Playing covers - how accurate do you need to be?

[mentalextra]

3 minutes ago, chris_b said:

If you are watching a semi pro cover band why do you care about caring for the songs?

I don't go to see bands who don't play well. It's not an enjoyable experience, but they are not playing for me, so as long as the intended audience is enjoying themselves all is good.

I'm just giving a different perspective. Just because you maybe don't think its important doesn't mean the audience feels the same. Sadly, 'near enough is good enough' seems to be the mantra here.

Edited April 11, 2019 by mentalextra

[nightsun]

2 minutes ago, mentalextra said:

I'm just giving a different perspective. Just because you maybe don't think its important doesn't mean the audience feels the same. Sadly, 'near enough is good enough' seems to be the mantra here.

The places I play the audience wouldn't care.  As long as the tunes are loud and drink is flowing they will be happy.  As long as I look out and see a room of smiling faces, bopping away and enjoying themselves I'm not going to let the guilt of missing a few notes in 9-5 get to me 😉

[chris_b]

4 minutes ago, mentalextra said:

Sadly, 'near enough is good enough' seems to be the mantra here.

So far I haven't seen anyone condoning sloppy or poor playing in this thread. Are you saying that cover bands should only ever be playing exactly the same notes as the original did on the record?

As was mentioned earlier, even the original bands can change the arrangements and lines of their songs when they play live.  Cover songs aren't a fixed thing. They live, breath and, sometimes, cough their lungs up. It's what music played by enthusiasts does.

[Stub Mandrel]

14 minutes ago, mentalextra said:

I'm just giving a different perspective. Just because you maybe don't think its important doesn't mean the audience feels the same. Sadly, 'near enough is good enough' seems to be the mantra here.

I think it's a distinction between means and ends.

The prime objective is to make sure band and audience has a good time.

The attitude here doesn't preclude making things more complex or challenging than the original. In my first band the keyboard player and I used to do some of the lead guitar lines. Is that invalid?

(Hmm, Jim lea was well known for being an ace interpreter of Jimi Hendrix songs on his bass...)

[Newfoundfreedom]

Better to play the wrong bass line right then play the right bass line wrong. 

This attitude that if you're not good enough to play the original note for note then you shouldn't be playing it is absolute b0ll0cks! 

Play something you can manage, that fits and sits well with the rest of the band and 99.9 percent of the audience wouldn't hear the difference. 

Play what you want. Enjoy playing it. If anyone tells you it's against the rules then tell them to go f@#* themselves! 

[uk_lefty]

1 hour ago, mentalextra said:

Or how little of the original performance do they need to class as a cover? half assed is a cover, totally half assed, a tribute! lol

I think there is the difference! Are you reinterpreting a song to add a new angle to it.... Or has the band gone "sod this, the solo is too hard will just bluff something much simpler"

[chris_b]

4 minutes ago, Newfoundfreedom said:

Play something you can manage, that fits and sits well with the rest of the band and 99.9 percent of the audience wouldn't hear the difference.

I don't disagree with that, but if the band wants to play a song and you can't play the bass line comfortably then you should meet and overcome that challenge. You should play that line until you get it right and you are happy playing it.

Once you can play it then you can start to alter things.

I once vetoed Do I Do because I couldn't play it. That was the wrong decision. Now I would learn to play that thing because my attitude these days is nothing on this instrument is going to beat me. I'm currently learning Dean Town. Not because I like it but because I can't play it.

[Newfoundfreedom]

7 minutes ago, chris_b said:

I don't disagree with that, but if the band wants to play a song and you can't play the bass line comfortably then you should meet and overcome that challenge. You should play that line until you get it right and you are happy playing it.

Once you can play it then you can start to alter things.

I once vetoed Do I Do because I couldn't play it. That was the wrong decision. Now I would learn to play that thing because my attitude these days is nothing on this instrument is going to beat me. I'm currently learning Dean Town. Not because I like it but because I can't play it.

Fair play. Horses for courses really. I'm in a weekend band, we don't get paid, every gig we do is to raise money for charity, and I have an extremely full and busy life outside the band.

I enjoy playing, but I have absolutely no interest in spending hours and hours repetitively playing the same part of a song over and over just to learn it note by note. I have no ambitions to be a professional musician and I'm actually quite content to be an average bass player. For me it's all about enjoying it otherwise it just becomes another chore. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Newfoundfreedom

[chris_b]

5 minutes ago, Newfoundfreedom said:

For me it's all about enjoying it otherwise it just becomes another chore. 

I understand, but doesn't playing the bass better also count as enjoyment?

[Muzz]

Anyone who is even vaguely precious about note for note covers of songs might find it enlightening to search for live versions of You Can Call Me Al, to see the variations (and in a couple of cases I’m being generous with that word) of the bass break perpetrated by well-known professionals onstage with (and being paid by) Paul Simon.

