• 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.

Your feeling towards bands. The covers and orignals discussion.

#141
brotherbassj said:
Original bands:
-play 30-45 minutes with many other bands 3-5 in a night
-their song list is short
-they HAVE to bring people
-you generally are required to sell tickets (at least 40 in bigger places)
-you have to pay the bar/soundguy 200-300 to run your sound
---------you can actually pay to play in this method
-people either love or hate your band
Click to expand...

My least favorite part...
-You sometimes have to play a Tuesday night or two to get the Friday/Saturday show.

I've only had to sell tickets once but didn't have to pay out of pocket for them & have never had to pay a sound guy out of pocket. Usually the venue says "First $100 of the door goes to the sound guy and the bands split the rest."
 
#142
I will just add to my previous post that most of the cats I see playing "cover" music (what is the difference with standards; wait that is a separate thread) know exactly what they are doing.

Many of the so called "original" bands don't have the faintest clue what is going on. What I mean is that the business value in the original content usually has zip to do with the band, and almost totally to do with song writing. Ask Sting. That's why I referred to Willie Dixon. Thinking you are going to achieve financial success because of some kind of unique "band" thing is just basically naive. The value the industry places on original material is the material; not the band. That is why there is not a direct (dis)connection between "cover bands" and song writing/original material. They are orthogonal activities. History bears this out, if you care to study it. The only exceptions are bands that "MTV," a travesty of an industry component, decides to market, usually without valid song writing content. If your objective is to play that game; well, good luck. If you want to play the "original" game, learn to write good songs. That is what it is all about; not hanging out your your buds over at the garage and convincing each other you are superior to the cover band next door.

BTW, the really accomplished bass players out there, like Freddie Washington, make their living by being fantastic players and reading down new charts someone else wrote with soul and feeling on first takes in expensive studios. That is "original" music in reality.

Anyhow, some of my thoughts, and JMHO/E. GL2A
 
#143
There is a local venue that original bands play OFTEN in our town and it is $300 to play, whether it goes to sound or staff or whatever........yes it does suck. Other places have recently tried to copy this practice. There was an uprising on our local craigslist and musical groups that somehow actually got the other venue to agree that this practice was wrong! I will say that here in Richmond it can be tough to get gigs and get paid sometimes. There are also a TON of musicians and bands locally.

Keith Horne (Warrior artist and well known bassist) is quite incredible and is now hosting an open mic here locally.........and he plays covers......I dare you say he is not good or not an artist....and there's a free plug for a man I have only met in passing........
 
#144
brotherbassj said:
There is a local venue that original bands play OFTEN in our town and it is $300 to play, whether it goes to sound or staff or whatever........yes it does suck. Other places have recently tried to copy this practice. There was an uprising on our local craigslist and musical groups that somehow actually got the other venue to agree that this practice was wrong! I will say that here in Richmond it can be tough to get gigs and get paid sometimes. There are also a TON of musicians and bands locally.

Keith Horne (Warrior artist and well known bassist) is quite incredible and is now hosting an open mic here locally.........and he plays covers......I dare you say he is not good or not an artist....and there's a free plug for a man I have only met in passing........
Click to expand...


He's very talented and its ok that he'll play some covers. I also wouldnt think that he calls original music no-talent wastes of time.
 
#146
eSmith said:
Beggar, your anaology seems to be that original players deserve the gigs more because they believe (maybe delusionally) they have a future in it, while Cover players should admit they will never make it so should pack it in and go home....

What if the cover guy is 10 times the musician as the original guy? If the cover band is getting gigs instead of the original band I think that says a lot. Just because you want a career out of it doesn't mean those doing it as a hobby should stand aside for you.

the other perspective is, When I go out to see a band I want to listen to good music, instead I get stuck with some band that slid into the gig sideways and are playing a bunch of unknown crap nobody wants to hear.

Why do these original bands think they have songs others want to hear? Why are they taking gigs away from bands playing music proven to be popular?

-eSmith.
Click to expand...

