Ness K Vs. Cover Bands

OK, I am sure Arjen could play covers if he wanted to. I have heard his music and it is very original. Nothing wrong with that at all, we need new, fresh ideas, especially now.

I was just saying that I have met a few players who would make a big deal out of only playing original music, to find they were very limited players who usually only knew a few chords, if any at all. Sometimes they just made up their own chords. After about 3 songs you realize this person cannot really play and all of their songs sound alike using the 2 or 3 homemade chords they came up with.

But I also showed some videos of Frank Black. Anybody who has ever listened to his music knows he is on another plane from most players and songwriters. I read an interview once, he said he realized his music was not radio friendly, but he plays what appeals to him. But he can actually play the guitar very well, he knows all the chords and scales. He is a real player.

Frank even wrote a song because everybody was always telling him to play more "radio friendly" music. It is called Freedom Rock, listen to the great lyrics. I think Arjen would get along with Frank well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG-ZQWfL2eU

My name is Chip
And I'm different
I don't conform
I wear a different uniform
I'm out of the blue
And so you are, too
Let me sing about one thing that's clear
That nobody owns
The pleasure of tones
That belongs to a guy with no ear
They tried to give me advice
Down at the record shop
I said sit down boys
This may come as a shock
What's all I listen to
It's all freedom rock
How can you free me
How can you free me
How can you free me
When I am free?
I am free
I am free


Like Frank said, "How can you free me, when I am free?"

But once again, Frank writes great songs with great lyrics, not junk. :roll:

In my opinion, cover bands are dumb. I mean, I get the point of them and all, but whats so great about seeing nobodies play another bands' songs? There's nothing great about it at all.

Opposite view here on that.
If I was going to pay, I'd want something that has passed the test of time and worth the money I'm going to be plopping down.
Otherwise, it's just a gamble that I'm taking if I pay to hear a band playing songs I haven't heard before.
Sometimes I'm willing to gamble. But I don't like losing. It puts me in a bad mood.
So does paying listening to some bad music.

I was just saying that I have met a few players who would make a big deal out of only playing original music, to find they were very limited players who usually only knew a few chords, if any at all. Sometimes they just made up their own chords. After about 3 songs you realize this person cannot really play and all of their songs sound alike using the 2 or 3 homemade chords they came up with.

+1 I've known a LOT of people like that. some of them even write some really good tunes (though I've generally only heard a handful from such people), but try getting them to jam, even on something simple (e.g. an Am vamp, or a simple blues shuffle), and they're either (a) not interested, or (b) abysmal. Now, I've got nothing against abysmal if its a beginner and they''re putting the practise in - they'll get better with time. but, as Wes noted, these other guys act like they 'understand' music when, in actual fact, they only 'understand' what they've written. and even that understanding is, at, best, often scant.

and I say the above in the full knowledge that often, as I was developing (and probably still today, just less so), I was one of those people. Gimme a guitar and a chord chart, or a key and I can generally wing it. my songs however, often have fairly interesting/complex harmonies. I don't why, that just sorta comes easy (relatively speaking) to me. but some of my tunes make me sound way more jazzy/theory-comfortable/appropriate-label-here than I am - I can't always explain why what I've done seems to work, and I sometimes do a chord progression only to realise there's no way I can improv. a solo over it. the difference is, I recognise those flaws in my music-knowledge as flaws/gaps.

kenrogers - I know the feeling. Last December, I caught the Zutons in Liverpool. Great band and great live (I genuinely recommend). But the Rascals were one of the support groups and they sucked. BIG TIME. Pounding bass which drowned out pretty much everything else, singer who looked like a cheap Liam Gallagher imitation, who was doing his best to slur every word (in between swigs of a beer can), making everything unintelligible. I swear, even if I'd known their tunes beforehand, I'd have had a hard time recognising any of them. I'd got free tix, and was there with two muso mates, way better than I, with way stronger ears, and they concurred completely. We ended up sneaking into the downstairs bar to avoid the cacophony, and were very glad we hadn't had to pay for that 'show' - I'd have seriously been asking for a refund if I had. No joke.

