in part because so many covers bands are not good and its guilt by association in. when i was younger i heard lots of crappy cover bands, then i heard a few good to really good ones, it certainly changed my mind
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
First - this is a totally troll thread start. It should be reported for closing. And the OP appears to be a brand spanking new member. I really think this is bluewine in disguise. But anyway...
Covers aren't looked down upon, but many people who mainly play covers think people who mainly play original music look down on them We don't, it's just not what we choose to do at this time.
Everybody started on covers - covers are the existing body of music one might play. People who play original music listen to a lot of covers, everything on the radio or your CDs,etc. are covers at a certain level. They now exist.
People who work on original music want to create new music for many reasons: [potential] fame, [potential]money, artistic expression and creating fresh cover music. And shear variety, since much of the cover tunes we have already heard and/or played ad nauseam. Sometimes we cover our own music - like when you bring a song you wrote and played while with another band and get an entirely new group of musicians to listen to it and make it their own. I am currently covering an original written by a guy who doesn't want to be in bands anymore, he gave us his blessings to use it. He and I played together back when he wrote the song.
Nobody is hating on peeps that play covers, especially for a living - it's good honest work, is sometimes quite good, some of "us" like to dance and watch the other folks playing "star". All is good, honestly.
Covers aren't looked down upon, but many people who mainly play covers think people who mainly play original music look down on them We don't, it's just not what we choose to do at this time.
Everybody started on covers - covers are the existing body of music one might play. People who play original music listen to a lot of covers, everything on the radio or your CDs,etc. are covers at a certain level. They now exist.
People who work on original music want to create new music for many reasons: [potential] fame, [potential]money, artistic expression and creating fresh cover music. And shear variety, since much of the cover tunes we have already heard and/or played ad nauseam. Sometimes we cover our own music - like when you bring a song you wrote and played while with another band and get an entirely new group of musicians to listen to it and make it their own. I am currently covering an original written by a guy who doesn't want to be in bands anymore, he gave us his blessings to use it. He and I played together back when he wrote the song.
Nobody is hating on peeps that play covers, especially for a living - it's good honest work, is sometimes quite good, some of "us" like to dance and watch the other folks playing "star". All is good, honestly.
Good cover bands SHOULD be artistically valid. I've heard your band, you're valid bro. Maybe part of the problem is that some who play covers just copy it. Which for those with artistic sensibilities and higher self esteem just won't do. Covers naturally are open to comparison to the original - a crappy rendition of a song you like is like a stuttering CD player or worse..
Good cover bands know if they can't nail it to 98% of the original they are better making it their own. IF anyone has a beef with cover bands, it's probably good cover bands vs. the crappy ones which make them look artistically invalid by association.
First - this is a totally troll thread start. It should be reported for closing. And the OP appears to be a brand spanking new member. I really think this is bluewine in disguise. But anyway...
Covers aren't looked down upon, but many people who mainly play covers think people who mainly play original music look down on them We don't, it's just not what we choose to do at this time.
Everybody started on covers - covers are the existing body of music one might play. People who play original music listen to a lot of covers, everything on the radio or your CDs,etc. are covers at a certain level. They now exist.
People who work on original music want to create new music for many reasons: [potential] fame, [potential]money, artistic expression and creating fresh cover music. And shear variety, since much of the cover tunes we have already heard and/or played ad nauseam. Sometimes we cover our own music - like when you bring a song you wrote and played while with another band and get an entirely new group of musicians to listen to it and make it their own. I am currently covering an original written by a guy who doesn't want to be in bands anymore, he gave us his blessings to use it. He and I played together back when he wrote the song.
Nobody is hating on peeps that play covers, especially for a living - it's good honest work, is sometimes quite good, some of "us" like to dance and watch the other folks playing "star". All is good, honestly.
You get over to the west side, we're having beers!
Well said good sir!
Preach it!!
Yes, working in the all originals zone is TONS of work,time and money with ZERO promise of any payback other than self-enjoyment and "artistic expression". I keep doing it anyway.
Just my opinion and no disrespect to anyone.. but as far as I am concerned, symphony orchestras are just cover bands that play the hits from the 17 century forward...
OK..they do play some ocassional 'originals' and contemporary pieces as well..
Having played originals and covers..I prefer covers .
For the most part..unless you are signed to a major label, no one but your friends an family and bandmates have any remote interest in performing originals..been there done that..prefer covers.
OK..they do play some ocassional 'originals' and contemporary pieces as well..
Having played originals and covers..I prefer covers .
For the most part..unless you are signed to a major label, no one but your friends an family and bandmates have any remote interest in performing originals..been there done that..prefer covers.
Exactly. I do not understand when people do not understand that the world is full of asses, and they/we like to air our opinions. Someone, somewhere, does not like what you like and feels the need to say so. Ignore it and move on
I play both.
