Why are "covers" looked down on?

[edpal]

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.

If you go back to the first ENTIRE post of yours I quoted, you used a snip of someone else's quote to respond too. So yes, there was some confusion, as that post of yours taken by itself seemed to indicate a different attitude. Which I took from that first quote was you being condescending to someone playing original music. I think we are in agreement on most points here. Sorry I did not read the entire thread to pick up the entire context - carry on! Peace.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

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.

I don't think many people realize when they listen to an artist, particularly a modern artist, how much of the producer's stamp is on that piece of work. A lot of rather mediocre artists have been signed in the past ten years but are able to release good albums because their producer has worked enough to get something interesting out of them. Unfortunately, the warts of those artists often appear when they hit the stage. Just, IME.

More on topic, I've been told that the original stuff I've written or played on is awesome. I've also been told that my band's cover of Fuel's Bad Day was as spot on as the original, and this was coming from the owner of a production company has who provided production for Fuel in the past and knows the guys personally. I consider both of those things as compliments. I've never been artsy-fartsy when it comes to music and I enjoy watching great original and cover bands all the same.

I will say this, though. IME, the best original bands almost always have players who have cut their teeth on covers prior to writing their own stuff. They're usually much tighter, write more interesting music, and know how to create a quality arrangement. The reason they can write good stuff is that they were forced to develop their chops and learn how to arrange by playing other people's music. Very few great painters have sat down at a canvass and started making great works. They cut their teeth in art school by painting still life. Playing covers is painting still life for the aspiring musician.

 

[edpal]

I don't think anybody who has actually put in the effort looks down on cover players<snip>

This pretty much says it all.

This was a troll thread from the start - OP has never waded back in. And I seriously doubt many of us carry around an originals vs. covers grudge nearly as urgently as we post here, from behind our screens. Ain't nobody got time for that!

 

[10cc]

I don't see influences that may inspire a conception of a song anywhere near the same thing as going to a bar a playing for example an Eagles song.

There will always be people who hate cover bands for many of the same reasons or reasons of their own.

There will always be bars that book only cover bands because bars are there to make money.

There will always be bars on a different level i.e. clubs, music venues, halls or even festivals (major festivals Bonnaroo, Isle of Wight, Montreux) that strive on original acts.

I wonder how many artists accept or do not accept Elmyr?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmyr_de_Hory

I have played cover songs. I have played a lot more originals. I can never remember a time that it was harder to learn a cover song.

I know people who stopped writing originals and performing them because they thought the songs were not good and gave up. Great musicians, great voices just did not get the response or the feeling of "killing it" from the crowd or whoever they were selling it to.

I've always enjoyed music, playing it and listening to it.

I've always wrote songs for my enjoyment. If the patrons of any establishment do not care for it they are free to leave, hate it or not.

I've never got the competition aspect of it though. It's not a competition. You might think it is but it is not and if you still think it is your in it for the wrong reasons.

These are my thoughts though not any of yours.

 

[yodedude2]

read the first and last pages, wading in to say re: standards and covers...

we played 'please accept my love' as a b.b. king cover at a valentine dance friday night. a fellow came up to say, 'that was great! now play the OTHER side of that record.' meaning, play something he would recognize. we might as well have been playing an original as far as he knew. !!!

 

[Itzayana]

My band plays covers, and we are as artistically valid as anyone.

Anyone who says different is an ass.

I find this statement wildly amusing.
It is like a painter who says, " I specialize in copying the paintings of the great masters and they almost look like the originals. I am as artistically valid as the great painters of the originals and anyone who says that I am not must be a stupid ass."
Oh, and PS: I am really good looking (in my opinion).

 

[bassbully]

I never looked own on them but do realize for me that covers limited my creativity and love of music to a degree. They did make my wallet fatter thou

 

[prd004]

I find this statement wildly amusing.
It is like a painter who says, " I specialize in copying the paintings of the great masters and they almost look like the originals. I am as artistically valid as the great painters of the originals and anyone who says that I am not must be a stupid ass."
Oh, and PS: I am really good looking (in my opinion).