Ignar - I get ya. I'm happy playing covers, but I much prefer playing my own tunes. Perhaps because so often (IME) playing covers leads to sticking too close to the original and prompts band cat-fights a la "you can't possibly use a strat to play Clapton's version of Hideaway, he used a Les Paul!!!!" or similar. That certainly has an effect. Either way, even if no one wanted to hear my stuff, I'd still write it. It's just part of what I do/who I am/other tie-dyed general statements.

But the Rascals were one of the support groups and they sucked. BIG TIME. Pounding bass which drowned out pretty much everything else, singer who looked like a cheap Liam Gallagher imitation, who was doing his best to slur every word (in between swigs of a beer can), making everything unintelligible. I swear, even if I'd known their tunes beforehand, I'd have had a hard time recognising any of them.
Ohhh I was hoping you would have described them as being "bloody awful".
I know that's a hackneyed cliche' (and all) but I do love it so . . . it is so British.
(and I mean that in a kind, loving, facetious way)

Tata,
E pluribus unum colonists

If I was going to pay, I'd want something that has passed the test of time and worth the money I'm going to be plopping down.
Otherwise, it's just a gamble that I'm taking if I pay to hear a band playing songs I haven't heard before.
Sometimes I'm willing to gamble. But I don't like losing. It puts me in a bad mood.
So does paying listening to some bad music.

That sounds like the musical equivalent of settling for the blandness of McDonald's when you eat out because it will always be the same. When you try new restaurants sometimes you get a disappointing meal but most of the time it's better than the clown and quite often far better (and we're talking about similar price points).

If you're not open to failure you'll never get greatness only mediocrity.

Hyber,

There a few points that you made that are a little flawed in my opinion. First of all the law of statistics comes in to play here.

There must be millions or maybe billions of original songs that have been written, of those probably less than .01% are actually worth listening to. So the chances of someone going out and hearing original music that will blow them away is slim.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should stop writing original music but the reality of it is 99.99% is crap.

Now your analogy to McDonald's is a bit misleading. McDonalds is not trying to give you unique experience when you eat there it's all about providing something that you are familiar with, kinda why they've sold 100 billion hamburgers, people like what's familiar to them for the most part. Same with music.

When you eat at home do you cook something totally different every night or do you tend to make the same dishes for the most part? My guess is you eat the same type of diet all the time, I know I do. I like steak and I eat it alot. Why do I need to eat soemthing different when steak satisfies me...because some snobby chef tells me I'm culinarily challenged because I'm not eating gourmet meals every night?

Obviously we need to have people writing new music or else there would be nothing to cover, but cover bands have a difinite value in the world of music/entertainment. If all the clubs/bars in the world only booked acts that wrote original music then there would be a lot of clubs going out of business.

That's my opinion anyway.

I could go for a Big Mac about now.

Ric,

Now you're making me hungry...who wants to go to McDonalds?

Ended up getting pizza instead.

There a few points that you made that are a little flawed in my opinion. First of all the law of statistics comes in to play here.

There must be millions or maybe billions of original songs that have been written, of those probably less than .01% are actually worth listening to. So the chances of someone going out and hearing original music that will blow them away is slim.

Ok, there is some flawed reasoning here. While there may be lots and lots of songs written your chances of hearing most of them is incredibly small. The number that "survive" diminish as they move through the "system" from personal creation to public performance. It's similar to the restaurant analogy too. Lots of dishes get made and recipes created but there's a chain of editors and critics on the way. The first is the cook / song writer - they may create a recipe / song and find it wanting and discard it. Then comes others close to the chef / artist and finally the restaurant backer/financer or the club owner in the case of a band.

There are lots of layers of these critics between you and the raw original product. Some of these occur without your intervention but others you have to actively employ. You read a restaurant review before going to eat someplace same as you read reviews about bands or ask your friends. Each of these layers filters out mostly crap (though sometimes also good stuff too) and so the ratio of good : crap increases with each stage.
I'm not suggesting that anyone should stop writing original music but the reality of it is 99.99% is crap.

