Just another classic rock covers band...

[peteb]

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1383177211' post='2261352']
Yes i can see the appeal of a covers band as musical wallpaper but personally i don't even have a radio on as background music. If something is worth listening to then it's worth my attention.

I have actually seen a lot of mediocre bands turn into decent bands over the years. I remember being not too impressed with The Stranglers when i first saw then in the mid 70s on the London pub circuit but by the end of that summer they had turned into a competent band that were worth the 50p admission!
[/quote]
Fair point about bands improving over time. To clarify, I am not talking about covers band being musical wallpaper - more about them providing simple entertainment, which is fine in my book...

Edited October 31, 2013 by peteb

[Dingus]

I can see both sides of the argument on originals versus covers , and I too cannot envisage myself going out of my way to see even a very good classic rock covers band , but if , as occasionally happens, I happen to come across a covers band then I would rather see a good one than a bad one. (I have played in covers bands in the past, and thoroughly enjoyed it , and plan to do so again in the near future. Does that make me a hypocrite? Probably. )

Regarding this mob , they are pretty good , but they are American and in the States covers bands of various kinds are very much part of their culture , and lots of guys ( and gals) make a respectable living on the bar/restaurant/club circuit . As a consequence, the standard is generally much higher , and I have seen covers bands in bars in America that are easily the equal of their big-name pro counterparts. The musicians in the better covers bands in the States can and sometimes do get jobs playing with major artists , such is the expected standard. This lot are doing classic covers quite well , especially by U.K standards, , but in the U.S.A I have seen some bands of predominantly black musicians playing funk/soul/R&B ect covers that were jaw - droppingly good and who I would pay to see any day of the week .

Edited October 31, 2013 by Dingus

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1383178531' post='2261362']
I can see both sides of the argument on originals versus covers , and I too cannot envisage myself going out of my way to see even a very good classic rock covers band , but if , as occasionally happens, I happen to come across a covers band then I would rather see a good one than a bad one. (I have played in covers bands in the past, and thoroughly enjoyed it , and plan to do so again in the near future. Does that make me a hypocrite? Probably. )

Regarding this mob , they are pretty good , but they are American and in the States covers bands of various kinds are very much part of their culture , and lots of guys ( and gals) make a respectable living on the bar/restaurant/club circuit . As a consequence, the standard is generally much higher , and I have seen covers bands in bars in America that are easily the equal of their big-name pro counterparts. The musicians in the better covers bands in the States can and sometimes do get jobs playing with major artists , such is the expected standard. This lot are doing classic covers quite well , especially by U.K standards, , but in the U.S.A I have seen some bands of predominantly black musicians playing funk/soul/R&B ect covers that were jaw - droppingly good and who I would pay to see any day of the week .
[/quote]

Some years ago I, together with a group of friends went to see Little Feet at BB Kings Blues club and Grill in New York and were very impressed. Afterwards went to the bar downstairs and there was a little known local funk band playing a mixture of covers and originals and they were totally sensational. Crazy I know, but we all agreed that they were a much more enjoyable act than Little Feet. They were smoking hot.

[Dingus]

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1383179252' post='2261365']
Some years ago I, together with a group of friends went to see Little Feet at BB Kings Blues club and Grill in New York and were very impressed. Afterwards went to the bar downstairs and there was a little known local funk band playing a mixture of covers and originals and they were totally sensational. Crazy I know, but we all agreed that they were a much more enjoyable act than Little Feet. They were smoking hot.
[/quote]

A lot of these guys are also on or are veterans of the professional gospel music cricuit , and the standard of musicianship is on a whole other level . A lot of them are as good as big-name session musicians .

(I still love Little Feet, though)

Edited October 31, 2013 by Dingus

[RandomBass]

I take you mean Little Feat? Unless there's another similarly named band I'm not au fait with.

And yeah, a brilliant band in terms of ability and creativity.

[AntLockyer]

The overall standard of live music in the USA is higher than here. I've yet to see a really stinking band in either New York or Nashville.

[molan]

[quote name='RandomBass' timestamp='1383211784' post='2261486']
I take you mean Little Feat? Unless there's another similarly named band I'm not au fait with.

And yeah, a brilliant band in terms of ability and creativity.
[/quote]

Not wanting not appear contentious but aren't the modern day Little Feat something of a covers band themselves?

