I agree with this
Another term for "covers" is: "Music that people actually LIKE."
I'm quite certain that those covers that "people actually LIKE" were original tunes at some point in time.
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'm quite certain that those covers that "people actually LIKE" were original tunes at some point in time.
Actually it was a very good analogy - you were proposing that people on either side of this operate within a sphere of artistic deja vu, just regurgitating the past. I guess we all should just stop playing, we have nothing real to contribute or accomplish. I can only pity you if you believe artist endeavors have to be 100% new, unique and previously unheard or unseen to be artistic. What next, we have to make our own instruments and strings, and they can't resemble anything in existence? Get real.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.
I understand you were initially arguing that playing covers can be artistic, but then you trashed the concept by raising the amalgamation concept, reducing it all back to artistic deja vu. Of course I consider playing symphonic music artistic - I did that for several years, it's where I started.
The problem that is when many cover bands put "their spin" on a song, it can often sound like they don't know how to play it. That's not true in every case, but NO band can cover 40 songs in a night and make them all sound better. You have to wisely pick and choose the ones you can truly do justice to when done your way, and stay true to the original for the others.
No doubt that covers have their place of importance in the music scene...and it's also HANDS DOWN more successful on average than the vast majority of original bands...but all that matters is that you enjoy what you do
Nothing I despise more is that heir of "I/We are better than you because..."
Between musicians or bands
Nothing I despise more is that heir of "I/We are better than you because..."
Between musicians or bands
Yoyo Ma should put away his cello and sell real estate- after all, he's not an artist- he simply plays covers of other people's "art".
I enjoy coming up with "original" riffs; derivatives of my influences. I enjoy playing "classic" riffs. I enjoy playing with other musicians on songs we all know and like or trying to come up with bits that fit what one of us has written. I enjoy playing music because it makes me happy; more so when I play with others.
None of it would have been possible if I hadn't learned to play in the first place. And I don't know about y'all, but I didn't learn to play by stringing together random notes hoping they'd fit. I learned to play with songbooks and practice books full of other peoples music/practice riffs.
I'm pretty sure we all start off doing covers to an extent and then continue down whatever musical path(s) makes us happy.
None of it would have been possible if I hadn't learned to play in the first place. And I don't know about y'all, but I didn't learn to play by stringing together random notes hoping they'd fit. I learned to play with songbooks and practice books full of other peoples music/practice riffs.
I'm pretty sure we all start off doing covers to an extent and then continue down whatever musical path(s) makes us happy.
okcrum
in your chest
All standards are covers. Not all covers are standards.
I've played in original bands where people asked whether the *same* tune at the *same* gig was Zep, acid jazz, or new age.
I've played in bands where folks thought Lodi was an original. No, it's a standard.
If it's good it don't matter.
I've played in original bands where people asked whether the *same* tune at the *same* gig was Zep, acid jazz, or new age.
I've played in bands where folks thought Lodi was an original. No, it's a standard.
If it's good it don't matter.
Although most cover bands probably aren't as good as Yoyo Ma despite what they may think.
Zeppelin started out as a cover band exclusively. Ask Willie Dixon, and Randy California. Matter of fact, Google "led Zeppelin Randy California" and it may change your perspective on pages "composition skills". By the way Zeppelin is still my favorite rock band despite plagiarism issues!
Look you are either being purposely disingenuous just to argue some perceived point you think I'm trying to making, you're reading comprehension is horrible, or I've not explained myself in a clear way. Not sure what it is. I do not need your pity as I've never even implied any of that...
If you play you have something to contribute, but to assert that someone could be 100% original is just BS, everyone is influenced, to a degree, by those they looked up to while learning and even after. Unless someone learned their instrument in a vacuum of never ever having heard a song, they are influenced in some way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being influenced, and in no way a reason to not play.
No where did I say something has to be 100% unique to be to be artistic! I was, in fact, arguing against that. And your analogy is bad. A better analogy, and I hate analogies, would be a painter recreating a Monet to almost perfection, but being told he is not an artist because it's not an original... I'd say you'd have to be a pretty damn good artist to come close to recreating a Monet.