What percentage is and is not crap will depend where in the creation stream you are sampling but I agree that a certain percentage will be crap. There's the well known Sturgeon's Law that posits that ""Ninety percent of everything is crap."
Now your analogy to McDonald's is a bit misleading. McDonalds is not trying to give you unique experience when you eat there it's all about providing something that you are familiar with, kinda why they've sold 100 billion hamburgers, people like what's familiar to them for the most part. Same with music.

Some people are happy eating at McDonald's just the same as some people are happy to listen to the top 10 song in endless loop AM pop station.
When you eat at home do you cook something totally different every night or do you tend to make the same dishes for the most part? My guess is you eat the same type of diet all the time, I know I do. I like steak and I eat it alot. Why do I need to eat soemthing different when steak satisfies me...because some snobby chef tells me I'm culinarily challenged because I'm not eating gourmet meals every night?

Nothing that you eat or songs that you write are ever 100% new. There is always some element of things that have gone before. In your regular diet you use common ingredients that you know and are used to just as you listen to music of specific genres or styles that you know or are used to. You also have the option of using only a small set of recipes and never trying any new ones with those same ingredients. You can however try new recipes with the same ingredients (new songs in the same style or genre). You can also add new ingredients or groups of ingredients (whole new song styles or genres) that open up lots of new recipes.

Nobody said anything about "snobby chefs". You can have some pretty tasty and fine food from hole in the wall joints that you've never tried before. There are a lot of choices between McDonald's and The Fat Duck. You'll never know though unless you try.

Aside: As for my own personal dining patters you would be mostly wrong. We have a pretty wide range of recipes and are constantly trying new ones. Yes recipes do get repeated (or at least close variations) but the cycle is pretty large. Breakfast is usually drawn from a much smaller cycle of "recipes" mostly because of convenience.
Obviously we need to have people writing new music or else there would be nothing to cover, but cover bands have a difinite value in the world of music/entertainment. If all the clubs/bars in the world only booked acts that wrote original music then there would be a lot of clubs going out of business.

I agree - perhaps we are in "violent" agreement? Sometimes you want that familiar fried egg sandwich. But there has been a fair amount of commentary on the thread that the only bands worth going to see locally are cover bands. Original music has to come from somewhere and if people don't go to see it locally it won't have a chance to grow.

But there has been a fair amount of commentary on the thread that the only bands worth going to see locally are cover bands. Original music has to come from somewhere and if people don't go to see it locally it won't have a chance to grow.

I think that people were responding more to Ness K's original post wherein he states:
In my opinion, cover bands are dumb. I mean, I get the point of them and all, but whats so great about seeing nobodies play another bands' songs? There's nothing great about it at all. I at least respect bands who actually play their own songs. They may suck, but at least its theirs. I think your stupid if you pay for tickets to see somebody else play your favourite bands songs, just listen to the album for all that.

His reference was to bands who may suck, but at least it's their own music. I believe that is where the majority of the posters disagreed with whether it was better to see a cover band or a band whose originals suck, with most opting to see the cover bands. There were also quite a few who chimed in about liking to go see original bands, as well, as long as the music was well done and didn't ... well, suck.

My 2 cents, when it comes to music I fall into the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder category"...if it makes you groove why not just enjoy it for what it is man. Original artist, cover band, tribute band, heck if its Alvin and the Chipmunks and you like what you're hearing then roll with it. At risk of sounding like a smart aleck, but isn't that what music is all about. I look at it this way, I'll never get to see somone like Hendrix or SRV live so if some aspiring young talented guitarist (or my next door neighbor for that matter) can make his Strat siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing by playing a cover of one of their songs...why not just give the dude (or dudette, no offense) a standing ovation for doing something that very few can, that is touch people with their abilities. I can honestly say my appreciation for those cover bands has grown 100-fold since I've begun playing myself since now I realize how much goes into making this thing called a guitar really work (let alone in front of an audience). Again, just my 2 cents.

Totally agree! :D

+2

Philly,

I agree totally you hit the nail on the head!!!!