Last time I saw them almost their entire set was material from the Lowell George era and without him at the helm it felt like I was watching a 'tribute' band

Obviously this is a bit harsh because a lot of original members are still in the band but it did very much feel like they were trading on past glories (almost certainly pushed by audience demand).

I still really enjoyed the show though!

In general terms I'd much rather see a quality covers band than a mediocre originals band. Having been to zillions of gigs over the past 40 years I've seen far too many uninteresting, unprofessional, and downright poor originals bands in small venues. I totally understand that everyone has to start somewhere and everyone deserves a chance but I'm just fed up with seeing so many people that simply aren't very good.

I try hard to listen to as much new music as I can and use the radio, and podcasts of favourite shows, a lot to hear new things, that gives an opportunity to sample stuff I might not normally pick up on but I can also flip the channel if I get bored (which doesn't happen very often!)

Going to see a top notch covers band can be a great night out and the guys in the video definitely fit into that category. I'd definitely pay to see them play.

Just been watching a few other of their vids and standard of musicianship is really high

[JellyKnees]

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1383178338' post='2261359']
However that doesn't stop Brit Floyd playing the 14000 seater O2 in Dublin next Saturday night. If I was in the area I would pop along, despite having seen the real thing years ago.
[/quote]

I find that totally bizarre. I've seen Floyd too, but I've got no interest at all in watching a bunch of clones pretending to be them, no matter how technically great they are - I'd rather go and see something new. Still, I guess I'm in a minority, given the size of venues that these bands seem able to fill nowerdays.

[PaulWarning]

to be noticed in an originals band you've got young, totally committed and above all lucky (as well as having good material), once you hit 30 if you've not made it you aren't going too, so what do you do? start doing songs you loved in your youth, get paid a bit of pocket money and stick to the local scene.
When people go out on a night out they want a good time and something to singalong too, mostly anyway, that isn't going to happen if they've not heard the songs before

[BigRedX]

No deny that they are technically good, but like every other covers band I've hear my immediate reaction on hearing any song I liked was to go and check out the original recording to remind myself just how good it was. For me to a large extent with pop an rock music the writing and the playing go hand in hand, these songs are best performed by the people who created them in the first place.

I've been in a covers band, and for me it was a mostly depressing experience because IMO we didn't play the songs well enough. Not necessarily because of a lack of technical ability, but because we didn't have that extra spark that being the writer as well as the performer of the piece gives you.

I like new original music. And OK you do have the wade through a degree of mediocrity to find the stuff that appeals to you, but I find the effort worth it. And IME these days age is less relevant than ever when it comes to playing original rock music. Hard work at both the musical and non-musical aspects of being in a band, the ability to perform under almost any circumstances and put on a show that is more than standing on stage and playing count for far more. Give the audience something special that they can't get from the next band that's what it takes - and of course a lot of luck and being in the right place at the right time, but if you play a lot get noticed and deliver on your performance being in the right place at the right time becomes far more likely.

And if I want to sing along to some well known songs I'd far rather be listening to the original recordings that I know and love than yet another covers band's half-assed interpretation of the same.

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1383219694' post='2261655']
No deny that they are technically good, but like every other covers band I've hear my immediate reaction on hearing any song I liked was to go and check out the original recording to remind myself just how good it was. For me to a large extent with pop an rock music the writing and the playing go hand in hand, these songs are best performed by the people who created them in the first place.

I've been in a covers band, and for me it was a mostly depressing experience because IMO we didn't play the songs well enough. Not necessarily because of a lack of technical ability, but because we didn't have that extra spark that being the writer as well as the performer of the piece gives you.

I like new original music. And OK you do have the wade through a degree of mediocrity to find the stuff that appeals to you, but I find the effort worth it. And IME these days age is less relevant than ever when it comes to playing original rock music. Hard work at both the musical and non-musical aspects of being in a band, the ability to perform under almost any circumstances and put on a show that is more than standing on stage and playing count for far more. Give the audience something special that they can't get from the next band that's what it takes - and of course a lot of luck and being in the right place at the right time, but if you play a lot get noticed and deliver on your performance being in the right place at the right time becomes far more likely.

And if I want to sing along to some well known songs I'd far rather be listening to the original recordings that I know and love than yet another covers band's half-assed interpretation of the same.
[/quote]
Yeah but just listening to the original recordings you don't get the atmosphere of live music, which when you get a room full of slightly oiled folk singing along to a song you like can make for a great evening.
I agree listening on you tube to a band doing a cover version close to the original is pretty pointless

[xilddx]

They're very good, but are they any match for the original in terms of the energy produced on the stage? .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUJkauJ-mM

Can't understand why some of the posts here are so deferential, they are very good at what they do but any good musician should be able to do that. It's the singer who's the rare one.

