Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah......

 

[Amara]

Blah, blah-blah-blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah-blah-blah, blah, blah, blah. Blah. Blah. Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah......

I think I've played that riff. What's the key and chord progression?

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Key of.Blah #.

 

[mellowinman]

There's a difference between "playing technique" and "technically good music".


Brian Wilson was once being interviewed about the "technicality" of music where he opined that technicality wasn't a major issue in selling music. He said that "She Loves You" by The Beatles wasn't technically all that good....but it sold a lot of copies.

Much of Brian's work was technically good.........as in "Pet Sounds"......which at the time it came out did not make the impact that it does now in music history.

Let's take another album ........."London Calling" by the Clash.

It has the distinction (or did) of being the longest running number one album on Billboard in it's genre.

I once owned that album to satisfy my curiosity as to what all the kerfuffle was about.

A week after I bought it was donated to the local thrift shop collection.


Technically good?........not by half a mile....

Good just because...well....it sounds good?
Not for me......nothing on it at all that made me turn my head....

Explanation:- there's just no accounting for taste. People like what they like because they like it. No problem there...to each his/her own.......

But don't confuse acceptance by the masses as a marker to determine whether a work is technically good or not.

London Calling is one of the few double albums ever made on which nearly every song is good. The songs are well-crafted, with great lyrics and melodies.

The work on that album is right up there with the greatest songs in the history of Rock Music. That means it is TECHNICALLY GOOD.

 

[DWBass]

There's a difference between "playing technique" and "technically good music".


Brian Wilson was once being interviewed about the "technicality" of music where he opined that technicality wasn't a major issue in selling music. He said that "She Loves You" by The Beatles wasn't technically all that good....but it sold a lot of copies.

Much of Brian's work was technically good.........as in "Pet Sounds"......which at the time it came out did not make the impact that it does now in music history.

Let's take another album ........."London Calling" by the Clash.

It has the distinction (or did) of being the longest running number one album on Billboard in it's genre.

I once owned that album to satisfy my curiosity as to what all the kerfuffle was about.

A week after I bought it was donated to the local thrift shop collection.


Technically good?........not by half a mile....

Good just because...well....it sounds good?
Not for me......nothing on it at all that made me turn my head....

Explanation:- there's just no accounting for taste. People like what they like because they like it. No problem there...to each his/her own.......

But don't confuse acceptance by the masses as a marker to determine whether a work is technically good or not.

Good lord, man!!

 

[JTE]

It's probably splitting hairs, but the difference between a "standard" and a "cover" is that a "standard" is the basis for a personal interpretation. A "cover" is expected to be close to the original version (or at least, the "popular" version). Sometimes the lines get blurred if a version of a "standard" is seen as a definitive version. Then future "covers" are similar to that definitive version (or at least until a new 'definitive' version replaces the older one).

Nah- A cover is a cover- take the song and do it. Whether you try to regurgitate a specific recording/arrangement/version or do your own version totally, it's still a cover.

The problem is that people at some point got the stupidly misguided notion that a recording is the same as a song and the same as an arrangement. The song stands separate from a specific performance (at least if it's a good song- weak songs can be made into GREAT record- "Stairway To Heaven" for example). But a great song can stand up to being reinterpreted, rearranged, with or without reference to any specific performance.

Why are they looked down on by some people? I dunno- I just know that in the almost 40 years I've been gigging and the 11 years I managed a guitar store, there were a lot of people who looked askance at people doing covers- and out of all those folks, just about 2% were able to actually write interesting and viable original music.

There's a pattern I've found- the people who do write good originals know a lot of different songs in different styles by other people too. Like The Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, etc. they learned their craft by learning what makes a good song. You study at the feet of song writers like Rodney Crowell and John Prine, you'll learn how to write a good song.

But so many folks who vociferously espouse the "originals are better" simply don't know the difference between a good song and a mediocre one. And they frequently confuse "song" again with "arrangement" and "performance".

John

 

[Johnny Crab]

<snip> "covers," and bands who play them are considered less artistically valid than bands who write their own material. Why?

Why the emphasis on being both a musician and a composer? They seem like largely disjoint skill sets.

Symphony orchestras play "covers"....right?
Are the musicians in those bands looked down on?
Any musician who "looks down" on a skilled live performer of music(cover or not) would seem to have the problem IMO.

Being both a performer AND a good writer/composer is not common and is valued more IF the person does not have ego or other problems(working with others).

 

[Milk]

There's a pattern I've found- the people who do write good originals know a lot of different songs in different styles by other people too.

That's not very true in my world. Most of the bands i like never did much covering. Did they spend a lot of time learning other people's songs outside of say, the public eye, in their spare time? well ok that is hard to know...maybe they did, maybe they didnt. But i'd guess it's not very likely for some of them.

The thing though whether you learn other people's songs or not, just listening to songs already is a training in itself. You can never have learned to play anyone's song ever and still be heavily influenced by them. I don't necessarily need to learn a song to understand it's patterns or why it works (learning it helps sure but its not absolutely necessary).