+1000

 

[mellowinman]

I find this statement wildly amusing.
It is like a painter who says, " I specialize in copying the paintings of the great masters and they almost look like the originals. I am as artistically valid as the great painters of the originals and anyone who says that I am not must be a stupid ass."
Oh, and PS: I am really good looking (in my opinion).

And by reading your statement, it is obvious what you see when you look in the mirror.

 

[Joe Nerve]

I love the zep was cover band argument. Zep was never trying to immitate anyone. And as far as I know, never went out playing only covers, like the cover bands of today. They recreated all the songs they covered, and created their own music while doing it. They were never a "cover band" as it's defined today. Or for the past 30 yrs for that matter.

 

[prd004]

I find this statement wildly amusing.
It is like a painter who says, " I specialize in copying the paintings of the great masters and they almost look like the originals. I am as artistically valid as the great painters of the originals and anyone who says that I am not must be a stupid ass."
Oh, and PS: I am really good looking (in my opinion).

Tonight I heated a frozen dinner in the microwave. It is every bit as valid as creating a home cooked meal from scratch and I am just as talented as all the great chefs of the world and if you disagree with me you're an ass. Lol

 

[Roland GR 88]

Artistry and Validity are about as close to each other as they are in the dictionary.
One does not need the other.

 

[Jhengsman]

I love the zep was cover band argument. Zep was never trying to immitate anyone. And as far as I know, never went out playing only covers, like the cover bands of today. They recreated all the songs they covered, and created their own music while doing it. They were never a "cover band" as it's defined today. Or for the past 30 yrs for that matter.

So perhaps we are getting to the point of saying that "standards" were played from sheet music and normally not the attempt to clone an iconic recording while "covers" are done by a local band to be like the recording as a lower cost or perhaps impossible alternative to bringing in the recording artist

 

[BassinCT]

Artistry and Validity are about as close to each other as they are in the dictionary.
One does not need the other.

+1

Also- Something played well is worth a listen in my mind. I would rather hear a great band knock out a carbon copy cover than an amateurish, incoherent, half-baked original.


My favorite "cover band" is the Fab Faux. Will Lee kicks butt on bass & vocals and the band's artistry does shine through.

On a side note: the ASCAP police have apparently been checking up on some venues where covers are being played around my neck of the woods. Keep some originals ready to go if a bar owner asks...

 

[Itzayana]

Artistry and Validity are about as close to each other as they are in the dictionary.
One does not need the other.

I don't know if you just made up this quote, but if you did my hat is off to you. It's brilliant!

 

[Bemis]

I like covers and I like bands that do covers in their set. There is nothing more satisfying than hearing a band that I really enjoy covering a song from another band I enjoy.

I remember a local band that had some guys I knew from college in it unexpectedly covered another local bands song. Knowing guys from both band and being very familiar with the original, it was awesome seeing someone else's take on it.

 

[socialleper]

"Cover" pop/rock bands simply fulfill a different function than bands that play originals. If you are at a public event, originals don't go over well at all because people want to hear music they are familiar with. They want to hear standards. Bands that do originals will also do a cover every now and again without a negative reaction, unless it isn't done well.
The divider is over where do you want to go. Everyone is all wet in the pants over the Beatles right now, so let's use them as an example. Before "making it" they played steady gigs, made money, etc, while playing covers; but no one really knew or cared who they were. It wasn't until they wrote their own stuff that people started paying attention. Lesson: you can be a working musician playing someone else's music but you won't get famous. Covers are slow and steady work; originals are a gamble that have a potential to have a higher return.

With that in mind, why would someone "look down" on playing covers? Using a different analogy, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't make billions hacking code for someone else. They created something innovative that caught people's attention and are now legendary. They my not have even been particularly good with technology (which, BTW, they weren't) but they created something instead of merely working on something that already existed. Musicians that gamble on creating something new are the engine that moves music forward. They make the things that people will be covering years later. They might be considered "better" because without them the cover bands would have nothing to play. Playing an instrument can be taught, being creative can't be taught.