I have nothing against covers and tribute bands, but I do find it depressing when people think that it's something to aspire to. It's not the same as classical orchestras and jazz bands playing others' compositions because they are keeping the music alive and bringing it to new audiences, it's more often out of love and duty I think. Cover bands are often doing it for kicks and money from what I can tell, more taking than giving, an easy way to play at being the rock star without the creativity, effort and uncertainty of going out there with original music. There's a sad emptiness to it in some respects. Tribute bands seem to be more born from obsession so I feel better disposed towards them than cover bands.

[Dr.Dave]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1383221538' post='2261676']


I have nothing against covers and tribute bands, but I do find it depressing when people think that it's something to aspire to. It's not the same as classical orchestras and jazz bands playing others' compositions because they are keeping the music alive and bringing it to new audiences, it's more often out of love and duty I think. Cover bands are often doing it for kicks and money from what I can tell, more taking than giving, an easy way to play at being the rock star without the creativity, effort and uncertainty of going out there with original music. There's a sad emptiness to it in some respects. Tribute bands seem to be more born from obsession so I feel better disposed towards them than cover bands.
[/quote]


Fancy - me going out for something as trivial as kicks and money ....not exhibiting any effort or creativity while I do it..... what a sad empty life I must lead.

You've never managed to grasp that some people aspire to be craftsmen rather than artists , have you ? !

[xilddx]

[quote name='Dr.Dave' timestamp='1383222083' post='2261691']



Fancy - me going out for something as trivial as kicks and money ....not exhibiting any effort or creativity while I do it..... what a sad empty life I must lead.

You've never managed to grasp that some people aspire to be craftsmen rather than artists , have you ? !
[/quote]
No need to wig out, Doctor.

[ezbass]

There are certainly those who go out and play covers to pay the bills, merely going through the motions, I know some of them. However, there are others where playing covers is a way of keeping a certain genre alive and getting paid for a gig is merely a bonus. These folks often give a very spirited performance (I would include the members of my 80s covers band here) which is greatly appreciated by the audience. IMO anyone who doesn't enjoy playing live (i.e. for kicks) whether originals or covers, regardless of genre, should re-evaluate the point of playing live at all.

[AntLockyer]

I'd rather see a covers band than a DJ playing the same songs.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1383220846' post='2261668']
Yeah but just listening to the original recordings you don't get the atmosphere of live music, which when you get a room full of slightly oiled folk singing along to a song you like can make for a great evening.
I agree listening on you tube to a band doing a cover version close to the original is pretty pointless
[/quote]

The thing is that IME few covers bands have even a fraction of the charisma that made the original writers and performers of the songs so special. Live music IMO is so much more than just being live and loud. From what I've seen of the covers bands I've played with or been the audience to see, the vast majority of the audience would be equally well served if not better off with a DJ with the right choice of discs or a well-stocked video juke box. I know as a punter I'd prefer that.

The band in the OP have the technical chops to play all those different styles of songs and the sound alone is most likely far superior to what a lot of the older bands they are covering ever managed back in the day. But just look at them! They are little better than a bunch of vaguely trendy accountants who've found themselves on stage with some instruments. Stick the videos side by side with live footage of the bands they are covering from their heyday and there's simply no competition. For performance the original wins effortlessly every time. And for me the performance is what live music is all about.

[Paul S]

This seems to have regressed into a 'covers vs originals' thing again. I like both - there are good bands and bad bands. I do find the attitude of some of the guys who play in originals bands a teensy bit smug and condescending, though. No need for it, really. If you find yourself in an originals band that flicks your switch then well done you. But 99.99% of originals bands I have seen or heard fall short of the mark as far as my tastes are concerned. I'd rather watch a good covers band like that in the OP than a second rate originals. No question.

[Dingus]

[quote name='RandomBass' timestamp='1383211784' post='2261486']
I take you mean Little Feat? Unless there's another similarly named band I'm not au fait with.

And yeah, a brilliant band in terms of ability and creativity.
[/quote]

No, this was Little Feet . They sound just like Little Feat but their feet are smaller.

