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
I don't know though. Plenty of great musicians have made plenty of cash. the problem is maybe that technique doesn't mean talent and some people seem to think it does. Also, a lot of musicians who have a lot of technique and ahem..."chops" become very self indulgent with it. I can guarantee you the average music fan doesn't give a **** about hearing a minute long bass solo (neither do i for the record). Or cares that a band is super tight (i mean, you don't want to be TOO sloppy either but you know, to a certain extent most will not realise if your timing is not absolutely perfect) Hell they might not even care about ANY type of solo if its a completely generic and unnecessary one. Most of the iconic basslines people can recognize are usually very or at least fairly simple.
I'm personally always very suspicious of people who are very technically advanced (I don't want people who can barely play 3 chords either but you know, i'm more interested in your songwriting approach then your ability to play any song without ever messing up). Normally it means i have no use for them in a band context. I mean i used to be in a post punk band in which the guitar player would say things like "yeah i've been learning a few jazz chords this past weekend, I'm gonna try to throw a few in here an see how that works" It didn't. Go find a jazz band.
As a musician gets better in his craft, they often end up making music only other musicians care about. I never want to be that guy.
Playing covers is never as "artistically valid" as playing originals. As a matter of fact I believe most of the time there is no artistic value in playing a cover. The definition of art is creativivity
There, I guess I'm an ass.
There is no question.
There is plenty of artistic value in playing a cover. First of all, and foremost, you have to cop the FEEL of the original. Plenty of bad cover bands fail to achieve this.
Secondly, you have to put something of yourself into playing the song. There is a creativivity in arranging a song using less instruments than the original; using different instruments than the original; using what you have to achieve a sound that was achieved by someone using something entirely different.
You cannot tell me what the definition of art is. To say that you know what it is tells me categorically that you don't.
Conversely, my telling you that I don't know what it is tells you that I don't either.
Therefore, it doesn't matter what you say about the definition of art. I can be 100% certain that you don't know what it is.
ONE of the definitions of art is to express yourself honestly. And when I play a cover that I love, I am doing just that.
Please see this thread:
Originals vs Covers - mellowinman edition!
I have put a great deal of effort into exploring this phenomenon, using my body of work from the eighties up until now as the example.
Copping someone else's feel isn't art. The fact that you argue this tells me you don't get it.
I may not have all the answers but I know enough not to argue with a nit wit online. I am checking myself out of this conversation and putting you on my block list. Good day
Bad news for you buddy, your originals aren't that original. Someone somewhere has done it, and done it better. Everyone is an amalgamation of everyone they ever listened to and studied, and an original band is an amalgamation of all it's members amalgamations.
And you were correct, you are an ass. Welcome to my block list.
Both are good. Neither is bad. Can't we all just get along?
No, historically musicians don't get along.
Bad news for you buddy, your originals aren't that original. Someone somewhere has done it, and done it better. Everyone is an amalgamation of everyone they ever listened to and studied, and an original band is an amalgamation of all it's members amalgamations.
And you were correct, you are an ass. Welcome to my block list.
I never said I do originals. I never mentioned any music I have ever played. I merely said covers aren't art.
And not only do I thank you for putting me on your block list, I wouldn't have it any other way. Consider the favor returned
Well, I just want to point out that I don't look down on anyone.
Make your best effort, regardless of what anyone says.
Make your best effort, regardless of what anyone says.
A good cover band gets the work out there in the down and dirty real world of a musician in
your average place in the heartland. If you want to play music and get paid, then play covers and play them well.
If you want to write songs and play your original music, its a lot tougher row to hoe. First you need the skills to be a good writer. Then find musicians who are willing to slug it out with you for little to no pay on the hope that you just might make it big.
They are 2 diffferent things, both deserving of respect if done well. I don't see it as some kind of artistic competion between which one is "better". Do what you do and do it to the best of your ability and have fun with it.
your average place in the heartland. If you want to play music and get paid, then play covers and play them well.
If you want to write songs and play your original music, its a lot tougher row to hoe. First you need the skills to be a good writer. Then find musicians who are willing to slug it out with you for little to no pay on the hope that you just might make it big.
They are 2 diffferent things, both deserving of respect if done well. I don't see it as some kind of artistic competion between which one is "better". Do what you do and do it to the best of your ability and have fun with it.
Fine if you want to think of it that way, but if you're in a cover band, you're probably playing the local watering hole, and if you try doing "Freebird" with a tin whistle instead of at least one guitar, make sure you mention that you're doing it with your own "voice" when they start throwing empty beer bottles at your head.
With that attitude why would anybody train for the Olympics, "obviously, I'll never be as good as my coach, otherwise why do I need them." Dog crap is an amalgamation, so is granite.
What the hell are you on about? How does the Olympics in anyway have anything to do with music? Bad analogy is bad...
Never said anyone shouldn't do originals either, did I? Wait, let me go back and read my reply... Yep, no where in there did I say that...
His statement implied that only people that preformed originals were artist because they were doing something ORIGINAL. I pointed out that what the vast majority of musicians do is not completely ORIGINAL, thus he isn't the artist he sees himself as.. I play originals myself, but I'm not so deluded that I don't know that my playing is influenced by all those that I studied growing up in some way.
Are you agreeing with this guy? Are you saying those that studied and practiced all their lives to get into a highly acclaimed orchestra or symphony is not an artist due to them not playing something that they wrote themselves?
Again, no one is talking about should you play or not. You made that leap. This was about one being an artist or not.
Maybe some people look down on playing covers ... but so what, I don't care what those people think. I'm not playing music for them, I'm playing firstly for my own enjoyment and secondly for our paying audiences and bar owners.
Luckily there is room for both originals and covers, so, live and let live.
Luckily there is room for both originals and covers, so, live and let live.
Here's an opinion I respect. There is one part I disagree with........
Not everyone writes originals with the hopes of "making it big" some people write music simply because that's what they do.
A common misperception in the covers vs. originals debate is that everyone is into music for profit.