 

[bswag]

socialleper- As a former denizen of the Computer Manufacturing world, I must offer a slight correction: Bill Gates based ALL his money-making products on other people's work. "MS-DOS" is a modified version of an OS called "CP/M," which Billy bought. "Windows," of course, is the source of the proverb "Anything Apple can do, Microsoft can f*&^ up totally!" (Still true, from what I've seen.)
Apple also adopted technologies that were around in academic/research circles- the mouse, the GIU, &c. But- and I'm not exactly a big fan of Mr. Job's personality- Apple took what they borrowed or adopted and made well-integrated, easy-to-use products. Microsoft merely replicated the former IBM hardware "priesthood" at the software level.
Mr. Gates, as far as I can tell, is still primarily buying up the real innovators. (And MS Windows is still a giant kludge-pile!) Apple, well, we'll see. Mr. Gates is also a leading funder of the effort to destroy public education and voucher-ize everything, a singularly bad idea which has already been proven a miserable failure. But then, Billy G. could, from his very own bank account, single-handedly eliminate poverty in the US overnight!
Not that he's going to- he's too profoundly ignorant to realize that his kind of economy is leading to collapse. Funny how damn stupid some of these "innovators" can be in the real world...
Pardon my rant! But, to torture your analogy a wee bit further, Bill Gates is sort of the Michael Bolton of software- taking other's hits and selling his half-*%%^d versions to the masses. Being creative is maybe not the only thing that can't be taught.

 

[socialleper]

socialleper- As a former denizen of the Computer Manufacturing world, I must offer a slight correction: Bill Gates based ALL his money-making products on other people's work. "MS-DOS" is a modified version of an OS called "CP/M," which Billy bought. "Windows," of course, is the source of the proverb "Anything Apple can do, Microsoft can f*&^ up totally!" (Still true, from what I've seen.)
Apple also adopted technologies that were around in academic/research circles- the mouse, the GIU, &c. But- and I'm not exactly a big fan of Mr. Job's personality- Apple took what they borrowed or adopted and made well-integrated, easy-to-use products. Microsoft merely replicated the former IBM hardware "priesthood" at the software level.
Mr. Gates, as far as I can tell, is still primarily buying up the real innovators. (And MS Windows is still a giant kludge-pile!) Apple, well, we'll see. Mr. Gates is also a leading funder of the effort to destroy public education and voucher-ize everything, a singularly bad idea which has already been proven a miserable failure. But then, Billy G. could, from his very own bank account, single-handedly eliminate poverty in the US overnight!
Not that he's going to- he's too profoundly ignorant to realize that his kind of economy is leading to collapse. Funny how damn stupid some of these "innovators" can be in the real world...
Pardon my rant! But, to torture your analogy a wee bit further, Bill Gates is sort of the Michael Bolton of software- taking other's hits and selling his half-*%%^d versions to the masses. Being creative is maybe not the only thing that can't be taught.

I am completely aware of everything you mentioned here. As I said, neither were particularly good at technological break throughs, but they did is take something that existed and create something out of it. Of course OSes existed before Windows, but none were as accessible as Windows. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, they found a way to sell not just the device but the entire idea of portable music.
Along those lines, musicians that write originals aren't inventing new scales or rhythms, they are presenting notes, rhythms and instruments in a way that taps into an emotional trend. There aren't new notes, just new arrangements of notes.
It's not a perfect analogy.

 

[JoeWPgh]

I'm getting lost here. When people say 'cover bands' are they really saying copy bands? I never saw the point in trying to cover a song note for note, when in 9 cases out of 10, you don't have the instrumentation to do it accurately. Reworking a song to make it work with your existing instrumentation, is a creative endeavor. This can be anything from a minor tweak, to a complete reworking.