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
We're not playing covers for profit, there is not enough money in it. We play for the fun of it. Getting paid is however one way of getting a reality check - if people are prepared to pay for what we do, and even invite us back to play again, then we are probably doing something right.
Part of the reason I posted my other thread, is because I was surprised, when I started really putting some time into learning covers on bass, keyboards, vocals and guitar, is that learning to play the style of other players is very difficult, and it makes you a lot better of a musician, overall.
There are people who just naturally have something original to contribute. The Beatles are a great example of that. With little musical training, they did some very advanced things, mostly by mistake!
But a lack of chops means a lot of original artists' work has a "sameness" throughout their body of work, meaning one song might be great, but three or four albums of it is tiresome.
I don't think anybody who has actually put in the effort looks down on cover players, and that is why when you do look down on cover players, you show your ass.
There are people who just naturally have something original to contribute. The Beatles are a great example of that. With little musical training, they did some very advanced things, mostly by mistake!
But a lack of chops means a lot of original artists' work has a "sameness" throughout their body of work, meaning one song might be great, but three or four albums of it is tiresome.
I don't think anybody who has actually put in the effort looks down on cover players, and that is why when you do look down on cover players, you show your ass.
AMEN!!!
That's the whole story in a few words.
A band can play what it pleases. You can like it or not, but that's not their issue.
Back a few decades, EVERY band played well-established music, and what you got was "their version" or "their interpretation" of that music.
This was (and is) great music like that written by Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington, Rodgers & Hammerstein and many others.
Playing your version of Tuxedo Junction (maybe in Reggae style) is no more or less valid than your version of LaGrange, Texas Flood or Paperback Writer. And studying what others have played generally opens you up to new techniques and ways of playing, which makes you a better musician.
I don't even use the term "covers," because of the silly negative connotation that some music snobs place on it. We play our version and that's that.
If some people look down on it because they think only "originals" are worthy of their time, they're entitled to their own opinion...but that doesn't mean I have any interest in their music or that I wouldn't rather re-play a SRV CD rather than listen to them.
Of course (someone mentioned this above)...so did The Stones, The Yardbirds, Deep Purple, The Who, 3 Dog Night, Chicago, Santana, Allman Brothers, Foghat, BS&T, Motown, Stax, Hendrix, Yes, The Doors, Zeppelin, on & on...it goes...even Frank Zappa.
Forget to add these-
Every Classical musician (also mentioned earlier) + every Jazz musician...Miles, Coltrane, Bird, Duke, Mingus, Wynton, Herbie, Shorter, etc.
Early on, I always played covers (& pretty much always had fun doing so)...any originals were done in the studio as a hired hand.
When I got older (into my late 30s)...I ended playing in 3 different 'originals' bands.
Hmmm, same guitarist is those 3 bands.
The 1st one-
The singer, a Jim Morrison/Capt. Beefheart wannabe...would not do covers; fact is, he was anti-cover band (an attitude I had never seen prior).
This was his band, he would not sing someone else's lyrics/words...fact was, he could not do covers.
I have told this story before here & it's still a goodie...this band had trouble getting gigs (our EP was reviewed locally as an offshoot of Primus, FWIW...)
Fact: I have never learned anything by Claypool.
Anyway, we're playing some dive in Newport News, VA (read: a strip joint)...no one, of course, knows our material...3rd song in, the owner hands the singer a note-
It was request...-
"Finish this song & get the F___ off the stage. You guys belong in a garage".
After that band broke up-
The guitarist formed a couple of other projects. More mainstream & "jazzy". We played a mix of covers (usually arranged our way) & originals. We did what we wanted. Every friend of mine loved that we were free enough to do own thing, they wished they were so fortunate.
I asked a couple, "C'mon, join us; let's have fun".
Of course, they wouldn't leave their 100% cover band 'cause we played smaller clubs with smaller pay days.
All of us had decent day jobs...so it was not our livelihood...and that makes a difference, too.
Have you ever heard Zappa's rendition of Ravel's Bolero? It's stunning. But even though what you say is true, none of the bands you list would ever be classed as a "cover band".
I have been in cover bands and original material bands. In my admittedly subjective experience, playing covers is more lucrative while playing originals is more fun.
Now that I'm a switch hitter again, I think stuff like cover bands and country are more fun for guitarists than bassists. We're usually not given much creative freedom in these bands as bassists. Whilest many guitarists dumb down solos to "make it their own", heaven forbid the bassist does something to spice it up.
I'm not currently in one, but am sharpening my skills on both instruments to keep my options open.