A cover band is absolutely never going to "make it". A quick look at the top grossing tours of the last few years will show exactly zero cover bands. Bands may start out playing covers, and may still play a few covers, but if the goal is to be a Top 40 cover band that accurately replicates someone else's songs then major success is simply not possible.

Most people, given the choice between hearing a song they know and like vs. a song they don't know will choose the former. Given the choice of hearing that same song performed by a local cover band or by the band that made it famous they will most likely choose the latter. So I guess the hierarchy of preference, from least interested to most interested, would be:

1. Original Band playing songs they don't know
2. Cover Band playing songs they know.
3. Original Band playing songs they know.

That's fine. Most people are just looking to be entertained, and a cover band probably does a better job of that than an unknown original band. If the job is to keep people dancing and buying drinks, its not much of a contest.

But that's not art. Its not creation. It is commercial, and for the most part soulless. Which is par for the course in this country- a country where people would rather watch Dancing With The Stars than the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre, or watch American Idol rather than listening to Nina Simone or Billie Holiday. I personally hate both of those shows and love both of those artists, but I'm getting used to being in the minority.

And that's not to say that every original band is good- most are horrible. Most don't write decent songs and couldn't play them well if they did, and those bands probably give a bad name to the good original bands out there. But a decent original band is a big ball of potential. Who knows what they could become? A great cover band is no better than a reproduction, an echo of something great with no potential for its own greatness. It may entertain the masses, but I want more than that.
 
#147
beggar98 said:
A cover band is absolutely never going to "make it". A quick look at the top grossing tours of the last few years will show exactly zero cover bands. Bands may start out playing covers, and may still play a few covers, but if the goal is to be a Top 40 cover band that accurately replicates someone else's songs then major success is simply not possible.

Most people, given the choice between hearing a song they know and like vs. a song they don't know will choose the former. Given the choice of hearing that same song performed by a local cover band or by the band that made it famous they will most likely choose the latter. So I guess the hierarchy of preference, from least interested to most interested, would be:

1. Original Band playing songs they don't know
2. Cover Band playing songs they know.
3. Original Band playing songs they know.

That's fine. Most people are just looking to be entertained, and a cover band probably does a better job of that than an unknown original band. If the job is to keep people dancing and buying drinks, its not much of a contest.

But that's not art. Its not creation. It is commercial, and for the most part soulless. Which is par for the course in this country- a country where people would rather watch Dancing With The Stars than the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre, or watch American Idol rather than listening to Nina Simone or Billie Holiday. I personally hate both of those shows and love both of those artists, but I'm getting used to being in the minority.

And that's not to say that every original band is good- most are horrible. Most don't write decent songs and couldn't play them well if they did, and those bands probably give a bad name to the good original bands out there. But a decent original band is a big ball of potential. Who knows what they could become? A great cover band is no better than a reproduction, an echo of something great with no potential for its own greatness. It may entertain the masses, but I want more than that.
Click to expand...

+lots
 
#148
JustOpenYourMind said:
A cover band is what?

A bunch of guys/gals learning the parts to songs that already exist, rehearse them and play them in venues for money to people that are there to get entertained by hearing a tight band that plays them songs they like for money.

There is no creative/artistic process and this is fine by me. I've never seen a cover band that claims to be artist, they just learn songs, all it takes is a good ear and the physical ability to play the instrument.
Click to expand...

I think that this is a naive and overly simplistic viewpoint because it completely ignores the possibility that there can be both art and creativity in the interpretation of someone else's work and expression of that interpretation.

Was John Lennonnot engaged in a creative process when he sang "Twist and Shout"?

Was Aretha Franklin not being an artist when she sang "Respect"?

Were there no creative or artistic forces at work when Kleiber and the Vienna Philharmonic recorded Beethoven's Fifth Symphony? If not, then why is that recording considered to be one of the definitive expressions of Beethoven's composition?
 
#149
Febs said:
I think that this is a naive and overly simplistic viewpoint because it completely ignores the possibility that there can be both art and creativity in the interpretation of someone else's work and expression of that interpretation.