 

[Sundogue]

http://atz459.com/newAmy/why-i-wont...ce-or-any-other-televised-talent-competition/

Reprinted below...


Why I Won’t Be Auditioning for The Voice (Or Any Other Televised Talent Competition)
By Amy Petty On November 10, 2013 · 175 Comments

Tonight, I’m standing in a stranger’s living room, singing at a house concert. I’m far from home and I don’t know anyone here but you’ve given me your time, your ear and your heart for two hours and by the end of the night, we know each other. We are fulfilled and changed by the experiences of the evening and life is good. We are moved, unexpectedly.

You approached me with tears in your eyes. I was standing near the tissue box so I had the honor of handing one to you. You told me what that one song meant to you, how it spoke exactly of an experience you’d had and that it meant the world to hear someone else felt the same way.

After a few moments of each of us trying to find the words, you said, “And you should audition for the The Voice!” I smiled and laughed a bit and said thank you. “I mean it,” you said, “you’re good enough! You could win! You could be famous! Someday, you’ll make it and we’ll say we knew you when.”

I’ve come to realize that this is a huge compliment, maybe the biggest compliment that you could possibly offer. You have just placed me in the company of some of the best singers you know of. You believe in me. You want me to have success and you want others to experience what you’ve experienced here tonight. I’m flattered and humbled and grateful.

For many people, watching one of the myriad singing competitions on TV is a huge deal, like a cross between a soap opera and football, exciting and dramatic and entertaining, an epic battle with a winner declared at the end. And you can be directly involved in the outcome. After all, it’s up to you to vote your favorite into the next round. And seriously, there is some pretty incredible talent on those shows, especially The Voice. So I’m flattered that you consider me talented enough to vocally rumble in the ring on your favorite TV show.

But I’m absolutely not going to do that. Here’s why:

1) I’m not interested in ‘winning’ at singing.

I sing for a living so in all honesty, I ALREADY win at singing. How strange it would be to have a celebrity judge (who probably knows less about singing than I do) listen to me for 30 seconds and decide if I’m ‘good enough’. I AM good enough to sing for a living because I’m doing it right now.

I sing for people, on purpose, at concerts and festivals and weddings and churches and bars. I studied music in college and have a degree in classical voice. I’m a singer/songwriter and I’m signed to a small and awesome record label. I sing for a living and I sing for people and I sing for myself. I totally win.

2) I’m not really interested in being famous.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to being well known or to my songs being heard by the masses or to making enough money to buy my mom a decent washer and dryer. But I have never been interested in achieving fame. Fame usually has nothing to do with the music and it almost certainly has nothing to do with talent.

It’s hard to judge the success of a musician without using fame as a measuring stick. But it can be pretty simple. Am I singing? Check. Are people hearing it? Check. Is everyone happy/moved/inspired/dancing/thinking at the end? Check. Do I want to do it again tomorrow night? Check. That, my friend, is success.

3) I don’t want to compete with other singers.

There are plenty of people out there taking advantage of musicians. They want us to perform for free. They want us to give them the rights to our music. They want us to ‘pay to play’. They want $2000 for introducing us to the guy who might use a song in a TV show. We have enough obstacles out there. We don’t need to be stumbling over each other, too.

One of the greatest joys in my life has been meeting and performing and collaborating with other singers and musicians around the country. They are my tribe. I love them and I want them to survive and thrive and make more of their amazing music. I want to share the stage with them. I want to high five the guy who is trying out a new song, even if he knows his performance wasn’t perfect. I want to be blown away by that girl with the amazing voice and not worry that she might be better than me. I want all of us to try new things, play new instruments and write new songs without wondering if the audience is going to vote us off.

I have had the pleasure of finding my tribe, some ships that have passed in the night and some who are docked in the same harbor. There are hundreds of us. Thousands of us. And life is better when we’re for each other, not against.

4) I want to help write a new definition of success for musicians.

I will admit, it’s pretty awesome to flip on the TV and see someone you know singing their hearts out for the world to see. I’ve had friends audition for almost every major singing competition, some making it to the finals, others not making it through the first round. And just because that’s not the path for me doesn’t mean that’s not the path for them, so I support them whole-heartedly.

But on many occasions, I’ve seen them give up when they get home. They didn’t win the singing competition so they decide to go to bar-tending school. Looks like they won’t skyrocket to fame, so they change their course all together. Some of the best singers I’ve ever heard are deflated because they lost out to a juggling dog. All the eggs, one basket.

It takes time and hard work to achieve whatever it is that you consider success but you won’t regret it. My life is full of music because I made choices along the way to ensure that it is. I could have given up when I wasn’t a famous singer by the time I was 21 years old. Oh, the things I would have missed. Even if fame is the ultimate goal…take the road less traveled and enjoy the ride.

As my friend and executive producer Lauren Markow always says: “Even a bad day making music is better than a good day doing anything else”. Right. On.