As a bassist, I used to catch a lot of flack if I made changes, usually from guys that dumb down solos. Obviously/hopefully this isn't the norm, but something I seemed to experience on bass. I had been in a few original bands where I had a heck of a lot of freedom on bass.
I have always like playing covers, mixed with a few originals.
If possible, it's cool imo to alter the arrangement of the cover to your style. i.e. RHCP doing Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues", Soundgarden's "Rusty Cage", or the reggae-feel version of Floyd's "Have a Cigar" played in one of my previous bands.
It's music, not historical canon. Have fun with it.
Cover purists be damned, whether it's "no covers" or note-for-note-ists.
It's all just organized noise. Organize it how you like.
Just like standards.
If possible, it's cool imo to alter the arrangement of the cover to your style. i.e. RHCP doing Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues", Soundgarden's "Rusty Cage", or the reggae-feel version of Floyd's "Have a Cigar" played in one of my previous bands.
It's music, not historical canon. Have fun with it.
Cover purists be damned, whether it's "no covers" or note-for-note-ists.
It's all just organized noise. Organize it how you like.
Just like standards.
The songs you play have to come from somewhere, right? Without reading every post in the thread, I will say that anyone who only knows the music he/she writes should be an object of pity, similar to authors who have written more books than they have read.
I've worked every section of the covers/originals landscape. Covers are a known quantity, regardless of how they are interpreted. Originals are not. Originals have to be BETTER than covers, even just to draw flies. And guess what… most are not—by a wide margin.
Hey who says you have to be 19 to have success writing and playing originals. Good music is good music.
There's a local heavy rock band here in Portland called Red Fang who have been having recent success. They're touring all over the world and recently played on David Letterman. I don't know their age but these dudes look to be at least in their early to mid 40's, some maybe older.
There's a local heavy rock band here in Portland called Red Fang who have been having recent success. They're touring all over the world and recently played on David Letterman. I don't know their age but these dudes look to be at least in their early to mid 40's, some maybe older.
In summary:
The guys in cover bands see the guys in originals bands as being delusional, harbouring dreams of 'making it', and being instrumentally incompetent - certainly not good enough to play in a cover band.
The guys in originals bands see the guys in cover bands as being unimaginative, and driven by the need to be applauded by an audience rather than the desire to make music.
In truth many players in both types of band are incompetent, but the cover bands would be struggling for repertoire if there were no originals bands.
Someone above argued that even the Beatles played covers. Well yes they did, but early in their careers, not when they were past it! And if the argument goes that 99% of original bands aren't good enough, what if we'd carried that attitude back to the 'cover bands' of the '60s and they'd decided just to stick with the already-successful rock 'n' roll repertoire that had gone before?
Don't knock the original bands. They are starving themselves to put food in your mouths.
The guys in cover bands see the guys in originals bands as being delusional, harbouring dreams of 'making it', and being instrumentally incompetent - certainly not good enough to play in a cover band.
The guys in originals bands see the guys in cover bands as being unimaginative, and driven by the need to be applauded by an audience rather than the desire to make music.
In truth many players in both types of band are incompetent, but the cover bands would be struggling for repertoire if there were no originals bands.
Someone above argued that even the Beatles played covers. Well yes they did, but early in their careers, not when they were past it! And if the argument goes that 99% of original bands aren't good enough, what if we'd carried that attitude back to the 'cover bands' of the '60s and they'd decided just to stick with the already-successful rock 'n' roll repertoire that had gone before?
Don't knock the original bands. They are starving themselves to put food in your mouths.
Yes.
I have never ever approached music as a way to improve my financial situation. If it happens as a result, great, if it doesn't, i had no expectations to begin with so there's no disappointment.
I see that a lot from defensive cover bands, "yeah well have fun making no money playing originals" Who says it ever was about money? If you're playing music, you should approach it as a money sucking endeavor to begin with. It's gonna cost you money and time and consider yourself lucky if you're breaking even. Anything beyond that is just a happy bonus.
Another term for "covers" is: "Music that people actually LIKE."
Another term is: Music that people who don't like music like.
They are people who used to put on a pop radio station at work every day, when they were younger. They now put on a 'classic rock' station at work and never actually buy any music.
And they maintain that all the music that happened after their own adolescence is rubbish. And they will go see a cover band in a busy bar if there's no door charge but they wouldn't dream of booking tickets to see a real band who might play music that would require them to pay attention.
If your cover band is a big hit with the crowd in your local bar, and you 'get paid', it's not because your band is better than any given originals band, it's because your audience consists of people who don't really like music, they just like reminiscing back to the days when they used to like music.