I have been getting paid for playing covers since I got out of college, and it makes a lot of people happy...
I wish I could say the same about the originals, but that's a much trickier market.
It's all good.
I have been getting paid for playing covers since I got out of college, and it makes a lot of people happy...
I wish I could say the same about the originals, but that's a much trickier market.
It's all good.
Playing covers does not, in any way, diminish you as a musician. If you are a young band, it's easier to do original material. As an older musician, most venues want covers in order to please their clientel, who mostly, just want to have a good time , listening to something familiar. The trick is to take these covers and make them your own,without taking away the essence of the song.
A standard like "Georgia on My Mind" has been performed in a variety of ways by a wide range of artists and is more open to interpretation. A cover of "Sweet Home Alabama" on the other hand is generally played as close to the original Lynyrd Skynyrd version. That doesn't mean playing covers is easy or anything-it just means they are different than standards.
From what I remember of my youth it was much easier to get going on cover tunes - we all knew what we were working toward, had the same recording,etc. Originals take a lot more communication which is often highly frustrating as you attempt to convey your "idea". You also have to be able to "stand down" when your idea is not accepted or is changed in ways you couldn't imagine and dislike. Us older folks may be grumpier but we frequently have a better working knowledge of co-operation and team work. I'm guessing for many musicians their day job has been a major help in them learning those skills. "Law school teaches lawyers about the law, going to Court teaches them how to be a lawyer". It's so true.
They are though. Like i think Aaronvonrock said, my musical education also happened in an environment where cover bands were seen as lame. No musician i've ever personally known was ever in a cover band (at least not that i know...). In my neck of the woods, it was looked down on. It was more respected to play sh**** three chords "originals" than "lower" yourself to playing covers. Its not entirely false what someone said that for young bands original is easier. If you're starting you might not just be good enough yet to play other people's songs (which really should sometime mean you're not good enough to even play any shows...but...that doesnt seem to stop a lot of starting bands). I've seen original bands who would have never been able to play covers, at least not the kind people want to hear.
Honestly my opinion on cover band has changed a lot ever since i joined this forum. On the positive side i mean (definitely though ive always respected the musicianship required to be in a good cover band, a lot of these guys could probably "play circles around me"), I've never went to see a cover band, and might never (ok i "saw" one, my own when i was for about 4 months in a Cure tribute band many eyars ago, and yes we got a really good turn out on the one show i did which is as a musician definitely motivating, on the other hand, they're coming to hear songs that aren't your own), but i respect that its a valid way to earn money and express yourself musically. Obviously there's a demand for it. If it was so lame nobody would go see cover bands and hence there wouldn't be any.
I would say this...cover bands are often looked down on a lot by other musicians, the average non musician person is perfectly fine with the idea of cover bands.
It also should be said some genres are a lot more cover friendly than others. Like blues, you're almost expected to do some covers even if you do originals.
Other people's opinions do not matter to me if I chose to do covers that is my choice. I was signed by Warner Bros back in the 80's I wrote everything myself carried the entire thing on my back and even then I never felt I was better than a cover band I started doing covers like most kids and took to writing myself around age 13th put out my first EP at 15. The the young people do what you like if it is covers it is a great learning tool on how you favorite bands and bass players write a song if you decide to throw your hat into the ring. If you love covering your favorites only do that. Just have fun with whatever your choice nobody else's opinion matters
Please excuse a moment of horn-tooting, I'm just trying to make a point:
Click here to hear my band's "cover" of The Band's classic, The Weight. It actually is cover of a cover--we're pretty closely following an arrangement done by Joan Osborne.
So, in everyone's classification system, where does this come out?
Click here to hear my band's "cover" of The Band's classic, The Weight. It actually is cover of a cover--we're pretty closely following an arrangement done by Joan Osborne.
So, in everyone's classification system, where does this come out?
Personally I've always been much more into originals. I definitely learned a few covers when I first started playing, and a couple for bands I've been in (originals bands that threw in a couple covers for fun), but what really drove me to start playing music was the thought of writing my own material so that is my focus.
That being said, I've never looked down on people who play covers, although I will admit that I'll pay much more attention to an originals band at a bar than I will a cover band, but that's just my personal interest. To me it's just a different way of being a musician, not better, not worse.
I could see an argument being made that an all originals player is more "artistic" than an all covers player, but either path is worthy of respect in its own right.
That being said, I've never looked down on people who play covers, although I will admit that I'll pay much more attention to an originals band at a bar than I will a cover band, but that's just my personal interest. To me it's just a different way of being a musician, not better, not worse.
I could see an argument being made that an all originals player is more "artistic" than an all covers player, but either path is worthy of respect in its own right.