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1383226255' post='2261787']
No, this was Little Feet . They sound just like Little Feat but their feet are smaller.
[/quote]
That's some feat/feet.

[neepheid]

[quote name='Paul S' timestamp='1383225667' post='2261776']
This seems to have regressed into a 'covers vs originals' thing again.
[/quote]

[b][size=6]AGAIN[/size][/b]

[Muzz]

Anyone who thinks playing those covers to that standard is easy, or some sort of cop-out, should give it a go. It's a lot more than learning the dots, tabs and parts - I know some very good musicians who have perpetrated some of the worst covers I've heard. I play in an originals band and I also play covers, and the originals stuff is much, much easier: for starters, you have nothing to measure up against. Covers, very good covers as in the OP, sound easy till you try, but then that's more or less a definition of someone who's very good at what they do - they make it sound easy.

[charic]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1383225556' post='2261774']
The thing is that IME few covers bands have even a fraction of the charisma that made the original writers and performers of the songs so special. Live music IMO is so much more than just being live and loud. From what I've seen of the covers bands I've played with or been the audience to see, the vast majority of the audience would be equally well served if not better off with a DJ with the right choice of discs or a well-stocked video juke box. I know as a punter I'd prefer that.

The band in the OP have the technical chops to play all those different styles of songs and the sound alone is most likely far superior to what a lot of the older bands they are covering ever managed back in the day. But just look at them! They are little better than a bunch of vaguely trendy accountants who've found themselves on stage with some instruments. Stick the videos side by side with live footage of the bands they are covering from their heyday and there's simply no competition. For performance the original wins effortlessly every time. And for me the performance is what live music is all about.
[/quote]

I agree they're very unlikely to be as good (or better) than the originals but if they're good then they could still be worth seeing. It's about enjoyment, not if it's as good as it was by the original surely?

[xilddx]

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1383226617' post='2261793']


[b][size=6]AGAIN[/size][/b]


[/quote]

Nothing wrong with that aspect is there? I just get a little fed up with cover band advocates slagging off unfamiliar originals bands because of perceived quality issues. Those of us in originals bands know how hard it can be to create a body of work and build an audience, regardless of the perceived quality of the music. There's no monetary gain to speak of, just lots of hard work for the pleasure of playing to often indifferent audiences.

[Dingus]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1383221538' post='2261676']
They're very good, but are they any match for the original in terms of the energy produced on the stage? .

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUJkauJ-mM[/media]

Can't understand why some of the posts here are so deferential, they are very good at what they do but any good musician should be able to do that. It's the singer who's the rare one.

I have nothing against covers and tribute bands, but I do find it depressing when people think that it's something to aspire to. It's not the same as classical orchestras and jazz bands playing others' compositions because they are keeping the music alive and bringing it to new audiences, it's more often out of love and duty I think. Cover bands are often doing it for kicks and money from what I can tell, more taking than giving, an easy way to play at being the rock star without the creativity, effort and uncertainty of going out there with original music. There's a sad emptiness to it in some respects. Tribute bands seem to be more born from obsession so I feel better disposed towards them than cover bands.
[/quote]

Covers bands and tribute bands are something to aspire to if you want to and enjoy playing that music. I don't find that at all depressing myself. I certainly don't want to go see a tribute band myself , but if I got offered the chance to play the part of Geezer Butler in the Kossovo Albanian Black Sabbath or similar and they were a competent outfit then I would jump at the chance. I 've played in covers bands in the past and enjoyed it tremendously, on the whole. Playing other artist's songs presents a whole other set of challenges as a musician . There is nothing demeaning about that. I might not want to watch a classic rock covers band , but I would love to be playing in one, and probably soon will be again . Is that wrong? It's exciting and interesting for most folks to see a live band when they go out for an evening , especially compared to music from a jukebox or D.J . What could possibly be wrong with that ? There will always be a place for that , and it's a perfectly respectable creative avenue for any musician . What I can say with absolute certainty is that playing covers for an audience forced me to improve my playing in all kinds of ways , so it was great practice in that respect.

I'm certainly not playing at being a rock star , exactly the opposite in fact. I'm accepting the unavoidable truth that I am in my fourties and that that chance is gone forever, but I still need to play music and so need to find a suitable outlet . Time conquers us all. And as for sad emptiness , I see plenty of that in original artists and their music , quite a lot of which gains mass acceptance and even acclaim , so I wouldn't get too hung up about that .

Edited October 31, 2013 by Dingus