TimR

We do have venues that may have unknown originals multi band night on Thursday, covers band Friday and big name original act on a Saturday.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1469450423' post='3098351'] The person who wrote it must have made some kind of recording to be able to have it covered, even Tab would be sufficient as a 'record' of the song's existence? [/quote] If you're going to take it to that extreme, there are practically no original recordings. Everything exsists as a demo somewhere before it's taken into a studio and worked on. How far do you take it? It's a cover if someone has previously released the song as a commercial recording. Regardless of who originally wrote it. In this context 'Original' refers to the recording and release process. When we are talking about an 'originals' band, the music is original as in it hasn't been recorded by another artist first.

So we have to add in a caveat - for a very small number of cases where the songwriter didn't make the original recording but then later went on to re-record it themselves. In which case the first one is an original, the second one is a cover of the first one as the material is no longer original, even if the artist originally wrote it. The artist still get the credit for originally writing it, but not for making the original recording. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things as there are thousands of recording artists who release original material that has be written by others. That's just a part of the process you give up when you write for someone who you think will do a better job than you will and make your song more popular than you could (at that point in time).

I'm not sure anyone is getting wound up over anything other than those who keep posting that it's a pointless tread. I've come across originals bands who "don't do covers!", I've never really understood or subscribed to that point of view though.

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1469380416' post='3097849'] My first band started out playing stuff we just liked and then became predominantly "original"... we opened our set with an obscure cover, Todd Rundgren's Real Man. We weren't trying to fool anyone, but it was a little saddening to be told it was our best song! [/quote] A great point. That song would have been produced by a professional regardless of what Todd Rundgren had originally written. It would have been through a process to make it commercially viable. I've played a few originals band who have been intent on not sounding commercial. Which, again, is all very admirable, but misses the point of producing pop music. By definition pop music is popular. .

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1469357537' post='3097601'] Are there ANY bands doing a full set of covers taken from obscure albums passing them off as their own or at least not mentioning it in any way? [/quote] There have been several examples of people having hits from obscure covers that they've passed off as their own. I can't remember specifics but Plan B's - Ill Manors was a complete rip off of a German artists song but with the words changed. Then there are songs like Black Hole Sun which were originally significantly obscure enough for people to think the latest version is an original.

[quote name='SpondonBassed' timestamp='1469353354' post='3097543'] Just curious. If my band decided that we would only perform the B sides to popular record releases (pre-digital of course) and never played outside of that set... would we still be a covers band? I think we would because we are only aware of the B sides as a consequence of the A side being commercially available to the public. Let's not include LP tracks. Please regard this as a "what if?". It is not a feasible notion for earning. [i][size=2]If this thread is annoying you please keep it to yourself and move on.[/size][/i] [/quote] Technically yes. But you'd be wise to mention that they're obscure covers because your audience is going to be very disappointed when they find out they've never heard the songs before.

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1469314120' post='3097399'] It's easy fixed if you type with your eyes open. [/quote] It's not immediately obvious on the iPhone. Closest I get is "led by iCastle, Gust0o and Chirac". I usually have to rely on someone PMing me to find out they're a mod.

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1469313333' post='3097394'] Because the 4 originals clubs in Milwaukee know who we are and what we are, a cover band. The band you reference sounds like their more than a local originals band. Plus we don't play for free. Most local originals bands do. Blue [/quote] That's a bit different to not being welcome. That's more like not wanting to play them. Local originals band? I can't see any originals band that limits themselves to local gigs playing more than three or four times a year. But then, I suppose, in the UK local is about 30-40miles.

[quote name='Kev' timestamp='1469312762' post='3097387'] Why? To prevent unnecessary clutter in the Forum. The same member wishes to post two threads that could very easily and sensibly be condensed into one. Please pm me directly if you have any other comments regarding moderator guidance [/quote] Ah. Sorry. Didn't realise you were a moderator.

[quote name='Kev' timestamp='1469312267' post='3097382'] Can I request that there please not be a follow up thread, and relevant conversation be contained to this thread? [/quote] Why? Maybe we should restrict all Blue's posts to one thread? Or perhaps he should have his own sub forum. I don't get you guys. Just I gnore the threads you're not interested in.