I don't get where you believe that if you are influenced by someone it becomes "artistic deja vu" and we may as well give up... Members of Led Zeppelin should have never played because they were influenced by those old blues artist? Again, you seem to be attributing the argument I was going against to me. LET ME BE CLEAR, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING HAS TO BE 100% ORIGINAL TO BE ARTISTIC! That is absurd. I was making the opposite point and I have no idea how you missed that! Hopefully this clears it up for you. If not, just move on. It's not worth it for either of us.
It kinda upset me that mellowinman was told he was not an artist or artistic because his band chooses to play covers. Pretty sure most of us, at some point in our lives, played covers.
I mean this in a truly genuine way; I hope you have a great day, and enjoy some great music.
P.S. Pretty sure we've all been trolled into arguing while the OP sits back and watches us shred each other all the while laughing.
Hate all you want. I love playing covers and I love getting paid to play covers even more. Gonna continue to play covers until I can't play anymore. Nothing against original music. I've played that too. I have written several songs myself. It's fun and I think they're pretty good.
Than why on earth would you have laid this(below) out there? It seems like a real downer attitude to tell people their work is derivative and of lesser quality too boot! Are there any exceptions to this whole derivative creativity theory? Sometimes the stuff we take pieces of was great in it's previous format, sometimes it was not so great. I'm confident I have created some parts that are not derivative, at least not consciously.Look you are either being purposely disingenuous just to argue some perceived point you think I'm trying to making, you're reading comprehension is horrible, or I've not explained myself in a clear way. Not sure what it is. I do not need your pity as I've never even implied any of that...
If you play you have something to contribute, but to assert that someone could be 100% original is just BS, everyone is influenced, to a degree, by those they looked up to while learning and even after. Unless someone learned their instrument in a vacuum of never ever having heard a song, they are influenced in some way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being influenced, and in no way a reason to not play.
No where did I say something has to be 100% unique to be to be artistic! I was, in fact, arguing against that. And your analogy is bad. A better analogy, and I hate analogies, would be a painter recreating a Monet to almost perfection, but being told he is not an artist because it's not an original... I'd say you'd have to be a pretty damn good artist to come close to recreating a Monet.
I don't get where you believe that if you are influenced by someone it becomes "artistic deja vu" and we may as well give up... Members of Led Zeppelin should have never played because they were influenced by those old blues artist? Again, you seem to be attributing the argument I was going against to me. LET ME BE CLEAR, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING HAS TO BE 100% ORIGINAL TO BE ARTISTIC! That is absurd. I was making the opposite point and I have no idea how you missed that! Hopefully this clears it up for you. If not, just move on. It's not worth it for either of us.
It kinda upset me that mellowinman was told he was not an artist or artistic because his band chooses to play covers. Pretty sure most of us, at some point in our lives, played covers.
I mean this in a truly genuine way; I hope you have a great day, and enjoy some great music.
P.S. Pretty sure we've all been trolled into arguing while the OP sits back and watches us shred each other all the while laughing.
It's by his own definition!!! Bloody hell man! How do you not get that! He said that mellowinman was no artist and had no artistic merit because he did covers and was not ORIGINAL. Context man, did you read any of his replies to mellowinman? Did you just read my post in a total vacuum with out the context surrounding it? It was meant to be condescending to him, it was to point out he was not as original as he.. Nope, done explaining myself to you. I asked if you would just move on if my explanation was not to your satisfaction as this back and forth is proving to be in no way beneficial to either of us, you couldn't do that but I will. I'm done and at this point I'm beginning to feel that you are willfully stretching things and preforming gold medal worthy mental gymnastics just to keep this going.. Please, no more replies to me as we have derailed this troll thread enough as it is.
Gotcha, and I agree. What I think is interesting is that even original artists dont play their own music exactly as it was recorded everytime. They speed it up, slow it down, make it unplugged, electrify the acoustic version, change lyrics, re-arrange solos. Sometimes its them forever evolving the song and sometimes is because the song is forever in their setlist and they have to change it to keep from throwing up after playing it live for 30years. So its almost like they are covering themselves.
I try not to take things too personally. I get kicked in the face quite a bit as a person who puts himself out there, and I really do believe that becoming impervious to those kicks conditions you, and makes you stronger.
