Ness K Vs. Cover Bands

A point that should be made is that a lot of bands start out as cover bands before they start writing their own material. The Beatles' first album contained eight Lennon/McCartney tracks and six covers, the Stones started out as a blues band doing covers - their first two singles were a Chuck Berry song and a Lennon/McCartney song and they also released early singles which were a Bobby Womack cover and a Willie Dixon cover - The Who started out as a trad jazz band (honest!) The Kinks' first single was a cover of "Long Tall Sally" and the Yardbirds were an R'n'B/Blues band. The Hollies, Manfred Mann (they almost made a career out of Dylan covers!) hell, virtually any band from that era started out playing covers.

I suppose things have changed now - bands can "release" their music via Myspace or whatever and build up a following on the 'net.....but when two or more guitarists/musicians are gathered together, the first thing they'll do is play something they know. That's how most bands start.....

:D :D :D

Vic

I prefer good cover bands but I dont mind them throwing their own stuff in now and then. I also like it when they "make it their own" but it has to be done with taste.

With only one exception, so far in my life, I wouldnt go see a band just to see their original material.

Jim

Hey Chris, I agree with you too! :D

If you are talking about a young band trying to make it, then you have to have your own original music. But if you are a club musician who plays on the weekends you better play covers or you won't get any work. It is that simple.

Clubs want bands to play well known songs. When you play a cover of a big hit, you know you are playing a good song. Every one of your songs is going to be a good song. But when you play originals, what do you get? Some bands you might get some great originals, but usually you get a bunch of junk.

I once read an article about Eric Clapton. They asked him why he played so many covers on his albums. He said he really didn't feel he was a very good songwriter, and that he wanted good songs on his albums. That is pretty smart if you ask me.

And I also have found that most people who insist on only original music cannot play covers. They really can't play well and use the "I'm an original artist" as an excuse. Sorry, but that has been my experience. You have to really be able to play your instrument to cover great bands, so it's a learning experience.

I do think bands should put a little of their own soul and feel into a song. Exact covers are good, but I've heard some great personal impressions of covers by cover bands. On occasion it even sounds better than the original recording. But I've heard bands murder a cover song as well.

Oh my, we'd have to cancel the Riverside Jam. We've done the most amazing covers in all sorts of styles.

Plus if we play an original from someone we've met at a Jam, is that a cover? We can play each other's SSG songs? ACK!

Eva Cassidy does the best cover of a Sting song, according to him. Half the world thinks Van Halen wrote "You Really Got Me".

Bottom line - playing cover songs brings in the audience that allows your originals to be heard.

It's beginning to look pretty darn unanimous in here! :D

As I'm reading this thread, my random playlist had played Jeff Healy covering While My Guitar Gently Weeps, and Clapton playing I Shot The Sheriff. :wink:

I'm fine with covers. Most bands I have heard in the bars play covers, and throw in a handful of originals throughout the evening.

That said, I also go to a few Folk Festivals, and thoroughly enjoy the mostly original music that I hear there.

Some people seem to be confusing a band doing a cover and a cover band. Practically every band does some covers in their career, but that doesn't make them a cover band. A cover band only plays covers (some may slip in an original or two). I think both have their place in the world. I love when original artists do covers; it lets you hear where their influence came from, their interpretation of the song and it exposes their audience to other artists. I can't tell you how many artists I've discovered by hearing a band I liked do a cover. Some artists are even putting out full albums of covers, which I love (Rush, Tesla, Eric Clapton).

There's another type of band no one has mentioned yet: the tribute band. You know the ones that only play covers of a particular artist? And they attempt to sound exactly like them? A little too obsessive for me.

Some artists are even putting out full albums of covers...

Nothing new in that trend - The Hollies did an album of Dylan covers in the 60's, Bowie did "Pin-ups" in the 70's, Rod Stewart's last few albums (The Great American Songbooks...) have all been covers....

As for tribute bands - if they're getting off on what they're doing, why not? The Bootleg Beatles have been around for donkey's years, The Australian Pink Floyd have a good reputation, etc, etc....I've seen two tribute bands, one good, one not-so-good - I did have that nagging feeling, though, that I'd rather have seen the original bands....

:D :D :D

Vic

I've seen two tribute bands, one good, one not-so-good - I did have that nagging feeling, though, that I'd rather have seen the original bands...
Vic

I'm not really huge on tribute bands, either. Sure, they have their place. But I can't imagine going to see one more than once. I will, however, go more than once to see a good cover band.

Tribute bands are just an extension of the Elvis impersonator phenomenon.

Well, let me just say that there is nothing wrong with an artist doing a cover of a song they like, I dislike cover bands, not covers period. I loved Nirvana's take on Bowies' The man who sold the world, and adored Hendrix's cover of Watchtower, but they are highly creative and spectacular acts all by themselves. I'm just saying that a whole band decicated solely to the work of another band is idiotic. But covers in general can be great, and if done right, better than the original song. And oh, Tribute bands and cover band are really the same thing, the only differences are nitpicked

No, I would disagree. Tribute bands try to copy recordings perfectly. They are usually note-for-note what you hear on a recording. And if you can really do it, it is impressive. Good music is good music.

I've played in numerous cover bands and we never play a song exactly like the recording. We do not attempt to sound exactly like the original band, but we try to play a great song well. There is a big difference. And my last band we had about 15 of our own original songs, and some were pretty popular with the crowd. But if a song ain't gettin' it, it should be dropped.

Like I wrote earlier, if you are trying to make it in the business, you need originals. But if you are going to play in local bands like 99.94% (just like Ivory Soap) of us do, you better know a bunch of good covers or you won't get hired.

There is nothing wrong with covers. I would rather play a good cover than a lousy original song.

I'm just saying that a whole band decicated solely to the work of another band is idiotic.

A whole band dedicated solely to the work of another band would be a tribute band.

A whole band dedicated solely to the work of many different bands/artists would be a cover band.

A whole band dedicated solely to the work of inexperienced songwriters/musicians would be a band that doesn't work outside of the garage.

Two quick questions, Ness K.... What is your band experience and what is your age? I'm guessing that you're young (16-19, definitely under 20), with little or no band experience. Would this assumption be correct?

As pointed out by jwmartin: Yes of course, tribute and cover bands are not the same animal. A tribute band is a cover band, but few cover bands are tribute bands. A tribute band is a very specific form of performance entertainment. I can see how some people might enjoy attending a "simulation" or re-creation of some popular (and maybe even talented!) group or artist that is no longer around. Certainly studio albums, so-called "live" albums and even videos of the original do not always capture the essence of the original. Maybe a tribute act (probably more acurate than 'band') is a way to do that for some people. I don't think it matters whether or not it is art. It's clearly entertainment to some. Not much different than one's position on NASCAR being a matter taste.

Very true!

And yes, there are tribute bands I'd go see.

I've also seen bands do "tribute acts" within their shows that were GREAT fun!