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1469311175' post='3097371'] We have released 2 CDs of original material, however we probably never play more than 4 originals in a typical 4 hour US bar gig. We're a cover band. We would never be welcome in any of the local original bands clubs. Blue [/quote] Why is that? Most original bands in the UK would play a shared stage arrangement. Several bands in a night maybe 45mins top of material. The last originals band I saw, a couple of weeks ago, also tour the UK and depending on venue either play their own material or covers. Exclusively.

[quote name='lojo' timestamp='1469302867' post='3097314'] Yes they are a covers band playing an original in that moment , but it's an original in a covers set If you play more than 48% of covers or originals then you can define yourself as either [/quote] Or neither? Sounds a bit prescriptive. What about 33% if you did 3 sets with one being originals?

I wonder if defining a band in this way is actually possible. A cover is a cover is a cover, so that's pretty well defined... But if a band plays one original tune are they still strictly a cover band. It seems it's only really an interesting point for discussion. It doesn't really have any relevance in real life. It's a strange question, particularly from Blue, who plays in a covers band who also play some of their own material. What if the songwriter of the band leaves but the band continue to play the tunes he wrote?

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1469219848' post='3096839'] Nice post! I'm slowly learning the local scene for bands in the UK is quite different then how it is here in the US. There's even different cultures of bands within the US. The " biker bar" scene, even the "bar band" is much more prevalent in the Midwest (*Cheap Trick, REO Speed Wagon) then on the east coast. Blue *These bands were a big part of the early 70s "bar band" scene in the Midwest prior to becoming famous. [/quote] Each State in the US is practically a different country anyway. When I was working in Motown the bar bands were amazing and all had that classic Motown sound. Down in Florida there's huge Latin influences. Generalising is very hard.

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1469217376' post='3096807'] Sorry Blue but that's complete tosh. There was an attempt to provide a workable definition of 'covers' which was a dreadful oversimplification. The attempted definition existed independently of the size or type of venue. My point stands, and I'll make my own decision as to what is off topic. [size=4] [/size] [size=4]Amused to see you try to rescue dear Carole by describing her as a singer/songwriter and therefore not a band.[/size] [size=4]So when The Beatles (remember them?) recorded Yesterday, were they a band or a singer/songwriter?[/size] [size=4] [/size][size=4]Let me know when you've finished trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. [/size] [/quote] I think you're getting a little bit too literal with that definition. 'a song' pretty much was shorthand for 'prediminantly songs'. Surely everyone would agree with that. Just because you write one song doesn't stop you being a covers band if all your other songs are covers, and vice versa; just because you play one cover song doesn't make you a cover band if all your other songs are original. By original we're taking about 'written by' or 'written for', or even 'first recorded by' the specific artist. The grey area between, I suggest is very grey and pretty wide and varied, and only the band in question are best placed to determine what camp they feel they are in. .

Yes. Lots of pub bands just doing it for themselves. The one thing I found in the US was the bar bands had their volume levels absolutely spot on. It may have been because they have large bars, but you could actually find places to stand where the music was loud enough to dance to and places to sit and eat and talk. Too many pub bands are punishingly loud in the UK.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1469211302' post='3096751'] Serious question: When using the term 'a standard' in a jazz context, is that basically the same thing as 'a cover' in other genres? [/quote] No. There are standards in pop/rock. They're just tunes that everyone is expected to know. Mustang Sally, Brown Eyed Girl, Dakota... They make putting together bands, gigging and jam sessions so much easier if the majority of musicians have a common pool of music to pull from. .

[quote name='4stringslow' timestamp='1469189073' post='3096446'] I don't think the 'made famous' bit is relevant when it comes to covers. There are plenty of examples of a cover version being more famous/successful than the original, e.g. Clapton's Cocaine, Lynyrd Skynrd's Call Me The Breeze are both covers of JJ Cale songs, but I'd be the majority of listeners don't know that. We're over-complicating things. A cover is simply any song not performed by the original artist. No qualifications needed really. [/quote] Yes I put the (made famous) part in brackets because I really meant that the song has been tested pretty well on the public before being released. Music is a product pretty much like any other, most products go through some kind of consumer tresting before going into major production. AFAIK music doesn't really, it's a bit of a hit and miss affair. Playing songs that have already met with appreciation is a lot easier than trying to convince an audience to listen to tunes they've never heard before. Plenty of originals bands and singers (who are not writers) have played non original tunes. I'm guessing there's a point at which you define your band as an originals band and make a statement like "We're an originals act but we're happy playing covers, whilst it's not our main aim." Or "We're a covers band but we throw in a few tunes we've written ourselves." Tribute acts are simply covers bands who only play covers by a particular artist.

