• 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?

#281
Most working/cover artists pay the bills playing music. Very hard(not impossible) to do that as an original artist. I don't think that realm of musicians are "looked down upon" as much as you think. Personally I've never looked down on any musician. Just don't. I might say to myself:

"Wow, they are really butchering that Hendrix tune(Spainish Castle Magic) but at least they're not playing Purple Haze, again."

Mad respect for that. That was last night, here in KC.

Now that I think about it I have never read one post on here about stuff in general and wondered if the post or response was coming from a bassist of a cover band or an original band. Just don't. I'm just sayin
 
#283
Something I noted (given a huge stastistical sample of three local originals bands and a handful of cover bands :)) is that the cover bands seem to have more fun. The originals bands seem very serious, in a not having much fun kind of way. Especially one guy I've talked to seems almost personally insulted when the audience doesn't really "get" his art. I'm sure I'm wildly extrapolating from too few samples, but that's what I see. I can sort of understand this, someone writing his own material invests more of himself than someone like me who just have fun playing Mustang Sally, and it must hurt more if the music isn't appreciated.
 
#284
The approach is wrong. You can't be an originals band and just go book a bar gig and expect folks to dig what you do unless it's really good and captures folks attention. I'd be more apt to writing and recording and making a name for myself. Concentrate on writing a really good song, get it played locally and regionally on the radio and promote myself. Do a few showcase type shows and create a buzz. Just booking a bar gig isn't the right approach. At least that's my opinion. Also, a lot of those bands try too much to be different to the point it's so far off the beaten path, no one wants to hear it. There's a reason formulas work. Write good songs using proven formulas. Just my opinion.
 
#285
DWBass said:
The approach is wrong. You can't be an originals band and just go book a bar gig and expect folks to dig what you do unless it's really good and captures folks attention. I'd be more apt to writing and recording and making a name for myself. Concentrate on writing a really good song, get it played locally and regionally on the radio and promote myself. Do a few showcase type shows and create a buzz. Just booking a bar gig isn't the right approach. At least that's my opinion. Also, a lot of those bands try too much to be different to the point it's so far off the beaten path, no one wants to hear it. There's a reason formulas work. Write good songs using proven formulas. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

There is an awful lot of crap originals bands around here. It isn't so much a matter of liking the material or not. As musicians, they suck and for the most part write original material because they couldn't do a cover (any cover no matter how simple) any justice.

On the other hand, there are some VERY good originals bands around here too, where the musicians spent the better part of their life learning to play their instrument and cutting their teeth on live performances doing covers for twenty years or more. And it shows. Their music is inventive (without being weird or avant garde),wonderfully written and arranged with a very acute sense of what makes a good "song" and audiences absolutely love them to where they need not play any covers and are still accepted.

Good music is appreciated by audiences (and therefore club owners). Good music is just plain good, be it a cover or an original. Covers are originals, even if the people playing them didn't write it.
 
#287
knarleybass said:
unless you are the one writing the songs you are playing covers...
Click to expand...
It's amazing how often this rationalization gets plastered in these threads. Have the people who posted it never even written a bass part for someone else's chords and lyrics?

Yeah, James Jamerson just played covers.:D
 
#288
knarleybass said:
unless you are the one writing the songs you are playing covers...
Click to expand...

When will people stop repeating this? It isn't true. Most bands rely on the input of each individual member, even if only one person is responsible for the chords and melody. And even in the case of a composer dictating what each member plays, it still isn't a cover because it's a new, untested piece of music. People are in cover bands because it's easy money and easy glory.
 
#289
I've played in originals & covers bands since the early 70's. An originals band develops it's own identity largely based on the individual members' influences and playing style. Look what happens when Fred leaves the band and you have to replace him - it's no good choosing anyone solely based on their technical ability. Even when you replace him, the band will never sound quite the same as when Fred was there.
Now, join a covers band and you will most likely play a much wider variety of music and musical influences and there will be a good chance that some of the songs you play would not have been your personal choice. By having to play such songs, you are forced to play in different styles with different sounds. It's a fantastic challenge which is fun and also makes you an all-round better player. It is also a good excuse to go out and buy new gear!!.
Give me a good drummer and I'll play anything.
 
#290
bass_case said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just for fun, I need to point out that there are a couple of scenarios in which this ends poorly for Muddy Waters. For example, if more people know Mozart's music than Muddy's in 500 years then Mozart wins.

Also, you're underestimating the powdered wig crowd. Mozart spent a lot of time on tour. He did not travel via bus or van or plane like lazy Muddy Waters! He traveled by stage coach which could only manage 7 miles or so a day barring accidents, and probably spent most nights partying in dive bars. Who wins now?
 
#291
The Sloth said:
...
People are in cover bands because it's easy money and easy glory.
Click to expand...

Maybe some are.

Others, like our band, play covers because it's fun to play good music that we like ourselves and that makes people dance and enjoy themselves. I'd love it if it was "easy money", but the truth is playing live music is for most of us a labor of love and something that costs money, not makes money.
 
#292
The Sloth said:
People are in cover bands because it's easy money and easy glory.
Click to expand...
Nope. Just easy money. Ain't no glory in being in a cover band. Don't get it twisted though, unless the cover band is playing on the corporate/wedding level, there ain't a lot of money there. We get the same $200-$600 everyone else is getting (depends on venue and band reputation). And unless the band is a 4-5 piece, that's not a lot of money to go around. The last 2 bands I was in were 8pc and 9pc. Did a Casino gig with the last one and came home with $100.

Me personally, I love popular music. Most genres.
 
#293
richntiff said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Clavinova, or whatever that piano like instrument that was popular during his day was?

He was a master on the Piano, Violin and Harpsichord.

As a child, he played on a Clavier.

He was the greatest composer in the history of recorded music, and has never been surpassed.

Muddy Waters would have had a relatively easy time besting him in a physical confrontation, as Muddy was a tough, seasoned guy, and Wolfgang was on the frail side.

However, Wolfgang would have easily master the Blues, and done well at it, as he was simply very gifted, and could adapt to any style.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back