The total lack of the sky falling in for the audience (or in fact anybody, including Mr Simon) as a result is also noticeable 😁

Edited April 11, 2019 by Muzz

[Huge Hands]

I used to play in a covers band (not tribute) where someone would pick a song to do.  We liked to do obscure stuff, not the obvious hits.  I would usually roughly have heard the track before but not recently and we would turn up to rehearsal and jam our way through it a few times.

I would only then go away and really listen to the original to see how the lines I came up with compared to the original.  It wasn't just me, most of the band worked like this.  It meant that often we would come up with our own arrangements that we felt were better.  Other times, I would realise I had been overplaying, and the original bassists lines fit the song much better.  Sometimes the band member who suggested the song would moan I wasn't playing the iconic riff, so I would learn the original and play that.

I know this approach would wind a lot of  bands up, but we were all fairly democratic and happy to spend the time and it really worked for us.  We used to do a killer version (IMHO) of St James Infirmary in the style of House of the Rising Sun.  

My argument was that in the old days a studio bassist would usually have played on record, but a different touring bassist would do his version and then evolve it out on the road.  In some cases, the later live versions were much better so why stick note for note to the recording? (I do admit some were much worse!)

 

 

[Newfoundfreedom]

1 hour ago, chris_b said:

I understand, but doesn't playing the bass better also count as enjoyment?

"Better" is subjective. For me there's much more enjoyment in making a song your own than learning it verbatim. I know some people are the exact opposite. There's no right or wrong as far as I'm concerned. As long as it's enjoyable for the band and the audience then everyone's a winner either way. 

[Stub Mandrel]

I think learning a bass line and learning a song are different.

It's one thing to learn a bass line off by heart, and practice improves my playing and phrasing.

Last weekend I met up with the guitarist and drummer from the 'weekend warrior' event I've signed uyp for. My first time playing with people who aren't family for a quarter century!

I was pleased to be able to more or less run through some of the songs we had lined up.

I was more pleased that we  managed to jam our way through some songs we hadn't planned on trying.

To me knowing those songs well enough to improvise a bassline and anticipate the changes was more satisfying than rote learning.

[Barking Spiders]

The best covers are always those that don't slavishly copy the originals and the most pointless are the ones that are note for note perfect. I'd much rather watch an entertaining,  even if a merely competant,  band playing interesting and fun versions of well-known tunes than a bunch of top or 2nd notch players performing carbon copies.

[Newfoundfreedom]

22 minutes ago, Barking Spiders said:

The best covers are always those that don't slavishly copy the originals and the most pointless are the ones that are note for note perfect. I'd much rather watch an entertaining,  even if a merely competant,  band playing interesting and fun versions of well-known tunes than a bunch of top or 2nd notch players performing carbon copies.

This ^ Absolutely!

 

[No lust in Jazz]

I'm interested in playing parts accurately, this keeps me going through some, at times, pretty staid material across all of my bands - living in the Walter Mitty world where I pretend to be a session player or Scott Thunes circa Zappa's band of 1984 

I think its down to the individual and band, if you want to run round and have a laugh then great, its also great if you have the desire to 'nail it' - whatever that means.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by No lust in Jazz
spelling

[Count Bassy]

I'd have thought it likely that Flea plays the bass line slightly differently each time anyway.

[Happy Jack]

23 hours ago, itu said:

Have to say that these are all good, but so different: Wonderwall by Oasis, Ryan Adams, and Paul Anka. Talk about arrangements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx1Bh8ZvH84

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gVxRvNfFLg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAzyBWZf6wQ

Can't believe you left out the best of the lot ...

 

[Stub Mandrel]

 

[la bam]

You just need a good interpretation of the song, so that it sounds faithful to the original and is enjoyable to listen to.

Have a look at massive bands of the 70s and 80s. Listen to their albums, then see what they play live. Youd think they'd be identical, but the reality is they are much more watered down versions. They still feel and sound great, and youd hardly notice, but so many big bands did this.

The experience of listening to a lp or cd and the experience of being involved in all that is going on when watching and experiencing a band live, are two completely different things.

Edited April 12, 2019 by la bam

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, la bam said:

Have a look at massive bands of the 70s and 80s. Listen to their albums, then see what they play live. Youd think they'd be identical, but the reality is they are much more watered down versions.

And sometimes the opposite. The album version of Doctor Doctor is insipid compared to the classic live recording.

[uk_lefty]

58 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

And sometimes the opposite. The album version of Doctor Doctor is insipid compared to the classic live recording.

Doctor Doctor... You don't mean Bad Case of Loving You by Robert Palmer?

[peteb]

3 hours ago, uk_lefty said:

Doctor Doctor... You don't mean Bad Case of Loving You by Robert Palmer?

UFO??

[Stub Mandrel]

5 minutes ago, peteb said:

UFO??

WTF???

🤣

Indeed.

[lowdown]

I like it when people put their own spin on it...

 

 

 

51:54 - Boogie On Reggae Woman...Soul & Groove!!

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by lowdown