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1469184295' post='3096378'] haven't read the whole thread, but were/are Elvis and Cliff Richard covers artist because they don't write their own material? must be bands about like that too, some of the boy bands seem to do a lot of covers as did the Hollies to start with [/quote] No. They had material that was written specifically for them. A cover is more specifically a song that was originally recorded (and made famous?) by another artist beforehand. ie the risk and hard work of selling the song and determining whether it will be popular has already be done. All you have to do is copy what they did.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1469169543' post='3096210'] Great post but the last sentence also misses a point. Music has many purposes and the one you describe is undoubtedly the most popular but, for some, the process of creativity is the driver and not the roar of the crowd. This is no less legitimate because it is less popular. What is interesting is they way in which 'muso' innovation creeps into the mainstream [/quote] I was talking specificically with respect to cover bands. Funnily enough last night my local pub had a girl singing with just an acoustic guitar. She was playing loads of the latest tunes. No drum machine or karaoke backing tracks. She was very good.

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1469098388' post='3095676'] Ah, you'd rather it was the norm than seen as something special/ Oddly enough, since you mentioned Mr Cowell, the X Factor live shows are actually notable for imaginative re-interpretations. I think as long as the song is recognisable, the punters are happy. [/quote] Not the norm, but it's not hard to 'reimagine' a tune using different instrumentation and applying a slightly different style. .

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1469096215' post='3095645'] Not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but why's it a shame? I sooner hear a "original" performance (in which the performer has some emotional investment) than an accurate but lifeless replication of someone else's performance. [/quote] Yes. That's my point. It's a shame that the public think it's something special when someone sings a cover on a TV show that sounds a bit different to the original recording. I have a hard time convincing the band I play with to try anything with strings, keys, brass etc as we're a three piece. All it takes is a little imagination and you're off.

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1469094502' post='3095627'] *rolls up sleeves* Have we ordered the taxa incorrectly? Historically (and from what I've seen today) jazz bands give little thought as to whether they want to focus on "covers" or self-penned material; a set will often comprise their interpretations of various standards and other tunes, maybe along with a couple of pieces written by the band members. I have encountered jazz bands who mostly focus on writing their own pieces, just like I've encountered some who are happy to just take tunes out of the Real Book and haul those into new territory, but nobody seems to be too worried about whether they're an "originals" band or not. (Ditto orchestras - I know a lot of them will crowbar a modern composer's piece into the first half before they play what you actually paid to hear, but it's not often written by the feller waving his stick around at the front.) The distinction does seem to be a bit more endemic to rock/pop music, and then I wonder...has the distinction been reinforced artificially by pub landlords who want to eliminate the risk that the band they're booking will play a 2-hour doom-sludge-improv set? [/quote] There are a lot of OCD musicians out there who are more to blame. Particularly in the very highly paid wedding and function area. Bands who spend hours getting to sound exactly like the original recorded versions. I think with Jazz and Classical, there are no, de facto, original recorded versions. By the time recording was invented, the idea of improv was so embedded in jazz and there were so many orchestras playing classical that it becomes a mute point. For many the whole idea of covering a recording artists recording is capturing the recording, not capturing the spirit of the song. Then when you get people like Simon Cowell saying "Well done, you took that song and made it your own.", it's like it's a compliment and that no one else can do that kind of thing. It's a shame really. At the other end of the spectrum you get musicians who just busk songs and leave out important aspects of a song because they can't make the bridge fit etc.

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1469042735' post='3095366'] ... It seems like in the UK "Cover Band"means "Mustang Sally" and "Moon Dance". This has always been confusing to me because that's not the case in the US. How do you personally define cover band? Blue [/quote] Ok. In the UK we have a strong tradition of sing along drinking songs. From old rugby songs through to wartime Vera Lynne songs, traditional East End of London "Roll out the barrel" Chas and Dave type songs. Often around a badly tuned piano. This is what the Beatles picked up on. Traditional Irish songs and Sea shanties that were sung in the pubs around the docks in Liverpool. That's essentially why the UK crowd are always asking you to 'play something we know'. They're not after a song they've heard before, they're after a song they know the words to and can sing along to. There are a lot of what we call 'musos' on BassChat who like to think they're above that and that their job is to educate the punters and bring in alternative music to the traditional songs. All very admirable but I think they're somewhat missing the point.