5) Because tonight was PERFECT.

Who says that the best music in the world is made in front of a huge audience?

It’s not. It’s made in small rooms. It’s made by people you’ve never heard of. It’s made when a musician is alone, writing a song, practicing, trying something new. It’s made when a french horn and it’s player become one entity. It’s made when your choir is rehearsing a week before the scheduled performance and everyone just clicks. It’s made at the Saturday matinee performance when the lead soprano finally understands and fully becomes her character. It’s made when I am singing one of my songs and I look up to see you, crying, nodding, completely present and I realize that I don’t even know what this song is about anymore.

So no, I’m not going to be auditioning for The Voice. Because I would much rather be standing right here, singing in a stranger’s living room, seeing your face as I sing, handing you a tissue as you tell me how my songs moved you. I am part of your experience and you are part of mine. I am fulfilled and I am changed and I am moved that you are moved. And this is what I want my life to be. Welcome to the tribe.

I will forever treasure the compliment.

 

[bass_case]

Muddy Waters could kick Mozart's ass.

Trying to imagine Wolfgang in his powdered wig and silk stockings playing barrelhouse blues in some backwoods honky tonk in Sunflower county, Mississippi... it doesn't end well.

 

[Passinwind]

http://atz459.com/newAmy/why-i-wont...ce-or-any-other-televised-talent-competition/

Reprinted below...

<snip>

Brilliant.

 

[sbass traveller]

Muddy Waters could kick Mozart's ass.

Trying to imagine Wolfgang in his powdered wig and silk stockings playing barrelhouse blues in some backwoods honky tonk in Sunflower county, Mississippi... it doesn't end well.

Situation-ally and in a fair fight, BB would stomp good ol' Amadaeus (powdered wig, tights and all), but musically, it's different sides of the same coin. They're both great musicians, but I like to believe (IMO) that anyone who can (according to legend) memorize and transcribe a piece after only hearing it once wins the musician debate. If he can do that he can pick up the blues no problem, especially with his money troubles and being buried in a "pauper's grave" (which apparently wasn't like the movie at all... go figure)... In a Honky Tonk in Sunflower county though... yeah maybe Mozart doesn't have enough street cred?

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Fair fight? Then both BB and Mozart would have to play a neutral style of music that neither was familiar with say, Polka.
My bet and money goes on the guy who was writing chamber pieces slightly before his 4th birthday.
Not that I think BB is a slouch- but I've never heard evidence he can play outside of the blues idiom.

 

[AngryPig1]

Whe I was younger I suppose I did used to look down on cover bands a bit. My band, and all the ones in my scene were originals and thats the circuit we played. Cover bands were seen as people that didnt contribute creatively to the pool. It happens when you are young and idealistic.

Since I've gotten a little older and realised that all those bands havent made it like we all thought the idea of playing covers to make a bit of cash has become much more appealing and I do it from time to time and its great fun and you are guaranteed to please the crowd. But that is all it is to me, a way to earn a bit of money and have some fun.

However, I personally will always prefer seeing or being part of a great originals band rather than a great covers band. I love song writing, and trying to create soemthing new that no ones every heard that will make people sit up and listen and think. The idea that some people are creating something new and putting it out there is exhilerating and I'd rather support an originals band that has some potential. Dont get me wrong you need be a very talented musician to do the note-for-note style covers and being able to interpret someones else song and do your own version of it is also a great skill, something I do as a producer all the time but if we all did covers and no one did originals anymore there would be no more songs for the covers only crowd to play.

That to my mind is why covers can be looked down on.

 

[carl h.]

Once you have played it out, you are just covering your own work.

 

[richntiff]

Are there actually people here arguing over which musician could kick each others butt in a cross century duel, and determining who the winner would be based on their ability to adapt to genre completely foreign to either? Am I seriously reading this? Why am I even jumping in? I don't know - this is all getting WAY too weird here people.

I propose we have Mozart and Muddy battling it out at a club in hell ala the final scene from Crossroads with Steve Vai and Ralph Machio. Muddy would play guitar, Mozart would play the Clavinova or whatever that piano like instrument that was popular during his day was. That would be excellent. Both would have to wear powdered wigs, more for visual impact than anything. This could be a recurring contest with different cross generational musicians battling it out. But they could find common ground too, and we'd end up with a hybrid of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Live from Darryl's house, and The Voice. I'm loving this idea, I think I will pitch it to the networks.

 

[bucephylus]

Da carrots be gettin' ripe.

 

[FretNoMore]

Link Removed

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Piano Forte

 

[GregT]

In answer to the OP: Another thing to remember is that in a large part, on the original recordings to some older music, the musicians on the recordings weren't even the performers. They were studio musicians. a lot of bands had trouble "covering" their own material.

I never thought about the cover/standard thing. I play other people's music live. None of what I do sounds like the records. I've always thought I did covers. Maybe I play standards. I don't know. It's fun.

I can't see looking down on other musicians, but I look up to so many.