I agree that most originals are somewhat derivative. Look at any of my work. I think of one song I wrote as sort of my "Beatlish Song," and another as my "Zeppelinish Song," and another as my "Cat Stevensy Song," or whatever.
I feel MY work is highly derivative.
Every now and again, someone comes along and does something so unique that it is hard to tell what it is derived from, but ultimately, there are only so many notes and scales and chord patterns you can use, without just sounding BAD, and so we do all share a certain amount of sounds.
Here is a song I wrote, that I have been told is a rip-off of Oh! Darling, by the Beatles:
But then the chorus is similar to the verse of Oh! Darling
I wasn't trying to rip off anyone. I just heard a melody in my head, and wrote what I felt. George Harrison would call it "subconscious plagiarism."
I don't know if it's even that.
But it IS derivative.
I agree that most originals are somewhat derivative. Look at any of my work. I think of one song I wrote as sort of my "Beatlish Song," and another as my "Zeppelinish Song," and another as my "Cat Stevensy Song," or whatever.
I feel MY work is highly derivative.
Every now and again, someone comes along and does something so unique that it is hard to tell what it is derived from, but ultimately, there are only so many notes and scales and chord patterns you can use, without just sounding BAD, and so we do all share a certain amount of sounds.
Here is a song I wrote, that I have been told is a rip-off of Oh! Darling, by the Beatles:
But then the chorus is similar to the verse of Oh! Darling
I wasn't trying to rip off anyone. I just heard a melody in my head, and wrote what I felt. George Harrison would call it "subconscious plagiarism."
I don't know if it's even that.
But it IS derivative.
Ponder the following, from a very "original" composer/musician:
"Players come into the orchestra already knowing what's 'good'- because they've played it a million times in the conservatory. So, when a composer approaches an orchestra with a piece of music embodying techniques or ideas that weren't 'certified' during the musicians' conservatory days, he is likely to experience rejection at the molecular level- as a defense mechanism of the entire orchestra.
As soon as an orchestra attempts to play something they don't know, they run the risk of f****** up. There are only two ways for them to avoid this potential embarrassment. One is to rehearse- but who will pay for this precious rehearsal time? The other is to avoid playing any new music.
When a guest conductor comes to town, he is not usually giving a performance of something by a living composer. He's doing Brahms; he's doing Beethoven; he's doing Mozart- because he can warm it up in one afternoon and make it sound okay. This makes the accountants happy, and allows the audience to concentrate on his choreography (which is really why they bought the tickets in the first place).
Why is that any better than a bunch of guys in a bar band jamming on "Louie Louie" or "Midnight Hour?"
- Frank Zappa, from "The Real Frank Zappa Book," Ch.8, All About Music
Discounting the petty grudge-matches, there's been lot's of interesting stuff in this thread. Personally, I'd prefer even the "bar band" do their own 'original' interpretations of their 'covers,' rather than try to exactly duplicate the 'original.' (But I'm weird like that.) I expect (and recall from experience) that most bar/club owners seem to prefer a 'living jukebox' rather than any sort of 'artistic' activity at all, and most bar/club patrons ditto. Well, OK, that's down to the 'economics' of their enterprise, yes? But note what Zappa implies- we judge a 'cover' by an established 'artist' (usually a purveyor of mostly 'original' material) as an 'interpretation,' and thus worthy of 'artistic' consideration. I.e., if Joni Mitchell 'covers' a Leonard Cohen song in her own way, that's Art; if the guys in the bar band cover Leonard 'like the original,' that's un-original, Not-Art. But that's exactly what most Symphonies do, each and every season!!! Regardless of the talents of their constituent musicians, some of whom, at least, might be wishing for a bit of challenge now and then. But again, the economics of the situation dictate that ain't gonna happen. A mixture of the bar & symphony situations seems to obtain in the Jazz world, where most musicians will be playing joints that mainly want 'covers' as well, yet with an expectation of high musicianship and the ability to 'improvise' 'artistically.' Well foax, many of us have seen jazz combos hack it just as sadly as the dreariest bar band.