Was John Lennonnot engaged in a creative process when he sang "Twist and Shout"?

Was Aretha Franklin not being an artist when she sang "Respect"?

Were there no creative or artistic forces at work when Kleiber and the Vienna Philharmonic recorded Beethoven's Fifth Symphony? If not, then why is that recording considered to be one of the definitive expressions of Beethoven's composition?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. What you're talking about is what I feel is the difference between a cover and a remake.
The issue is that 90% of cover bands ive seen simply cover the songs. They dont do "their" version of anything.
 
#150
To do the cover/tribute thing well I think you need to approach it as a service industry job.
You're playing familiar songs that (hopefully) resonate with the audience and bring back memories.
I love playing & writing interesting original music, but I don't expect to make a lot of $$ doing so.
If playing covers I'll put my all into it and want to get paid.

Don't forget that many great artists/bands--Dylan, Stones, Beatles, etc., came upon their styles by trying to emulate their heroes as closely as possible.
That said, I do like it when people mix things up--changing arrangements and being creative.

Also, it's funny how in jazz, covers are called "standards" and in classical they are "the canon of great Western music".
Frank Zappa noted that symphonies love playing public domain "classics" so they don't have to pay composers royalties!
 
#151
Febs said:
I think that this is a naive and overly simplistic viewpoint because it completely ignores the possibility that there can be both art and creativity in the interpretation of someone else's work and expression of that interpretation.

Was John Lennonnot engaged in a creative process when he sang "Twist and Shout"?

Was Aretha Franklin not being an artist when she sang "Respect"?

Were there no creative or artistic forces at work when Kleiber and the Vienna Philharmonic recorded Beethoven's Fifth Symphony? If not, then why is that recording considered to be one of the definitive expressions of Beethoven's composition?
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between the Lennon and Aretha examples above and a cover band that tries to reproduce the original as faithfully as possible. Both of those artists re-imagined the work and made it their own. A band that takes existing material and re-works it is not quite a cover band, though not entirely an original band either.

As for the symphony, that's a completely different scenario. Generally in classical music, the artists are the composer and the conductor- the musicians themselves are simply the tools used to express. That said, I would much rather listen to new works by modern composers than hear another performance of The 5th.
 
#153
Febs said:
Bette Midler is listed as #30 in the 50 top grossing tours of 2009. She built her success on covers.
Click to expand...

covers or remakes?
Its not impossible.... tom jones does a lot of covers and fossils tend to like him quite a bit.


Lets remember though that in most cases a big artist or band doing one or two remakes is a far cry from doing a 3 hour set of covers done just as the original artist did them
 
#155
I've said this before but the reality is...

Most "original" bands (I choose to call their music "self composed') are horrible. Sorry but it's the truth.

They are (usually) very amateur.

Working cover bands however, are often made up of "A' list pro's.

I don't see how anyone could think it's the other way around.

BTW I make my living playing covers and doing Jazz casuals. I do record and gig with songwriters but it's not what pays the bills.
 
#157
KTFunkAlive said:
Most "original" bands (I choose to call their music "self composed') are horrible. Sorry but it's the truth.
Click to expand...

These bands are either paying to play, not getting booked, or getting booked because they have tons of friends that like to drink a lot. I see original music all the time and can count on one hand the number of bands I've seen that have been pretty terrible. A lot of them may not write music that I like, but play their music with fluency and heart & that's a lot different than completely sucking.
 
#158
KTFunkAlive said:
I've said this before but the reality is...

Most "original" bands (I choose to call their music "self composed') are horrible. Sorry but it's the truth.

They are (usually) very amateur.

Working cover bands however, are often made up of "A' list pro's.

I don't see how anyone could think it's the other way around.

BTW I make my living playing covers and doing Jazz casuals. I do record and gig with songwriters but it's not what pays the bills.
Click to expand...


Working cover bands are often made up of A list pros? woah.... where are you from?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back