Many of us have also heard 'original' material (some of us have even produced such stuff!) which is sadly trite, trivial, watery piffle (however well played); because as it turns out, creating actually original 'originals' is no simple thing. In fact, there's an entire industry which acts to prevent it. Which is maybe why, to the casual ear, most music in most genres that one commonly encounters sounds mostly the same-ish. And frankly, most 'original' material I've heard in the last few decades sounds enough like rehashings of the current formulas as to induce instant tedium. (But of course I'm too old to get the "kid's" music...)
Rock and Pop are in the curious position of possessing catalogues which contain many songs which are quite challenging technically, not to mention attitudinally; yet how many people, outside forums like this, really consider, say, Led Zep as capital-A Art the same way they'd assume Beethoven is? Yet the guys in the bar band may have to put in just as much work, or more so, to do a decent cover of "Black Dog" than the symphony guys put in to 'cover' Beethoven's Fourth. And the bar-band guys probably aren't getting paid to rehearse, either.
So where does 'cover' end, and 'interpretation' begin? Is it "artistically' valid for a 'cover' band to 'interpret' their material? Will it get them fired? Some folks will find themselves incapable of doing 'covers' of any sort; but will that guarantee that their 'originals' are interesting? Where are the lines between 'Art' and 'Commerce,' if any?
Mr. Zappa, for instance, found many of his musicians playing in bars and clubs, including some pretty 'original' talents like Adrian Belew.
I'm not inclined to slag anyone who's playing music, of whatever kind, for whatever reasons. If I don't like it, well, I can go elsewhere. I found out long ago I don't belong on stage, and that's fine; when I finally got the financial chance to acquire good gear, and had the time to play with it, I also discovered that, alas, I didn't really have anything 'original' to say/play. Bummer! But I still do play, because it's an activity which I find pleasurable and refreshing, even if it's somewhat auto-artistic... No way am I going to knock you for doing "Louie Louie" or Brahms or Bird or Yourself!
"Players come into the orchestra already knowing what's 'good'- because they've played it a million times in the conservatory. So, when a composer approaches an orchestra with a piece of music embodying techniques or ideas that weren't 'certified' during the musicians' conservatory days, he is likely to experience rejection at the molecular level- as a defense mechanism of the entire orchestra.
As soon as an orchestra attempts to play something they don't know, they run the risk of f****** up. There are only two ways for them to avoid this potential embarrassment. One is to rehearse- but who will pay for this precious rehearsal time? The other is to avoid playing any new music.
When a guest conductor comes to town, he is not usually giving a performance of something by a living composer. He's doing Brahms; he's doing Beethoven; he's doing Mozart- because he can warm it up in one afternoon and make it sound okay. This makes the accountants happy, and allows the audience to concentrate on his choreography (which is really why they bought the tickets in the first place).
Why is that any better than a bunch of guys in a bar band jamming on "Louie Louie" or "Midnight Hour?"
- Frank Zappa, from "The Real Frank Zappa Book," Ch.8, All About Music
Discounting the petty grudge-matches, there's been lot's of interesting stuff in this thread. Personally, I'd prefer even the "bar band" do their own 'original' interpretations of their 'covers,' rather than try to exactly duplicate the 'original.' (But I'm weird like that.) I expect (and recall from experience) that most bar/club owners seem to prefer a 'living jukebox' rather than any sort of 'artistic' activity at all, and most bar/club patrons ditto. Well, OK, that's down to the 'economics' of their enterprise, yes? But note what Zappa implies- we judge a 'cover' by an established 'artist' (usually a purveyor of mostly 'original' material) as an 'interpretation,' and thus worthy of 'artistic' consideration. I.e., if Joni Mitchell 'covers' a Leonard Cohen song in her own way, that's Art; if the guys in the bar band cover Leonard 'like the original,' that's un-original, Not-Art. But that's exactly what most Symphonies do, each and every season!!! Regardless of the talents of their constituent musicians, some of whom, at least, might be wishing for a bit of challenge now and then. But again, the economics of the situation dictate that ain't gonna happen. A mixture of the bar & symphony situations seems to obtain in the Jazz world, where most musicians will be playing joints that mainly want 'covers' as well, yet with an expectation of high musicianship and the ability to 'improvise' 'artistically.' Well foax, many of us have seen jazz combos hack it just as sadly as the dreariest bar band.
Many of us have also heard 'original' material (some of us have even produced such stuff!) which is sadly trite, trivial, watery piffle (however well played); because as it turns out, creating actually original 'originals' is no simple thing. In fact, there's an entire industry which acts to prevent it. Which is maybe why, to the casual ear, most music in most genres that one commonly encounters sounds mostly the same-ish. And frankly, most 'original' material I've heard in the last few decades sounds enough like rehashings of the current formulas as to induce instant tedium. (But of course I'm too old to get the "kid's" music...)
Rock and Pop are in the curious position of possessing catalogues which contain many songs which are quite challenging technically, not to mention attitudinally; yet how many people, outside forums like this, really consider, say, Led Zep as capital-A Art the same way they'd assume Beethoven is? Yet the guys in the bar band may have to put in just as much work, or more so, to do a decent cover of "Black Dog" than the symphony guys put in to 'cover' Beethoven's Fourth. And the bar-band guys probably aren't getting paid to rehearse, either.
So where does 'cover' end, and 'interpretation' begin? Is it "artistically' valid for a 'cover' band to 'interpret' their material? Will it get them fired? Some folks will find themselves incapable of doing 'covers' of any sort; but will that guarantee that their 'originals' are interesting? Where are the lines between 'Art' and 'Commerce,' if any?
Mr. Zappa, for instance, found many of his musicians playing in bars and clubs, including some pretty 'original' talents like Adrian Belew.
I'm not inclined to slag anyone who's playing music, of whatever kind, for whatever reasons. If I don't like it, well, I can go elsewhere. I found out long ago I don't belong on stage, and that's fine; when I finally got the financial chance to acquire good gear, and had the time to play with it, I also discovered that, alas, I didn't really have anything 'original' to say/play. Bummer! But I still do play, because it's an activity which I find pleasurable and refreshing, even if it's somewhat auto-artistic... No way am I going to knock you for doing "Louie Louie" or Brahms or Bird or Yourself!
They're both vitally important, as they're both MUSIC. I'd never be in a pure cover band, because I have things I want to say. I'd also never be in an original band who was against playing covers.
With that said, I really don't like the superior attitude many cover musicians take. "Yeah, you can have the free gigs and lugging gear to empty venues. I'll play to the dancing girls, and take home a bundle of cash." You know what? Saying you're going to make something purely out of nothing takes courage. Playing the most celebrated songs of the past 50 years does not.
Integrity is the central thing. People who play covers laugh at the originals guys who scramble to come to grips with what that word means in the music business. They laugh because, from where they stand, they have it entirely figured out: it's all business. Well, it isn't. The songs you're playing are in some form an expression of some "fool" musician's dreams and integrity.
With that said, I really don't like the superior attitude many cover musicians take. "Yeah, you can have the free gigs and lugging gear to empty venues. I'll play to the dancing girls, and take home a bundle of cash." You know what? Saying you're going to make something purely out of nothing takes courage. Playing the most celebrated songs of the past 50 years does not.
Integrity is the central thing. People who play covers laugh at the originals guys who scramble to come to grips with what that word means in the music business. They laugh because, from where they stand, they have it entirely figured out: it's all business. Well, it isn't. The songs you're playing are in some form an expression of some "fool" musician's dreams and integrity.
I'm amazed at the attitudes ... are people really so insecure or intolerant that they can't just do what they do without talking cr@p about other people's choices? If someone wants to play covers how does that negatively affect some other person who wants to play original music, and vice versa, and why is the one any "better" than the other? Some people need to do some growing up ... 
Might already be covered, but yes, I too felt it was more "me" at age 17 to write own material and try to get your 20 friends (and/or family) to show up at your gig. Then I got older, listended to a wider range of music, and found out that 1) there is ALOT of great songs out there, in a variety of genres, and 2) the competition for people's attention is very hard. So I play covers, but I have different bands for different genres, I've played jazz standards in a jazz quartet, I played big band music in a big band, I play in a blues quartet, and a c/w band. All different kinds of the awesomeness that is music.
